PAOLO721 said:
Are you implying that a person who is carrying concealed and is for example confronted by a BG with a knife who asks for his wallet, prompting the concealed carrier to instead produce his pistol, to which the BG lunges forward, instead of retreating and is then shot dead by the concealed carrier has somehow contributed to the demise of the BG by virtue of his choosing to carry concealed? The only person responsible for the BG's death in that example was the BG.
I am implying nothing, I said what I meant and it means what I said. I don’t want to ever have to shoot anyone. I don’t understand what you are inferring from such a simple statement, but it means what it means. I don’t want to shoot anyone. Right or wrong, justified fully or partially, I don’t want to shoot anyone. I will if I have to, without hesitation, shoot to stop anyone who threatens my life or the life of anyone who doesn’t have the means to resist. I consider life precious. I cannot undo death, I cannot recreate what the Creator has created. I’m not trying to assign blame, I’m saying what I believe most people would say if they were honest with themselves. Everything I’ve read about defensive shootings has the shooter wishing they could go back in time and somehow avoid the encounter. I’ve never read of anyone who was happy to have shot another, regardless of the justification.
The concealed carrier was neither legally nor morally responsible.
You’re making the same mistake many others do. It’s not an ‘all or nothing' issue and it’s not a ‘this vs that’ issue. It’s a personal preference. I am not against CC and do so myself at times. I prefer OC to CC for the reasons cited. Further, I made no such assertion that a CCier is any more responsible for the death or injury to a robber.
An armed carjacker will not know that you are carrying OC or CC until you exit your vehicle. In that case I would much prefer to be the CC victim.
You are making the false assumption that
all carjackings happen in situations where the victim is already in the car as opposed to getting into or out of their car; say in a parking lot or their own driveway. You cannot apply an absolute to a variable situation. In a carjacking where someone is already in their car, there are many other options they have to work with, like locking their doors as a habit, driving away, or fighting. The carry of a hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. All other things being equal, OC has a slight advantage of faster draw.
Men who open carry are robbed all the time, e.g. armored car couriers. Do not think that because you OC you are somehow immune.
Again, as above you are applying absolute reasoning to a variable situation. No matter what either one of us argues or how eloquently we argue it, someone can (and always will) come along with some isolated incident that they will claim disproves whatever your point was. I’m not an armored car driver. I’m not a bank guard. I’m a regular guy going out my regular business. For regular guys going about their regular business, it simply doesn’t happen. This has been argued for years and nobody has yet come up with even one authoritative citation that it has. Using the word ‘immune’ implies an absolute, which I do and have freely admitted is not my line of thinking. I acknowledge that it certainly is
possible that someone may target me to steal the firearm I’m carrying, but that I don’t consider it likely enough, in light of more immediate threats, to warrant changing.
Criminals do not always employ rational thought processes, which is one reason why many of them end up behind bars.
For things like crimes of passion, no. However, the mere fact that many criminals are criminaling for years before being caught would seem to belie that logic.
If as you say, he had "the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you." he would not be out there "playing the odds."
He plays the odds the same as you do; his odds are just different odds. Every time you get into your car you’re ‘playing the odds’ that you will arrive intact at your destination. Your ‘odds’ are far worse than his too, and yet you do it without hesitation. The robber values his life every bit as much as you do. He’s going to weigh his odds with more certainty than you do because his is a dangerous occupation. He will, the same as you, attempt to mitigate any risk present to ensure the desirable outcome. If that means moving on to an easier victim, he will do so. Likewise, you may get into your car to drive a mile to the store on a sunny summer day to buy a dozen eggs so you can bake a cake. You may decide it’s not so important in the middle of a snowstorm.
Replace the word "taunt" with attack and trust me somewhere in the world it is happening to someone, somewhere, as you read this.
Yes it is, but you’ve completely missed the point. I’m talking about surprise as a defensive tactic, which seems to exist only in the realm of concealed handgun carry. I’m discussing
time, or more specifically, the lack thereof. In the Bronson type scenarios, the street toughs surround the victim, taunt him or her, then move in for the kill; giving the victim plenty of time to react and draw a concealed firearm. It doesn’t happen that way very much anymore and that’s not the type of robbery I consider likely where I live. Despite the many positive effects, concealed carry has had one negative impact since it became common; the robber now has to consider that you might be armed. This means he’s going to get very close to you and will be on a hair trigger. If he suspects you’re going for a gun instead of a wallet, he’ll carve you up like a Thanksgiving Day turkey before you have the chance to draw. Even if you are complying. If I replace the word ‘taunt’ with the word ‘attack’, it’s too late for a concealed carry draw. If you’re being attacked, say with a knife, you can draw and shoot the attacker, but you’re still all cut up. Yay, you win (if you live). As I stated in the essay, I don’t want to ‘win’, I want to avoid the entire encounter.
Are you implying that no civilian or LEO has ever had their weapon taken away from them?
Emphasis added. Here again you’re trying to inappropriately apply an absolute. Your argument gets dishonest when you add “or LEO” to it. I’m not a LEO; that’s a entirely different risk set than for me going about my business (apples and oranges). Anything is
possible, but none of us can prepare for or be prepared for everything. Of course it’s possible that someone could take my gun from me, I would never try to use such an absolute argument because it would be inane to do so. However, like every other tactic you might wish to employ, you prioritize for the most likely first, not the least likely.
The same person who is disturbed by someone who is open carrying, is going to look at the concealed carry person and see just another person, not an armed person.
You missed the point again. Someone who has an emotionally based fear of firearms doesn’t differentiate between open carry and concealed carry. They’re disturbed by guns. They believe that somehow the gun determines the actions of the possessor, not the other way around. That misguided fear isn’t resolved by hiding your gun from them. Concealed firearms become unconcealed all the time. Which would cause more alarm in someone who is afraid of guns, me peaceably carrying my pistol openly, or you nervously re-concealing your inadvertently unconcealed pistol?
No it is not the only reason. IMO concealed carry is tactically superior…
You make this assertion, now back it up. Write an essay, write even a paragraph, how concealed carry is ‘tactically superior’ to open carry using reasoned and logical argument. It’s one thing to make a claim, and another thing entirely to be able to argue your claim is valid. That was my whole purpose for writing the essay. I can, like so many internet commandos, post something in a forum and then walk away, leaving the reader to wonder what my rational or thought process was the led me to make the statement in the first place. I wrote the essay to give my argument whey I prefer open carry, not to claim it is ‘superior’ for everyone in every situation, but why
I do it and why
I believe it is better for me.
…if you are intellectually honest about it you should admit that a good number of OC people do so for the express purpose of having people object to it.
This falls on its face of its own volition. None of us can infer motive from someone else’s actions, more so for people we’ve never even met. It also strikes me as duplicitous to use the anti-gunner’s favorite approach in a pro-gunner’s forum. The Brady folks use this argument often and every bit as foolishly. They make the assertion that people who carry concealed will settle minor traffic disputes through gunplay. They try to paint gun owners as Neanderthals who will shoot first and ask questions later. Obama made the same mistake in saying that people cling to guns, inferring their motive for owning them was a response to something else. I am intellectually honest. I know why, and stated in a dreadfully verbose essay, why I carry openly. I will not sit in judgment of someone else’s motives or attempt to use pejorative statements to bolster my case.
