Well, my response to "part I" was approved. His response directed me to the forums where you have to register to see it. I did and the following is both his responses and mine (his should be the bold quotes, the bold quotes are in response to my original comments, and the parts w/o quotes are my responses to his comments). I'm posting this here for anyone curious about it but doesn't want to make an account on their forums to see it. Also apparently whenever you submit a reply it has to be approved by a mod so who knows when/if it will be posted on that board.
My answers in bold.
You brought up the Matix and Platt incident on another forum and I posted my comment there only to crickets, so I will post it again here. Matix and Platt staked out known people with guns; these were not spur-of-the-moment crimes.
I still have no idea what these type of comments have to do with this discussion. This is equivilent to picking nat droppings out of pepper. What does it matter if an attack is preplanned or spontaneous. Both type of attacks do happen. This seems to be a further manipulation of the numbers to promote an agenda. Now the open carry "political activist only" only count spontaneous attacks as real attacks?
"Preplanned attacks on people with guns are not attacks on people with guns!" What kind of nonsense is that?!
This is the type of thing that will always hurt the "political activist only" approach to this debate.
You are obviously missing the point. The point is that pre-planned attacks on a known carrier cancel each other out much like in a math equation when you have something happening on both sides of the equation. A pre-planned attack on an OCer is the same as a pre-planned attack on a CCer and neither type of carry is really going to have an advantage because your hostile has already prepared for your weapon.
Also their targets had nothing to do with those individuals OCing for protection and everything with the victims being staked out in a known location to have guns.
So for you to try and somehow relate the preplanned attacks to one type of carry and not the other when it affects both equally (or at least the Matix and Platt incident does as the individuals were staked out at a gun range and not simply walking down the road) is faulty logic.
Whether you accept this fact or not, as an open carry advocate myself and an expert in this field of self defense with a firearm, if you do not start asking the right questions this will always be a lossing debate for the "political activist only." The right question is as simple as this;
"Are people with guns targeted for their guns?"
That is not the correct question. The answer to that question would be a yes, but the correct questions would be "Are people who are openly carrying targeted for crime more often than those concealing their guns?" and "Is crime directed at OCers more or less successful than crime directed at CCers?" Typically when someone is targeted for their guns the criminals break into their house when they aren't home; not attempt to rob the person while knowing they are armed. To give some actual data to back this up, here is some actual info with a cite (info taken from gunfacts.info):
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. (cite:
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms, James Wright and Peter Rossi, Aldine, 1986). Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot (cite: Ibid)
So simply asking if people are targeted for their guns simply doesn't look at the whole picture properly.
Until you accept the question that every open minded self defense advocate is working from you will never advance the cause. It is your obvious manipulation of the scientific data that will always be your down fall. Since the answer to this most fundamental of questions is a irrefutable "yes!" all of the number manipulating in the world will not change this fact. It is the advocation that carrying a gun openly will scare away crimminals that is the very core of the obviously flawed and incorrect stance that the "political activist only" perpetuate. This is either a perpetuation of ignorance or a perpetuation of bad science. Either way it is a danger to those that do not know any better than to listen to somebody that "does not know what they do not know."
Ironic that you would say that I'm twisting scientific data when you choose to ignore data yourself that shows how a good portion of criminals will choose to find an easier target should they know or even think their potential victim is armed.
Also in your example you ignore that the criminals befriended their victims prior to robbing and killing them.
Wow, fancy that.......bad guys using bad guys tricks! This is as common on the street as can possibly be. Why does this even matter, are you saying that open carry guys can not be set up by badguys using one of the oldest tricks in the book? I have zero idea where this statement helps your "political activist only" stance. Were people with guns targeted for their guns? Once again, ask the right questions and quit trying to spin something for a political agenda. You do realize that you are advocating open carry people to not worry about being attacked. Could you please list your training and certifications that substantiates your expertice in the field of self defense. Could you please tell me, with who and where you learned all that you know about attacks on people, with guns, for their guns. There are hundreds if not thousands of cases please tell me of your extensive education on this topic.
Again, those bad tricks are indiscriminate to the type of carry that one chooses. So you can't sit there and try to point to those bad tricks as a knock on OCing because the same thing applies to CCing. If anything, those "bad tricks" are a hit against using and befriending people at gun ranges regardless of your choice of carry. So again you incorrectly attribute it to the type of carry instead of to the activity taken place (using the gun range).
OCing or CCing, it wouldn't matter as the criminals set up a specific trap for the gun.
And that is the point of these articles. It does not matter if you open carry or concealed carry, you have a responsibility to know what you are getting yourself into. "Political activists only" try to get people to open carry by telling them "don't worry about it, the visible gun is a talisman that stops all evil." This is an absolute lie! It is a lie that I will point out at every turn. Whether you open carry or concealed carry, you need to accept that you may have to fight, you need to prepare to be ready to fight, and you need to be able to fight! This ******** that "you will not be targeted" is a lie that can get people killed. This lie is the very core of this debate and until that lie has quit being perpetuated by the "political activist only" this debate will continue and the cause will get nowhere. Break away from the perpetuation of the lie then proceed, on to a winning course.
Except that it isn't a lie. It DOES stop crime and there have been multiple reports of it. One of the recent officially documented ones was where a car full of criminals were going to rob a place (Waffle House? I'm not 100% what place but think that's it), sent in a scout who saw an OCer and chose to wait till the OCers left before robbing it. While waiting a cop noticed the suspicious car, went to invistigate, and busted the people.
Now that said, you will also find that the vast majority of OCers will also state that OCing isn't going to ward off crime 100% of the time and that you need to be willing to use the gun if needed. Which then leads right back into one of the proper questions, "Are people who are openly carrying targeted for crime more often than those concealing their guns?" and the answer is no.
And another few points. You are trying to compare premeditated crime to spur-of-the-moment crime; and the state that this crime happened in is a CC only state, so it isn't even like the victims were truely OCing.
Dude, that is just so weak! Really, is that all that you have? This is a sign of desperation when somebody keeps repeating the same thing over and over again. Learn to ask the right questions, break away from the manipulation of the numbers, accept the fact that a gun is not a talisman, look to get yourself some quality training. I challenge you to become the very best open carry advocate in the world, but that means that you are going to have to open your mind, get some training, get some education, and find a way to bring some common sense and balance into what you do. This is not just about "political activism" it is about "life and death." If you are going to set yourself up to appear to be an expert on "life and death" please post your resume. Mine can be found here.
More generalizations with no actual data to back it up or showing of data followed by stating your hypothesis of what the data means. I'm not sure you understand how the scientific process works in that you show your data and then state your conclusion and how you came to it. Instead you keep waiving your training and resume around and saying "listen to me I know answer, but I'm not going to show my work." Don't worry, I'll post more about myself at the end (though I know it won't be the same as your resume and thus is likely to be brushed aside as nothing).
So while you have listed one event that you think is related to OCing, I challenge you to list even ten cases where a no-kidding OCer was targeted for crime AND that the criminal knew of the gun beforehand. I would be shocked and amazed (and willing to pay $10k if I had the money) if you could find 10 instances.
I care zero about convicing somebody who has closed their mind already. Your constant "towing the the politcal activist line" is all I need to see to know that you have decided to live your life in closed minded ignorance. I write to help "good people" that are looking for something that resembles the truth, people that realize that they do not know much about self defense with a firearm, but would like to know more. I write for people looking for common sense, people looking for something to really believe in. I know that I will never convince someone like you........but then again.......I really do not care! Keep towing that "political activist only" company line and I will continue to point out how little you really know.
Open carry is good.......concealed carry is good, but it is all about context! If you do not have the guts, mindset, knowldege, and skills it is just mental masturbation. A gun is not a talisman that wards off all evil.
More of the same from you in sidestepping the question and refusing to show any data. If you truely cared about changing my mind or showing that I'm wrong you would list actual data and conclusion/thought-train proving it instead of the "the world is flat" or "the world is the center of the universe" arguement (for those that don't know, back in the day those that questioned either of those two statements were immediately disregarded and potentially killed because all of the "smart" people with the "resumes" that showed they "knew" what they were talking about would ignore anyone who would attempt to say or prove otherwise).
It is simply so rare that it is a statistical improbability. Now with all of that said, I agree that OC vs CC is a personal choice. If one isn't comfortable with a type of carry then they shouldn't carry in that method; or that if they don't have the will to use the gun then they shouldn't carry at all. But all one has to do is look at the statistics and crime reports(or rather, the lack of statistics/crime reports as it simply doesn't happen) to see that the fears of OCers being targeted first during a crime or for a crime are statistically unfounded outside of a few potential outliers (compared to how relatively often we hear about CCers pulling their guns).
Caution! You have just read something written by a number manipulator, who refuses to ask the right questions, who does not care about you or your ability to defend yourself, and who only cares about the political agenda that he pushes down everyones throat. This is an extremist attitude that is based on intentional or unintentional ignorance.
More generalization and not backing up of your statement with data. I mean you don't even attempt to explain how the numbers are wrong or manipulated. You simply state that that is the case and because of your training/resume you know best and obviously don't need to prove it.
Ask yourself the real question.
"Are people with guns targeted for their guns?"
Again, this is the wrong question. If one is looking at OC vs CC for them then they need to be looking at which one is better able to deter crime. Even if it doesn't deter crime 100% of the time, if one deters crime more often or more effeciently than another, then that is the more effective means of carrying...So long as the individual is comfortable with carrying in that manner
Then train accordingly.......open or concealed.......but open your mind, use your head, and be very careful who you listen to. If you do this for political reasons.......no problemo......if you do it for self defense, then educate yourself past just listening to those pushing a political agenda.
Both Gabe and I admit to open carrying.....we just do it with the proper knowledge and the proper training. We are as far away from a "political activist only" as you can find.
Training is important, but ironically enough, those that most need to carry are the least likely to be able to afford training. And while this is a bit off-topic, training should not be a requirement to be able to OC or CC. Why? Because it does two things. First is that it puts the ability to defend one's self out of reach of the poor who are in crime infested areas (where, imo, they should CC. But I could probably fill another several paragraphs on where and why I think CC is better than OC and am not going to put that into this post). Second is that by requiring training you are turning a right into a priviledge as who is going to determine the proper amount of training and what qualifies, but the government? Which then leads into requiring a "permission slip" to exercise a right; and last time I checked no other right that is reaffirmed under the Bill of Rights requires a permission slip to exercise (actually I take that back, I have heard of certain cities requiring prior approval to congregate, protest, etc and I feel that is a violation of the First Amendment as well).
The balance of "rights" and "self defense" is the only position that is not an extremist position.
I am curious as to what you mean "the balance of 'rights' and 'self defense'" as I don't see any need to "balance" the two as self defense is a right via the whole "Right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" bit.
Now that I have responded to all of that, a bit about me. I'm 25 years old. I joined the military at 18 because ever since I was 4 I have felt a strong sense to defend my country. In joining the military the very first part of my oath is "...to defend the Constitution against all enemies..." and as such it isn't about "political activism," but rather about restoring our Constitution.
I also notice that you love to throw around the term "political activist only" as a way to try and discredit people. It reminds me of a saying: "When the facts are against you, argue emotions. When emotions are against you, argue facts. When both facts and emotions are against you, try to discredit your opponent." And that is exactly how you come across. You don't even know me, my training, or any of the research I have personally done on the subject, but yet you instantly try to discredit me as a "political activist only" person. Between my military training and personal training outside of the military I would easily be either a 4 (CCW of the gun) or 5 (entry level tactical training of the gun) on your scale. But I also believe in critical thinking and doing your own research before buying into anything. Indeed I have corrected many "teachers" while growing up as they either didn't know what they were talking about, or tried to push their opinion as "fact" without the data to back it up. And while I would love more training, I can't afford it at this time, but that doesn't mean I can't look at what a person is saying and come to my own conclusions based off of what I already know and what research I've already done.
As such, I again come back asking for your data. If you are going to try and compare OC and CC, or even state thing about just one form of carry, you need to present actual facts (preferably with verifiable cites) followed by your conclusion and how you reached it. You also need to be willing to properly discuss the topic when someone questions your conclusion and not just try to assassinate their character by doing things such as waiving your credentials around as if that's all that is needed.
This isn't a part of my post on the warriortalk forums. Personally I find it kind of funny that he basically called almost every posted on the forums here an "extremist" and yet he wonders why the OC community views him as an anti. So far I've found most of his demeanor to just reek of arrogance and thinking that his training makes his thoughts on the subject beyond reproach. Maybe he will surprise me and enter into actual debate with verifiable facts to back up his statements, but I'm not holding my breath.
