That's what I get when I go to your Facebook link.
Thread: Need some argumentative help
Instead of copy/pasting all the words, I'll just post a link to my Facebook so you can read the comments. I was wondering if anyone has any stories pertaining to assault and it being deterred by the sight of a gun. Secondly, I was wondering if anyone has any stories of robberies/theft leading to assault or assault used. By definition, a robbery is theft by force or threat of force. I would still like some news stories or personal stories to use. Lemme know! Thanks
That's what I get when I go to your Facebook link.
How does one count assaults or robberies that DIDN'T happen because someone saw the person wearing a gun. Only sure way I could think to quantify aborted incidents like this is a body count. How many attempted and ended up dead or in the hospital. The rest would be merely speculation.
Ben thought about your parks and guns thing, with the random attack at Esther Short Park today...irony.
September 1 at 9:05pm · Comment · LikeUnlike · See Wall-to-Wall
Kerry Acid isn't guns...
September 1 at 9:33pm · LikeUnlike ·
Ben Joe was saying he felt safer, because if he ever was attacked he could defend himself. Thinking if she had a gun, or if people had guns around her, it would have never happened...ya know?
September 1 at 9:46pm · LikeUnlike
I posted this up on my opencarry forum. Funny people said Esther Short Park never has any crazies around it. If the girl had a gun and concealed it, she probably would have still got hit with acid. If she had a gun strapped to her side, I don't think she would have been the "best choice" for a random attack. The thing is... you never know what's out there.
September 1 at 10:09pm · LikeUnlike ·
Acid isn't guns Kerry, what do you mean by that?
Weird thing is Joe was at our gym when that is right by the park the night it happened. I was there earlier that day and the next day I was there when I heard about it. I definitely will want ...a way to protect myself now when I'm there, that attack hits pretty close to home. See More
September 1 at 10:18pm · LikeUnlike ·
My point was that while guns are well and good as a deterrent having one wouldn't change the situation. I was making the case that the two topics, while related are mutually exclusive in their context.
If you are planning on throwing acid in someones face, someone having a gun is not going to be a deterrent unless you suspect your target might know your intentions while you are still at distance. The underhanded / con tecnique used to get the acid close enough in this situation is exactly the way to counter an opencarry situation. Once inside a set range a melée weapon such as the acid becomes a much more viable weapon than even a small firearm. See More
September 1 at 10:58pm · LikeUnlike ·
I can see that definitely being true. Why attack an openly armed person if there is an unarmed person elsewhere. I think no one can say for sure what would happen in the situation. The interesting thing is if you conceal carry it wouldn't affect the person's choice and it's not like I would pull a gun on someone offering me a drink. Scary.
September 1 at 11:02pm · LikeUnlike ·
Kerry I'm saying it doesn't matter in this situation if she was open carry or not.
September 1 at 11:07pm · LikeUnlike ·
Erin I think open carry could definitely detour someone.
Thursday at 9:00am · LikeUnlike ·
Could and would are two different things.
I'm saying that if your intent is to Acid someones face, whether or not the target is opencarry is a moot point. If you have a gun and are opencarry; in order for the gun to be a useful/successful deterrent you have to have the drive to be willing to use it. Just the fact that it is there on your hip may be a casual deterrent to a "common" criminal, but a person who has the drive to harm wont care.
A: the person who is carrying the gun has to have time to realize a threat and then un-holster said weapon.
B: once the person has the gun drawn several factors come into play: The wielders drive to use said gun, whether or not the gun is loaded, and the accuracy of the wielder.See More
Thursday at 9:47am · LikeUnlike ·
Just this last February, three ARMED criminals avoided robbing a waffle house because they saw two guys with guns on their hip. Their "intent" was an easy... robbery. What they ran into was a difficult one. Though they could have easily came in and shot the two guys right off the bat, they did not know what else would happen. They also did not know if anyone else was carrying. It was not an easy target, so they fled.
If some lady had a cup of acid and was "intent" on throwing it in someone's face, I would bet you anything that she would not have chosen the person with a gun. Why? She does not know if she will get shot afterward. She does not know if the person with a gun is an off duty officer. She does not know the outcome of the situation.
What we can assume is that she was just some sad individual who felt like ruining someone's life that day at little expense. There was no connection between the two, and it was completely random. I really believe if she had a gun visible, it would have deterred herself as a target, and it probably would have deterred her from doing that to anyone near the lady with the gun. Why? Because when a gun is involved, you never know what is going to happen, and it is not worth the risk.See More
Thursday at 10:16am · LikeUnlike ·
I disagree. Having a gun holstered to your hip is definitely a deterrent and would make anyone thing twice. The criminal will not know if your are willing to use your gun and how well you may be able to use it, therefore, making them think ...twice about the risks that are entailed. Most who strap a gun to their side know how to use it, at least, that is what is commonly assumed. Acid is a completely different type of weapon yes, but the if factor of someone with a gun retaliating is big.
60% of convicted felons admitted they would avoid committing a crime when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of them admitted they would avoid committing a crime if they thought the victim was armed.
Being armed or being perceived to be armed will keep you safer than not.See More
Thursday at 10:17am · LikeUnlike ·
@ Joe: The "Easy Robbery" you linked is the type of "Common crime" I was talking about when I mentioned that Open Carry would act as a deterrent. The Three Armed Criminals drive was not to rob the OC patrons of the establishment; it was to... make some quick cash (Robbery). As you say they *could* have easily Shot the two openly armed patrons and gone about their scheme, but the risk of Assault & Battery (is that the charge for shooting someone non-lethally?) or worse should they be caught wasn't worth the cash they could have gained in the heist.
The situation with the Acid is different IMO. It's a close quarters act/ crime. If the Victim Herself had been OC I don't see a different outcome. Where I do see an difference is if someone other than the Victim was OC that the difference comes in, that part I agree on. This is where my points about Range come in.
If lets say this was a vengeful act, and the Victim knew there was something bad between the Attacker and herself, then yes I can see OC as a viable way to Deter the Attacker. However the situation points to this being a random act and as such the Attacker has the element of surprise/trust. Thus the Victim suspects nothing so being OC or not doesn't matter. However. like in the linked article if someone outside of the Victim was plainly OC it is possible that the situation could be avoided.
@Erin: The 60%/40% you mention there are the ones I was talking about when I mentioned "Common Criminals". The other 40%/60% are the situations where knowing how to use your armaments matters. That's where I was drawing the line with the could/would. According to your stats OC will Deter ~50% of potential attackers. Not bad really. While that does, stats wise, make you "safer", it is not a guarantee. There is still the other 50% chance that the attacker won't care that you are OC.
I guess my over-arrching point is that OC isn't a catch all for making an individual safer. It adds the perception of Safety and gives you a specific tool if the situation requires. See More
Thursday at 1:15pm · LikeUnlike ·
I'm sorry. We will have to agree to disagree. There is just no logic in your argument. I cannot see myself randomly attacking someone, and out of the options around me, I choose to go after the person with the gun. When weighing the costs, ...I could A: Select a weak target and likely run away before she/he does anything. or B: I could choose a target who has the option to kill me if I do this.
I wouldn't think, "Well, it doesn't matter if they can kill me. I have a close range weapon that will merely burn them upon contact. They will probably roll around while I run away." I would more likely think, "What if this acid doesn't do anything? What if this person dodges? What if, while rolling around, they draw their gun and shoot at me? Do I look suspicious walking up to them? Is this person an officer who can identify me if I do this? Well, I hope I do this right... here I go."
The type of weapon does not matter. Criminal want easy targets. PERIOD. The robbers at the waffle house were on level playing grounds with the gunmen. The felons that do not attack people who are armed are professional thugs. This lady who threw the acid was probably a first time assaulter (judging by her choice of assault). There is NO WAY she would have done this to someone openly armed because she would not want to get shot. Plain and simple. Her worst case scenario with the lady she attacked was that someone else might see her, identify her, and she would get thrown in jail. The worst case scenario with an armed person: she would die. Her "least" case scenario would be identical to the first case. The person might shoot the gun, and everyone around would hear it. The lady would then be seen running, and she would be identified, and she could get thrown in jail. Criminals are pretty dumb, but at least give them the credit to pick the best of two stupid options. See More
Thursday at 2:02pm · LikeUnlike ·
I suppose I am giving the Attacker more credit than she is worth, and I'm thinking in the far extremes that probably have a fraction of a percent of actually happening.
but to reply:
If by merely Burn you mean Temporarily blind and incapacitate, then yes I'd say you have a viable weapon to counter an OC situation. This coupled with the element of Surprise/Trust increases the the likelihood that you the Attacker will succeed in subduing your Victim to the point where OC becomes a moot point as an Active Defense weapon (Active Defense meaning drawn and ready as opposed to Passive Defense where it's holstered at your side). Additionally if the Attack failed there is a time delay from when the attack fails to when the potential Victim, or passerby could draw and accurately aim their weapon to halt your escape. It's plausible that in this time you could run far enough away to where the Defender now has to weigh their options for taking a live fire shot. Now I'd wager that most people who currently OC are a decent enough shot at close-mid range.
This is probably where I give the Attacker the most credit. I'm basing much of my point off the assumption that the Attacker wanted to attack this woman specifically, and not any other.
IF the Attacker was just out to spite any "pretty" girl, then YES OC *could* have prevented it.See More
Thursday at 3:46pm · LikeUnlike ·
Yeah. If this was some undercover job and the victim was the daughter of a rich oil lobbyist, then I can see why the attacker would go out of her way to hit and run. At that point, she would have to figure out how to do it without getting s...hot or caught. The gun would be a moot point because the attacker has a specific target, AND for some reason, she feels she needs to follow through.
The robbers at the waffle house had a specific target and still ran. I am also sure they would have stayed if they were mobsters asked to do a job. In which case, I would hate to be the guys with the guns. You are likely to be shot first.
As far as we know, this lady could be Jack Bauer undercover or she could have just been a bum. My arguments apply to the bum.See More
Thursday at 4:00pm · LikeUnlike ·
Kerry I'm pro Jack Bauer.
Thursday at 4:33pm · LikeUnlike ·
Ben My point was that if people did carry (say for the past year or always had carried) concealed weapons on their belt, the idea of a random attack would pretty much cease. I mean if I was a homeless person, or a violent person, I would avoid parks where I know people carry guns...I just thought it was funny because Joe's thing on the news had him in Esther Short park talking about carrying guns...
Thursday at 5:25pm · LikeUnlike · 1 personLoading... ·
Ben "funny" was a bad choice of words....replace that with "ironic"
Thursday at 5:26pm · LikeUnlike ·
Ben Kerry, I think it was a random attack. But you could be right...we shall see. Assuming it was random, the open carry deal would have most likely deterred her from the act, at least at that location...perhaps it would've befell someone else somewhere else, no one can know for sure.
Thursday at 5:29pm · LikeUnlike ·
Jessica You would be way smarter to acid someone in the face who had a gun knowing they would be immobilized than to acid someone else when you know there is a gun wielding person also in the park who would have time to possibly shoot you. Whether someone would call off their intentions all together if they saw a gun around is the debate. If you're psycho enough to acid a random person in the face you probably aren't "with it" enough to think gun or no gun.
Friday at 12:05am · LikeUnlike ·
Erin Criminal minds should not be underestimated. Occasionally a "crazy" person commits a crime as well, but many criminals are regular functioning people if not brilliant. It would be stupid to attack at all if there was a presence of a gun. Unless its a suicide mission (which obviously the gals in the case at esther short wasn't as she ran and has yet to be caught), criminals don't want to die. They are people as well and have the desire to live just like non-criminals.
Friday at 11:00am · LikeUnlike ·
You make it sound like the moment something "goes down" all the OC people in the area instantly have their guns drawn and fire upon the Perp. Police officers, who train for this kind of thing, miss most of the time when firing on a hostile... or uncooperative Perp ( I can't find the source I am pulling this from ). Firing on a static paper target is one thing. Firing upon a moving HUMAN target is quite another. As much as you say that the presence of a gun would deter a criminal I'd venture to say that an even greater number of people who OC would not be able to Open Fire against a Perp in a Public place, let alone land a shot.See More
Friday at 12:49pm · LikeUnlike ·
Jessica Criminals are usually desperate people in one way or another. Desperate for attention, desperate for cash, or just plain sick in the head and don't care. I do not think open carrying civilians pose much threat to criminals.
Friday at 4:50pm · LikeUnlike ·
Jessica Desperation makes people illogical. I think chances are they are going to commit the crime whether people are carrying guns or not or just do it later when there are no guns around. Or they'll just shoot you first. So...I guess I don't get the point.
Friday at 4:52pm · LikeUnlike ·
I guess if it gives you peace of mind to carry a weapon that you most likely if attacked would not get the chance to use... but just having the option makes you rest easier... then I can understand. Just in case right?
I do however complete...ly understand having a firearm in your house in case of burglary to protect your family. See More
Friday at 4:55pm · LikeUnlike ·
Kerry, I never said any of those things sorry if I made it sound that way. The mere presence of a gun is what I am talking about, not the shooting precision.
Jess, here are a few facts to consider that have persuaded me to be pro gun (plus I... travel by myself sometimes):
Fact: When using guns in
self-defense, 91.1% of the time not a single shot is fired.155
Fact: “...most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are
about running into the police.”157
Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they
knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided
committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.172
Fact: 95% of the time police arrive too late to prevent a crime or arrest the suspect.222
Fact: 77% of all violent crime occurs in public places.310 This makes carrying
necessary for almost all self-defense needs.
15 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Jessica[/b] I've come to the conclusion that there is no way to fix this problem. Either everyone has to open carry or there has to be no guns. But according to Kerry, criminals will always get there hands on guns. Maybe I am just abnormal, it doesn't really give me peace of mind to think that my safety means that others are more likely targets.
15 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
I think we are loosing track of the point we are discussing. I don't think that any of us are doubting or questioning that OC will deter many criminals from committing a crime. What we were originally discussing was whether or not the Attacker of the Acid Attack would have committed the crime had the Victim, or someone nearby, been OC.
IMO but we are picking nits here at this point. We have moved on from discussing if the presence of a gun would have prevented the Aciding; to the effectiveness of a Gun in general as a personal defense weapon.
So to steer back on point and try to clarify:
Erin, you and Joe are both referencing Crime in general, where often the motivation is something other than personal harm (robbery, etc). IMO a Criminal who is looking to commit Robbery is not looking to physically harm someone. That is not their motivation. Their motivation is to obtain items through stealth or intimidation. So it is logical that most robberies (or the like) could, and probably are, stopped by the presence of guns. However, this Acid Attack is not a Robbery; it's Assault, and a persons drive/motivation is different than a person who merely wishes to take.
Again, myself, or Jessica for that matter, are not doubting that brandishing a gun will deter many a criminal from following through with their plan. What we are moreover questioning is it's usefulness beyond mere intimidation. What if the Attacker is not stopped by the brandishing of some blue steel? What happens then? THAT, I believe is the issue we have with those that OC. That is where my comment about accuracy and firing on a Human came in.
Personally I don't really see the need for one unless you happen to live in a high crime rate city. That doesn't mean I am against it. If you want to OC, I wont think less/twice about it. This is America after all. See More
13 hours ago · LikeUnlike ·
Kerry needs to be educated as to what "Brandishing" means.