oak1971
Regular Member
It depends on the situation.
What is missing in every argument that OC will not "act or serve as a meaningful deterrent", is the fact that we are trying to normalize the carry.
CC is such a terrible tool. I realize that we are all "in the same boat", and I would lobby just as hard for the right to CC as I do for OC. Frankly however, CC-only proponents are typically prima donnas who typically only care whether their ability to pack a snubnose .38 in their fanny pack is protected by state and federal law.
The tactical decision to counter-ambush an ambush is completely and laughably stupid. Were I of the criminal mindset and committed to putting myself and others in mortal harm to get money or goods illegally, I would shoot the first clown who tried to go "ninja-mcsneaky", fiddle-farting with his shirt, waistband, or legs.
You know, I had not considered it in this light. I think your comments are very apropos and I'll be strongly thinking over your comments. Thanks a lot for posting this. It was NOT a rant but a very cogent argument for OC or normal carry. Loved the 'Prima donnas' (too true!) and the Ninja-McSneaky aphorism.
Three thumbs up!
I prefer OC.
But, in Cumming Georgia, a armed security guard on duty was killed in Ingles super market on September 10th, 2010, by group of armed robber.
They shot and killed him at first before they robbed the store.
The event that Khondker mentioned in Cumming, Ga has no relevance in this discussion.
The store was robbed after it had closed. There were no customers in the store.
It shows that he was visibly armed and that the robbers took out that which they knew to be armed (aka the criminals knowing he was armed didn't deter them). Which means that if one were inclined they could try to spin it that since they knew he was armed they simply killed him, while if he had CCed the criminals might not have killed him and simply tied him up or an opportunity might have presented itself for him to have drawn as they would have been unaware of him being armed and might have let their guard down somehow.
Now I'm not about to waste my time tearing down this arguement, but it is the type of arguement I would expect a pro-CC person to use when citing the incident. The fact that the store was closed doesn't really matter when discussing why he was killed (though one could argue that they waited until then since they planned to kill him from the start and the fewer people around to potentially see it or interfere the better), the point of the arguement when citing the case is to try and say that they killed him because they knew he was armed as opposed to simply taking him hostage until they finished robbing the store; and as such it would have been better if he was CCing as they wouldn't of known and potentially wouldn't of killed him.
To Mr. Fisher who said to thank the OC'er for drawing fire so the CC'ers can take out the bad guy...you're welcome.
Of course, if I'm ahead of you in line and the bad guy waits until I'm gone before robbing the store, thank YOU for cleaning up the mess that I avoided by OC'ing.
Encountering an armed security guard during a planned robbery of a closed business isn't even close to applicable to the argument of "cc is better than oc." It simply isn't anywhere near similar enough to draw a comparison.
I never said that that was my arguement. I said to expect that to be the arguement of CC proponents when using that example. And right or wrong one can make the arguement that they planned to kill him because he OCed as opposed to simply planning on tying him up.
As I have just started OC'ing, and to my understanding, in the state of Georgia, a GWCL allows you to OC or CC, my initially opinion, is that I would rather carry OC in the belief that, if a BG see's that I'm carrying, he would hopefully choose another target. I understand the hypothetical.....if you're in a gas station and a couple armed thugs walk in hell bent on robbing the place......I would hope that I see them coming and either happen to be CC'ing at the time or be able to move myself to a location within the store where I could try to conceal that fact that I'm OC'ing. That being said, I believe in carrying at all times, but hope that I never have to use my weapon. There's a lot to be said for both cases, OC and CC, but for now, as I'm just beginning to OC, I feel more comfortable in the thought that a BG would not target me seeing that I'm armed.
To defend my fellow LEO eariler reguarding the the comments about CC compared to OC. Obvioulsy, it is your right to OC. Alot of individuals that OC also have a CCW because of their interest in firearms. My only problem with OC is if you can CCW, why not do it? My reasons for such are because of weapon retention. I know when I am carrying my offduty weapon it is a single retention holster (and most holsters that I have read on here that people carry and encountered on the street). Just pull and fire. Whereas, my duty holster is a triple retention holster, that requires certain movements in order to remove it and those movements should remain a secret to the general public. (Yeah, because that happens)
So, not only do I have training in weapon retention, but also have an extremely safe holster that most individuals do not know how to draw the weapon, and even if they do, it is hard to do it if the firearm is not on your waste, why would you place yourself into the slightly more risky situation of being disarmed?
I'm just being honest and would like to know some responses of WHY not just CC if you can. I dont want to hear "cause its my right". It wont be your right anymore if it results in your death via being disarmed.
I wont respond to flamers or people that just say "Its my right".
Thanks and hope to have honest opinions,
Qilvin-LEO