teknoid said:
I have never heard of this happening. If anyone else has, I'd be interested in a link. I see people post this possibility constantly. You'd think that if this was common, there would be a story somewhere.
Aren't you a member at opencarry.org ? Because I know for a fact that an instance of a person being assaulted and their open carry firearm being stolen has been posted there repeatedly. As far as it's being common, I don't think anyone's made that claim. Since OC isn't exactly common, it's not very reasonable to think that anything involving OC would be common either.
BlackBearMe said:
OK. So, in the first sentence you say that concaled carry alone is insufficient to act as a deterrent. Later, however, you say that concealed carry, with or without open carry, will make the bad guys reduce their assaults. You say that the deterrent effect of CC is contingent upon potential bad guys realizing that people could be armed. Without OC, however, how are people going to realize this? Just seems contradictory to me.
How do criminals know about CC? Perhaps because when CC laws are passed they are trumpeted on the front page of newspapers and decried on the evening news?
Perhaps because criminals keep abreast of developments that could render them dead?
Let's not insult each others' intelligence here.
Werewolf said:
Fallacy first: A mugger/robber isn't intent on robbing a particular person.
Unless they're after his firearm or some other highly desirable item the victim is known to have. This can happen and HAS happened.
Werewolf said:
Which is exactly why the apparently unarmed victim would be chosen over the obviously armed victim.
Except that gun stores are robbed in spite of the fact that gun store employees are almost invariably armed--usually openly. Likewise armored cars, banks with armed security guards, etc.
Werewolf said:
Again muggers and robbers aren't interested in that.
Some aren't. Some obviously don't care. The idea that a displayed firearm is a deterrent to crime is generally but definitely not
universally true.
Werewolf said:
I've never heard of anyone OC'ng that's been mugged - doesn't mean it hasn't happened but if it has in the last 50 years or so I'd be darned surprised.
Openly carrying people are assaulted all the time--they're called police officers. Second, there is at least one documented case (no, I don't have more, I can't spend all my time searching the web--besides there aren't likely to be many--there simply aren't that many non-LEOs OC'ing in the U.S.) of a non-LEO who was OC'ing being assaulted and having his weapon stolen. Ask one of the many opencarry.org members posting on this thread for the link.
Pennysplinker said:
How many bad guys are robbing gun shops with the people in them? How many are taking on armored car guards, robbing police stations, etc? NONE. Or at least, very very few. Usually the stupidest of the lot too.
Gun shops are robbed. Armored cars are robbed. I suppose if there were a lot of cash at police stations they would be robbed too. As far as the IQ of the criminals who target armed persons, you may be right. But as far as I can see it's a small comfort to know that the person who attacked you is an idiot.
Desertscout said:
The difference here is that a couple of folks here don't seem to support my right as I have clearly supported theirs.
Well, I DO. I think OC should be legal everywhere. That doesn't mean I would take advantage of it except in unusual circumstances, and it definitely doesn't mean I believe it's the best option in terms of practicality or tacticality, but I DO think it should be legal.
HOWEVER, I do get a bit cranky when the OC'ers start pulling the "if you don't OC or don't constantly and
vigorously campaign for the expansion of OC rights, you're a constitution hater" gambit. It also ticks me off just a bit that most OC'ers refuse to understand or acknowledge that OC, even where legal, is not treated uniformly. And that not everyone can afford to be arrested in order to make a point. (Yes, I know, that means those folks aren't patriots--if they were they'd go ahead and risk arrest even if arrest brings the possibility losing their job and depriving their family of their primary means of income as well as their healthcare benefits, etc. No, I'm not just being melodramatic, people have been arrested for legally OC'ing, and certain types of employers are VERY picky about what happens to their employees.)
Yet, everyone gets bogged down in the question of where open carry stands relative to our right to bear arms -- which still doesn't answer the question, is it practical?
That's because one of the primary strategies of OC "pushers" is to try to shame those who don't
fully agree or
fully cooperate with them by implying they aren't patriotic enough or don't believe in freedom enough. Which is my primary heartburn with these types of discussions. It's not enough to state that you believe it should be legal, if you won't agree to "join up" and be an aggressive OC pusher or OC practicer then you're just another one of the sheeple. Think I'm exaggerating? A comment I made on TFL was used on an open carry forum (that I'm not a member of) as evidence that I was basically anti-OC in spite of the fact that the text they quoted from my post included a sentence, UNDERLINED, no less, that said: "For what it's worth,
I think open carry should be legal. It's just not an option I would choose to exercise"
Can OC be a positive influence for gun rights? Yes, in some cases.
Can it be a negative influence for gun rights? Yes, that's also a possibility.
Can it be done with impunity? Surely, in some cases.
Does it render the OC'er immune from crime? No.
Is it a better tactical option than CC? Perhaps sometimes but not usually.
Is it an EASIER option than CC? Probably nearly always.
Can it target the OC'er for crime--it has at least once.
Can it target the OC'er for LE harassment or arrest even where legal?
Sure can.