Anti Open Carry

[Marco]

imported post

arentol wrote:

I do think I am making a valid point...

Ever hear of a drive-by shooting? Well, quite a bit of the time the people doing it have known the target was armed.

That an OC'er will be attacked is INEVITABLE, and denying the possibility outright means you are suffering from a horrible case of self-deception.

Of course you do.

Straw man.

SubstituteCC'er/Non carrierfor OC'er.

:idea:Anyone one can become a target for a criminal.:banghead:

 

[arentol]

imported post

Agent19 wrote:

arentol wrote:

I do think I am making a valid point...

Ever hear of a drive-by shooting? Well, quite a bit of the time the people doing it have known the target was armed.

That an OC'er will be attacked is INEVITABLE, and denying the possibility outright means you are suffering from a horrible case of self-deception.

Of course you do.

Straw man.

SubstituteCC'er/Non carrierfor OC'er.

:idea:Anyone one can become a target for a criminal.:banghead:

Not straw man at all because I am not misrepresenting your argument in any way. As a matter of fact I never really addressed the standard argument (below more or less), except to say I agreed with it...

"OC'ers don't have to worry about being attacked for their weapon because there is no record of this happening in recent (50+ years) history as a random attack."

I FULLY agree and have not disputed this in ANY WAY. I think OC'ing is a great deterrent to random crime, and the odds of an OC'er being attacked are so ridiculously bad that it is not something to be at all worried about. You need to start reading my entire posts, not just bits and pieces.


As a matter of fact, many people here are straw-manning my argument by making it about what is happening today when I am discussing a potential future that would only come about under specific and unlikely circumstances....

"This is totally correct as far as it goes. However, there is one thing to keep in mind in regards to the overall OC debate...

If OC becomes too common then it loses some of the shock value that deters criminals from attacking OC'ers, and the percentage of OC'ers who should REALLY not be OC'ing will go up. This could result in a few criminals getting away with robbing an OC'er for their gun and money, and then all of us will be vulnerable because the criminals know it can be done.

Fortunately I doubt the day of attacks on OC'ers being remotely common will ever come, but it is disingenuous to claim that assaults on OC'ers will never happen."


However, lets just go ahead and prove my point with your argument...

In the old west (up to the 1930's in some areas of the country, as a matter of fact) were openly armed individuals ever randomly chosen as targets by criminals?

Of course they were.

So my point is made with your own argument, it is well known that this has happened in the past, and at a time that was a little closer in OC nature to my hypothetical future, just not in the recent past.

Why were openly armed individuals attacked randomly for such reasons back then? Because many men were armed, but so were the criminals, so when the criminals thought they could get the drop on someone who was armed they were willing to give it a try. The criminals were used to their targets being armed and so they developed specific plans to deal with it, they also grouped up knowing that 1 regular man with a holstered gun will not try to defend himself against 3 men with drawn weapons.

If open carry becomes common enough criminals will modify their behavior to deal with it, and it will not be as safe as it is now, though it will still be far safer than not carrying or CC'ing.

AGAIN, my point is NOT that OC'ing is not the safest choice for avoiding being attacked in the first place, or that it will ever be more dangerous and more likely to get you attacked. My point is ONLY that if it becomes sufficiently common then on EXTREMELY RARE OCCASIONS someone who is OC'ing will be the victim of random violence.

You will notice NOBODY has tried to dispute my argument, they merely (incorrectly) claim I am using a logical fallacy and then move on. This is because there is no disputing my argument, if nothing else logic tells us that if something can happen it will happen given enough time and opportunity, and as you increase opportunity you increase frequency. This is simple statistics.

 

[Marco]

imported post

Comparing crime by criminals against criminals.:lol::lol:

So, you are saying criminals will start to target weak (Gomer/Maggoish) OC'ers.


[line]
:question::question::question::question:So those OC'ers should CC or Not Carry???


[line]
If they are such easy targets when they OC they are easier targets when they CC or NC.

[line]

Again, anyone can become a target for the criminal.
Your arguement doesn't say anything other than that,:lol:.

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Armed on armed was a lot more infrequent than armed on unarmed... for obvious reasons. Gunplay between individuals was much the result of arguement rather than robbery. Crimes agaist persons in the new west if 15 times that of the old west... for the simple reason that most people NOW are unarmed. The demographic of the bad guys are entirely different as well.



You're projecting scenario's upon OC'rsthat don't happen with any measurable frequency. Nothing is 100%... but BG bandits aren't really all that brave.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

Hmm, drive by shootings usually happen against people inside a house or another car, or even if it is against someone else armed on the sidewalk or whatever, it's a DRIVE BY shooting, they can DRIVE OFF REAL FAST when they are done or if people shoot back. To have an OCer robbed of his weapon on the street does not, and has not happened. Enough with the theoretical BS, cause your theory is flat out WRONG.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

arentol wrote:

snip.......
You will notice NOBODY has tried to dispute my argument, they merely (incorrectly) claim I am using a logical fallacy and then move on. This is because there is no disputing my argument, if nothing else logic tells us that if something can happen it will happen given enough time and opportunity, and as you increase opportunity you increase frequency. This is simple statistics.

"Simple statistics" does not meet the critera and therein lies the problem.

This is no different than the argument that X number of monkeys with X number of typewriters given enough time would eventually write the Great American Novel. Simple statistics - yes indeed.

Do I concede that someday an OCer will be relieved of his gun or preemptively taken out somewhere. Sure when the planets are properly aligned it will likely happen.

Beyond that we have argument for the sake of argument. Some say "never", I say eventually it statistically probably will, you say it assuredly will. And the point of all of this is....................?

When it does happen the resultant per centage ratio will the move from something like .0000001% to .00000015% or statistically insignificant.

Lets move on - I am.

Yata hey

 

[arentol]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

arentol wrote:

snip.......
You will notice NOBODY has tried to dispute my argument, they merely (incorrectly) claim I am using a logical fallacy and then move on. This is because there is no disputing my argument, if nothing else logic tells us that if something can happen it will happen given enough time and opportunity, and as you increase opportunity you increase frequency. This is simple statistics.

"Simple statistics" does not meet the critera and therein lies the problem.

This is no different than the argument that X number of monkeys with X number of typewriters given enough time would eventually write the Great American Novel. Simple statistics - yes indeed.

Do I concede that someday an OCer will be relieved of his gun or preemptively taken out somewhere. Sure when the planets are properly aligned it will likely happen.

Beyond that we have argument for the sake of argument. Some say "never", I say eventually it statistically probably will, you say it assuredly will. And the point of all of this is....................?

When it does happen the resultant per centage ratio will the move from something like .0000001% to .00000015% or statistically insignificant.

Lets move on - I am.

Yata hey

Does an increase in OC'ers as a percentage of the population increase the odds of one of these attacks happening or not?

If you say yes, then you are basically agreeing with my original point.

If you say no, then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Chose one and lets move on.

 

[Grapeshot]

imported post

arentol wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

arentol wrote:

snip.......
You will notice NOBODY has tried to dispute my argument, they merely (incorrectly) claim I am using a logical fallacy and then move on. This is because there is no disputing my argument, if nothing else logic tells us that if something can happen it will happen given enough time and opportunity, and as you increase opportunity you increase frequency. This is simple statistics.

"Simple statistics" does not meet the critera and therein lies the problem.

This is no different than the argument that X number of monkeys with X number of typewriters given enough time would eventually write the Great American Novel. Simple statistics - yes indeed.

Do I concede that someday an OCer will be relieved of his gun or preemptively taken out somewhere. Sure when the planets are properly aligned it will likely happen.

Beyond that we have argument for the sake of argument. Some say "never", I say eventually it statistically probably will, you say it assuredly will. And the point of all of this is....................?

When it does happen the resultant per centage ratio will the move from something like .0000001% to .00000015% or statistically insignificant.

Lets move on - I am.

Yata hey

Does an increase in OC'ers as a percentage of the population increase the odds of one of these attacks happening or not?

If you say yes, then you are basically agreeing with my original point.

If you say no, then there is no point in discussing this with you.

Chose one and lets move on.

If it allows you to sleep better - yes.

I do not accept the application that statistically insignificant numbers have any negative bearing on the decision to OC or not - it is an exercise in improbability rather than probability - an exercise with no beneficial goal.

Yata hey

 

[arentol]

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

I do not accept the application that statistically insignificant numbers have any negative bearing on the decision to OC or not

I never said they did. As a matter of fact I specifically said EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.

I said repeatedly that the odds are still so horrible so it is definitely NOT a reason to not OC.

Other than that I said that increase in OC numbers increases odds on a slightly more than 1 per person added. Big FREAKING WHOOP. It is not a big deal, and it is probably true. Who cares, still horrible odds as I said repeatedly.

 

[OC/CC 9mm]

imported post

My 2 cents

 

[Dustin]

imported post

OC/CC 9mm wrote:

My 2 cents

Did you make that?

If it were grammatically correct we might be able to understand it. :uhoh:

 

[Statesman]

imported post

abearir wrote:

I've CC for years and just reciently started to OC. Reason being, I'm tired of law abiding gunowners being looked upon as some sort of demon or second class citizen. I think we need to start "coming out" so to speak and being in the face of those want to take our rights away while being mindful of our actions and attitudes. We don't just need to be louder then the anti's we need to be better.

My $.02, YMMV

+1

 

[OC/CC 9mm]

imported post

My apology for the grammar and stuff, but the point I tried to make with the map was that, people who wants to have gun to harm others will have the gun in any case in any state.

*My shooting is not bad as my English... although I am still proud of both *

:dude:

 

[Sonora Rebel]

imported post

Criminals... armed criminals... don't care what laws there are... that's why they're criminals. Somehow this minor detail escapes all the politicians... liberals... sheep and other assorted useful idiots. The cops usually know who the local BG's are... andfor a BG to open carry would be an invitation to arrest. BG's don't usually wear holstersor own holsters. The 'Red map' is absolutely correct. But... it's a pretty sad state of affairs where a citizen is forbidden free exercise of an 'inalienable right' by the very government that is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution created by that government for 'THE PEOPLE'. Yeah... that annoying bunch that the Schumers's , Bloomberg's, Pelosi's 'n Chief Flynn's believe themselves to be the masters and sole arbitrators of.

 

[ace1001]

imported post

OC for the element of surprise. The surprise a bad guy gets when he sees the holstered sidearm causing him to turn around and leave without an incident ever taking place.


Even bigger suprise is when they notice the EMPTY holster, realizing that the gun is already in hand and has been for a while.:what:

 

[ace1001]

imported post

I am NOT saying such robbery will be commonplace. I am saying simply that if enough people carry then we WILL start getting the VERY rare reports of an OC'er being robbed of his gun and money.

Who decides who the elite person who can defend himself is going to be? Unless you have done something to prove you AREN'T competent, you should have all the rights of a citizen. If enough people carry, armed robbery will become very rare indeed.:celebrateAce

 

[arentol]

imported post

ace1001 wrote:

I am NOT saying such robbery will be commonplace. I am saying simply that if enough people carry then we WILL start getting the VERY rare reports of an OC'er being robbed of his gun and money.

Who decides who the elite person who can defend himself is going to be? Unless you have done something to prove you AREN'T competent, you should have all the rights of a citizen. If enough people carry, armed robbery will become very rare indeed.:celebrateAce

Not sure what your point is here with the unattributed quote that doesn't include the section of my post that you seem to be talking about. However, I will address it as I understand it....

I never said anything about "elite persons", or about restricting open carry to such individuals, or about restricting firearms in ANY WAY. I simply was trying to say that right NOW OC'ers TEND to be fairly competent and have good situational awareness, but that if and when more people OC that will increase the percentage of OC'ers that do NOT have these traits. Criminals will then also lose a LITTLE of their fear of OC'ers because right now there is a big shock-value to OC'ing that would decrease greatly if even 2% of the population OC'ed. I then stated that these two factors would combine to increase the chance of an OC'er being robbed of his/her gun at a rate faster than the actual percentage increase in OC'ers would indicate.

Nothing more, nothing less. I did not say people shouldn't OC, I think most of them should. As a matter of fact, I will stand up for the right of any non-criminal who is mentally competent to OC, even if I personally think they are likely to end up killing themselves or someone else because they are careless or under prepared for the dangers of carrying a weapon. I have no idea where you got the idea that I was advocate limiting the right, I am advocating what should exist now, free and open carry for anyone who isn't a felon or mentally unstable. I was merely making a point about a specific weakness of a specific argument for OC, a weakness that is not a big deal in the long run, but which is a genuine and valid weakness.

I also agree that if enough people carry, open or concealed, armed robbery will be very rare. I personally believe that SCOTUS should find an opportunity to make it clear that the 2nd amendment applies to all states AND that at a minimum it makes OC completely legal at virtually all times and in virtually all places. Preferably CC, SBS's and most AOW's as well.

 

[ace1001]

imported post

Then we agree on everything except that the quality of OCers will decline with increasing numbers. It is like saying that the performance of 3rd graders will decline as the population increases....not directly related. We THINK we are better than the ones who come after, but the more familiar they become, the better they will be, with better training and experience. They stand on our shoulders. Ace

 

[arentol]

imported post

I can live with that ace. It is all just supposition on both our parts anyway, so there is no point in arguing it to death. It will be what it will be.

 

[Hellbilly]

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

VAopencarry wrote:

Colt Mark IV wrote:

All valid points. I only CC. Have not oc'd yet, but will when good weather comes. The main reason I mostly CC is for the element of surprise.

The 'element of surprise' is an offensive tactic, not defensive. Lawfully carried firearms are for defensive purposes.

Exactly how do you plan on surprising the bad guy when he has a gun stuck in your face and his finger on the trigger?

You nailed it! :celebrate

No he didn`t , :celebrate

Criminals look for those they do not think will fight back and are an easy target. Finding out you have the means and the willingness to fight is a big surprise.

OC may make the criminal move on or the criminal might want your expensive firearm for his collection. ???? I wouldn`t count on only the sight of a firearm to stop anyone that is determined.