A Fool Killed First?

imported post

That's a great writeup, FM. (Although I would've used some other word than "capitalist", as a capitalist must have capital to risk...)

My simplistic notion of the effect of OC on criminals is that it is a filter; it prevents many crimes in most cases, but in a very few rare cases it may amplify the effects of crime. This would take a very desperate or unthinking criminal, and while it's theoretically possible I can't recall it actually happening.

BTW, America's first non-native unconventional soldiers, as far as I know, were Roger's Rangers, formed in 1755 as a company of backwoodsmen serving the crown against the French, and led by Major Robert Rogers. Given the wild frontier nature of the New World, it may go farther back than that. The type of unit known as "rangers" was common in both the king's and continental forces during the revolution, and as Southerboy says, in the CS army later on as well, and even a regiment in the Canadian army is descended from them.

imported post

I chose to use "capitalist" because the BG does have capital to loose, his life or freedom, i.e. the risk of imprisonment.

Like you said, Robert Rogers fought in the French Indian War; a time when the colonies were still subject to England. So, as I see it, Rogers fought for British colonies while Marion fought for the United States.

Another parallel and similar argument is that a BG will grab your gun. Once again, I have not seen or even heard of any situation where this has happened. I have only heard stories of "friends" getting beat on when they thought it would be funny to try.

imported post

For the record my G-G-G-Grandfather was one of Marion's Men. I was saddened that someone posted that they had never heard of Francis Marion. He was probably the most influencial person in Revolutionary War history as before him the Redcoats were winning to such a point that volunteers were deserting in droves going back to their homes to accept their fate. Marion rode through the countryside convincing theim to go back to fighting in his unconventional way. Through his strategy the war started turning and came to the climax at King's Mountain. Little know fact is that more Revolutionary Wars battles were fought in South Carolina than any other state. Without Marion the war surely would have been lost.

imported post

Nicely said, Sam aka Francis Marion. I also appreciate the introduction to someone I'd just barely heard of before. Read the Wikipedia article, plan to go looking for a book on that era.

I'm a civilian and relatively new gun owner. I've got my CCW, but carry openly perhaps a quarter of the time, or have this summer. As the weather gets worse and I want a coat, that will probably change to some degree. In my case, I carry openly to assert the right and educate people. Unlike the original poster here, I'm a civilian -- female, middle-aged, overweight, and about as non-threatening as it's possible to appear. I've had a few comments from people when I carry openly, but most have been approving. A few have been questions, but mostly curious rather than challenging. I don't mind talking to people on the street, and hope I've been able to convince a few that a citizen openly carrying a holstered gun isn't in itself a provocative act.

The only time I found myself a little nervous was this weekend at an outdoor event that many families with young children attended. I didn't mind having the children seeing that somebody was carrying a gun, but found myself paying extra attention in case a curious small child tried to touch it. I'll probably conceal the gun in the future if I'm in a place where I expect there to be a crowd with many children.

So far, I've had no trouble from the police at all. One of them even, when he noticed my gun, looked at me, smiled and made a thumbs-up sign. ;-)

imported post

Marion's problem is that he was a Southerner, and in the South it seems everyone knows all about the Civil War and not so much about the Revolution.

And in the North, everyone is familiar with Washington, Greene, Dan Morgan, and others who fought in the big famous battles in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania because it's local history.

Of course it doesn't help that the cheesy Mel Gibson film missed a chance to show real history, by making up fake characters and fake incidents. The real story about the war in the South is much more interesting, and the real bad guy, Banastre Tarleton, was a much more complex character than the "Tavington" guy in the movie. And yes, he was indeed a cruel SOB, known for shooting American POWs.

imported post

Howdy FM and good analysis! I spent 25 years US Army also. Started out unconventional, if you will as a sniper, but then went into Armored Cavalry. So most of my experience is in conventional warfare. But I've always believed in Peace,,through superior firepower
And I do know who Francis Marion was, he was the fella that kept the Redcoats occupied in the Carolinas.
The movie "Patriot" kind of related to his actions.

imported post

Larry0071 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

Thanks for a fine posting. And BTW, I love your handle and wonder how many know who Francis Marion was.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I had never heard of him. My initial thought was the movie COBRA with Marion Cobretti (Sylvester Stallone). I was very wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion

Francis Marion (February 26, 1732 – February 27, 1795) was a military officer who served in the American Revolutionary War. Acting with Continental Army and South Carolina militia commissions, he was a persistent adversary of the British in their occupation of South Carolina in 1780 and 1781, even after the Continental Army was driven out of the state in the Battle of Camden. Due to his irregular methods of warfare, he is considered one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare, and is credited in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers.

Click to expand...

While we're at it, let's not forget about the Francis Marion Military Academy

(Now that I consider it, I think the Marion Military Institute was what I orginally meant to post.)

imported post

And the debate rages on. This is a discussion that will go on forever, CC vs OC has its points, and neither is really better, it's a preference.

AbNo (borrowing Kendo's account)

imported post

It really isn't a debate that 'rages on.' Any more than the debate about 'gun control' rages on... People either except fact and dismiss folly, or they don't...

I live in a State that requires CC only. I've had to draw my weapon in a threatening situation 4 times.

The mere sight of it sent the Bag Guy away.

Case and Point: CC allowed it to escalate to a point that I had to dispel it. This is FACT. CC did NOT prevent it. I was still approached/engaged by violent assailants. Yes, I managed to dig my gun out of it's hiding place fast enough to display it... So, uhm, why wasn't it already visible?

Sure, those guys were REALLY surprised, boy I really made them soil their shorts... Is that a policy we need when carrying a gun? An ego trip of scaring the crap out of a bad guy? "Ha I showed him!" No thanks. I'd prefer to prevent the event from ever occurring at all.

CC, by definition, can never do that. It NEVER HAS, and it NEVER WILL.

Why?

Because it can't be seen until you have enough fear for your life and safety to put it in your hand. If it isn't SEEN, it can't prevent anything. And, well, it is called CONCEALED carry, so uhm, NOT BEING SEEN.

How hard is this to understand?

I'm not saying that people who CC are weak or stupid. At least they are carrying! It is better than nothing. But OC is very clearly superior to it. CC is the 'better than nothing' or 'moderate' choice. Trying to imply that it has advantages to is it just a big bunch of 'what its' that have never happened. The only advantage CC presents, is that of being better than not carrying at all.

The element of surprise is a strictly OFFENSIVE tactic. Citing it in the realm of DEFENSIVE carry makes me wonder if gun-controllers are right, maybe some people shouldn't have guns...

I only CC because my filthy State forbids me from doing it right. It is better than nothing. But OC is WAY better than nothing. I have 4 personal experiences to prove it. My son's life should not have to be gambled or used as bait to 'surprise' a bad guy after an engagement has already begun. Much better to have the BG never approach to begin with.

Considering the accusation of "baiting" and "entrapment" that have flown around here lately, the very same logic could apply to CC. If you CC are you 'baiting' criminals by hiding and then whipping it out?

No, that's stupid. I certainly can't bait anyone by putting it out in the open, either.

Maybe if a large group of well armed people saw me as a threat to keeping the schedule of what they wanted to do, maybe, just maybe, I'd be the first down. With no cops in there area to serve a distraction and have THEM be the first to go down for OCing AND having a badge and a uniform all drawing attention to themselves....

Do you see how dis-logical that is? Anyone?

imported post

Interesting point, ixtow, about CC not deterring anyone.

What do you, or the rest of you guys, think about the popular notion that shall-issue CC states have less crime "because the criminals don't know who's carrying"?

In order for this to be valid, we would have to say that street thugs do a lot of thinking before mugging someone.

Of course, if you're doing that much thinking about who to mug, you'll think about who likely isn't carrying. That thin girl walking out to her VW Beetle with the Obama stickers on it, for instance, probably isn't carrying.

Nevertheless, the numbers seem to indicate there's something to the rumor.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

"...those guys were REALLY surprised, boy I really made them soil their shorts... Is that a policy we need when carrying a gun? An ego trip of scaring the crap out of a bad guy? "Ha I showed him!" No thanks. I'd prefer to prevent the event from ever occurring at all.

CC, by definition, can never do that. It NEVER HAS, and it NEVER WILL.


The element of surprise is a strictly OFFENSIVE tactic. Citing it in the realm of DEFENSIVE carry makes me wonder if gun-controllers are right, maybe some people shouldn't have guns...

Click to expand...

You got it! Dead on! :celebrate

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Nevertheless, the numbers seem to indicate there's something to the rumor.

Click to expand...

I agree with this in part.

The 'war on crime' has many fronts, so attributing the whole of a difference in crime from temporal point A to temporal point B, is deceptive.

Florida is a good example. The first State to implement a CC law.

Last I checked, Florida had a 1:200 ratio of CCW permit issuance, by total population. Lets be really generous and call it 1:100.

Has there been a steady decrease every year in violent crime since the day that was put into effect? Just about. With an overall decrease of around 23%, cumulative.

Can that be attributed solely to CC? If you say that, then you argue that absolutely nothing else has been attempted or accomplished by any law enforcement agency anywhere in the State. That is a tough argument to make.

My argument lies outside of that. I suggest that, 23% would probably be near 50% if the criminals didn't have to guess, but had it stuck right in their face. No more guessing, no more wondering. 1 out of 100 people they see every day, they see a gun, too...

Now, if the dumb VW drivin' blonde bimbo who voted for glitter and sawdust wants to make a mark of herself; let her. I have no pity for those who try to make me into the same target they make of themselves.

The nature and attitude of criminals here... If Florida turned Green or better yet, Yellow; the place would have its crime rate cut in half or less literally overnight.

but that will never happen, because this place is run by those blond bimbos. They won't be happy until everyone but themselves are dead.

imported post

CC policies/laws may reduce crime state wide by up to 23% but OC reduces crime around me by at least 99.999% (.001% just in case some one, some where just might possibly be shot first.)

imported post

ixtow wrote:

....The element of surprise is a strictly OFFENSIVE tactic....

Click to expand...

Excellent point!

imported post

Francis Marion wrote:

CC policies/laws may reduce crime state wide by up to 23% but OC reduces crime around me by at least 99.999% (.001% just in case some one, some where just might possibly be shot first.)

Click to expand...

And if there are enough such vicinities being created, then that carries the whole State.

imported post

It is really simple... A mugger sees one guy with a gun... Then he sees an elderly man or woman without one...

Who does he mug?

imported post

Many any open carry arguments focus on the lone person carrrying. Many of my neighbors and friends open carry. As a group we not only look formidable, we are. Many of us are trained and experienced prior military. We constantly practice shooting and tactical situations for sport and for readiness.

But the point isn't that we are badasses. Far from it. But if a bad guy walks into a place and sees 6-10 big guys packing hardware, he is going to beat feet real quick.

imported post

I think you're right on. The only scenarios I can think of where the "guy with the gun will be the first one shot" would be something where there's a brilliant plan that can yield a lot of cash and a small window of opportunity. Even then, most criminals would prefer to not actually kill someone. I think in most cases, they'll disarm you but not shoot you.

The other scenario would be a columbine, Trolley Square, or "North Hollywood" type of situation where they are going for mass casualties, in which case you might be the first target....if they see you before they open fire.

I have yet to hear a story where "the guy with the gun was shot first". I have heard plenty, however, where crimes seem to have been deterred because of someone who was OC'ing.

imported post

CharlesC wrote:

Many any open carry arguments focus on the lone person carrrying. Many of my neighbors and friends open carry. As a group we not only look formidable, we are. Many of us are trained and experienced prior military. We constantly practice shooting and tactical situations for sport and for readiness.

But the point isn't that we are badasses. Far from it. But if a bad guy walks into a place and sees 6-10 big guys packing hardware, he is going to beat feet real quick.

Click to expand...

You've hit on something here, about the "lone carrier argument".

Another thing is that it doesn't ahve to be a group of "big guys" either. A small person OC'ing is a threat to the bad guys as well. Even a group of ladies.

Here's something else. If a BG walks into a place of business and sees one or two OC'ers and there are other people in the store, he has to ask himself, "How many more of these people are CC'ing?"

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

CharlesC wrote:

Many any open carry arguments focus on the lone person carrrying. Many of my neighbors and friends open carry. As a group we not only look formidable, we are. Many of us are trained and experienced prior military. We constantly practice shooting and tactical situations for sport and for readiness.

But the point isn't that we are badasses. Far from it. But if a bad guy walks into a place and sees 6-10 big guys packing hardware, he is going to beat feet real quick.

Click to expand...

You've hit on something here, about the "lone carrier argument".

Another thing is that it doesn't ahve to be a group of "big guys" either. A small person OC'ing is a threat to the bad guys as well. Even a group of ladies.

Here's something else. If a BG walks into a place of business and sees one or two OC'ers and there are other people in the store, he has to ask himself, "How many more of these people are CC'ing?"

Click to expand...

I think the whole discussion is circular.

Criminals already know the police have guns and the authority to take them to jail. Yet they ply their trade based on what? The fact that help will never get there in time.

The odds they face from the Police are still greater than the odds they face from CC, becasue CC isn't real to them, they can't see it. And also becasue so few people do it.

"Lone man carry" is a deterrent only in the form of OC, and unless they become a group... The criminals just don't care. They are already betting on other odds that are worse. Just like they aren't obeying the law to begin with. A sing on the door of a bank isn't going to stop them for the same reason that CC won't.

They ask the question: "What are the odds?" The odds are far worse that they will be caught by the police later in a post-event investigation, than to be foiled by a rare weapon raccier doing his/her civic duty of prevention. And both are very low. Less than 1% chance of an armed citizen, roughly 4% chance the cops will catch them...

It is quite worth it to them. and a professional criminal? Well, there is a reason you never hear about 'professional criminals' in the news... They never get caught.

As with other things... Criminals who have committed themselves to robbing a bank, do not care about breaking the rul;es of a sign about no guns allowed. In the same fashion, Criminals who have already decided to roll the 4% dice, don't care about the <1% dice.