Just because you carry a handgun for self-defense doesn't mean you shouldn't know how to defend yourself against an armed attacker if you can't get to it.
Edit: If you were OCing, what would be the difference? You still got dropped on by a person asking you a seemingly innocent question. Only now he knows to not only ask for your wallet, but he doesn't have to discover the gun he gets to steal too.
Exactly! CC makes it harder, in some places, a LOT harder.
Does the criminal make the selection you've implied? No. They look for an unarmed target.
Please demonstrate logically, or factually, how your hypothetical contradiction can or has ever occurred.
The arguments presented on both of the threads I started along these lines, have been those of someone who has not thought the matter through.
When you 'need' you CC weapon, you'll find the only 'element of surprise' is that you are already in a bad situation that you now have to fight your way out of. OC could have prevented it altogether.
But it falls back to the same anti-gun liberal way of thinking. Since you cannot see the crimes that never happened, you presume that CC is better because of the drama, suspense, and danger it creates that you CAN see. None of that happen with OC, because the bad guys, be they stupid or crazy, aren't THAT stupid.
I've been in the unenviable position 4 times now, and every single time, had I been OCing, the events would never have happened.
If you choose to CC, that's better than nothing at all. I'm forced to, and have experienced first-hand how inferior it is. Trying to highlight an obvious handicap as an offensive 'tactical advantage' is a thinly veiled line of bull. Why do you need to surprise a bad guy, or anyone, for that matter? "The element of surprise" is a purely offensive concept, useful only for ambushes and ego trips. Defensive carry doesn't need it. It also highlights the reality that a violent and possibly deadly encounter is already taking place, which you must somehow deescalate. OC prevents it from the get-go.