Man OCing Robbed of His Gun

[cce1302]

would the robbers have passed him up if he was not OCing? I seriously doubt it.

Did this guy's lack of situational awareness have anything to do with OC/CC?

 

[kingnereli]

ROTFLMAO, yeah. That was it.

May be he needed a more intimidating gun. He needed a serrated I-pod to play a track of slide racking 870s. May be he could glue one of those surveys to his back that have never ever shown a single person singled out because bad guys so him carrying and bluffed him out of his weapon with some plumbing supplies.

Can't you admit that the outcome may have been drastically different if he had noticed the two guys coming his way at any point before the "metal object" came into play? It is easy to mock situational awareness. I don't see the humor in what I said. I see the common sense.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[public servant]

would the robbers have passed him up if he was not OCing? I seriously doubt it.

It would depend on if he was targeted for only his gun. I'm not sure. But it's possible. Stolen guns are a big commodity on the street.

 

[Field King]

If he was so oblivious that he was unaware of two people coming up behind him until they touched the back of his head then it really doesn't matter if he was OCing or CCing. He could be robbed by someone with a brick.

They OBVIOUSLY seen the gun and were after it, all of the "he could have been?" does not matter, it very likely would not have happened had he concealed carry, even so if they would have robbed him with brick and he was not totally knocked out he would have had his CC piece for defense!

 

[AuntieBellum]

If the thugs start figuring out that more and more non-cops are walking around with $400-$900 objects on their hips, don't be surprised if we hear more of these stories. Just a sign of the times if you ask me.

Phew - my gun was only $350, so I should be safe!

 

[dburkhead]

Nobody's situational awareness is 100%, all the time. That's one problem I have with OC. People get so comfortable with it, and seem to think that it's some sort of magic talisman against evil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criminals do not think like normal people. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. A deterrent to you and I may be a challenge to them....especially if they are being influenced by drugs or mental illness.

When I argued against external safeties on carry guns, you said something along the lines of nobody being 100%, and an external safety can help prevent an ND when someone's attention slips. Could it not reasonably be argued that nobody's situational awareness is 100%, and thus an openly carried pistol may be much more subject to a gun grab than a concealed one?

Everything you just said above also applies to CC. CC is no more of a "magic talisman."

Do you argue that places with armed security are wasting their money? After all, criminals do not think like normal people so armed security may not be a deterrent but a challenge. Note that this same reductio ad absurdam also works if you replace "armed security" with "police." The biggest benefit both armed security and police forces have is deterrence. A place with armed security is simply less likely to be attacked than an otherwise identical place without it. Places with active, reasonably honest, reasonably effective police (most if not all of the US) tend to have less crime than places without (a great deal of the rest of the world).

Virtually everything I've read in criminology and the like indicates that criminals tend to pick softer targets.

Do exceptions happen? Sure. Nothing is ever 100%. Sometimes it will happen that a persons situation awareness will fail at just the time that somebody will decide that getting that guy's gun is worth the risk of making a mistake and getting shot by the gun instead. And sometimes it will happen that a person who CC's will end up in a situation that's either over before he knows it has begun (CC proponents can fail SA too) or where he's just not able to get the gun out in time to save his own life.

As I think I alluded to uptopic, if you search through enough auto accidents I'm quite certain you would find some cases where a person was killed because they were wearing a seat belt, or lived because they didn't. But those are the aberrations, the "outliers" (in data analysis terms)

Recommendations should not be made based on those kinds of "outliers" however. They should be based on what the overall pattern of data suggests. And from everything I've seen, risk does deter criminals. The "risk" could be the risk of a police officer turning the corner while they're in the middle of the crime, the risk of capture and incarceration after the crime, or the risk that the putative victim is armed and may turn the tables on the victim.

Concealed carry can be a significant part of that. Concealed carry "spreads the risk" in that the criminals don't know who might or might not be armed so even people who don't carry benefit from the increased risk to criminals.

Open carry can be another part of that. In this case it's more "local." If a person is open carrying, the criminals know that this individual is an open target. However the only way in which it "spreads the risk" is simply as a visible reminder that people do carry guns and maybe the next one will be concealing rather than carrying openly. But that's likely only a small effect. The most likely effect is simply to announce to observers that this individual is a harder target than someone not armed.

Of course "harder target" does not mean impervious. Nobody has claimed it does. Likewise, deterrence doesn't mean 100%, every time all the time. Nobody has claimed it does.

And the fact that after the number of times OC proponents like me have asked for evidence that the various warnings that CC only proponents have made--"you'll be targeted first in a crime," "you'll be targeted by someone wanting to steal your gun," etc.--actually happen and this is the first time someone's actually provided a case is pretty telling in and of itself.

I believe I've said before that I was pretty sure that they had happened on occasion, but that I also thought they were pretty rare, rare enough that they could be ignored in much the say way people ignore all sorts of risks daily. I also believe that the flip side--deterrence--is more significant than those risks but I don't really have any hard numbers to back it up. That's why I have no beef with anyone who decides they think the relative risks run the other way and decide to CC because of it.

The only people I have a beef with on this subject are the "their way is the only way" crowd whose attitude toward those who choose to OC is that it is "stupid" or "wrong" or whatever other term they use to mean the same things.

My own view is more relaxed. I'd like to see more responsible, law abiding citizens OC more often. I neither ask for nor expect that everyone OC all the time. If someone wants to CC all the time and never OC, I'm cool with that. Now, if someone offers reasons why they think people should CC instead of OC and I disagree with those reasons I will express my disagreement--with the reasons, not with their decision--and explain why I disagree with those reasons. This is a discussion board. We're here to discuss, even if we <gasp> disagree.

When, however, folk suggest that I am "wrong" or "stupid" for coming to different conclusions than they do on something (and here I'm speaking in general terms, not saying that you have done any of this) for which the "hard evidence" is as nebulous as it is here, or when someone misrepresents my position and continues to do so after repeated corrections, well I get a little more forceful in my arguments. What can I say? I'm only human.

 

[TopDog]

Approximately 24 hours into this thread and its only 7 pages?
Really I expected more. This is almost as good as the if you train you don't need one in the chamber thread.

 

[kingnereli]

I do not OC. I have never OC'd off of my property. I didnt even know OC was legal until a few months ago. I have been carrying for 14 years. I am not against OC. I believe that there may be time and a place for it. Walking down the street is not one of those times. I've seen alot of 20/20 hindsight in this thread.... "I'm aware".... "I'm careful"....... I'm not saying its not possible that another person would not have seen this assult and robbery of a weapon coming, but really. We all may think we're John Wayne, Rambo, Segal, Tony Danza....... C'mon this A&R probably happened in seconds. They'd have got you too. I'm not trying to tick anyone off, but those that have said "that would not happen to me", know in the back of your head that it could have. We can train all we want, be as paranoid as we want, double layer our tinfoil hats, but none of us are invincible. To pretend we are is as foolish as the two that robbed the OC'er.

The BS is associating situational awareness with a trumped up movie action hero persona. (Tony Danza?) So, you're walking down the street at 4:00 in the morning, a time when there a generally few people out. You are carrying a firearm indicating you intentions to to provide yourself with means defend yourself. Yet, you are walking around so aloof as to allow someone to get close enough to touch you without even knowing it. In this case, a lack of situational awareness was at least as responsible for what happened as the known presence of a firearm in his possession.

 

[kingnereli]

Nobody's situational awareness is 100%, all the time. That's one problem I have with OC. People get so comfortable with it, and seem to think that it's some sort of magic talisman against evil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criminals do not think like normal people. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. A deterrent to you and I may be a challenge to them....especially if they are being influenced by drugs or mental illness.

When I argued against external safeties on carry guns, you said something along the lines of nobody being 100%, and an external safety can help prevent an ND when someone's attention slips. Could it not reasonably be argued that nobody's situational awareness is 100%, and thus an openly carried pistol may be much more subject to a gun grab than a concealed one?

I can concede your points that no one's SA is 100% all the time, people can easily become complacent out of familiarity with OC and that it is possible that an exposed pistol can be a contributing factor in a robbery. I really can't add to what dburkhead said, only reiterate. It's all about how we role the dice. As a CCer, you are placing your bet on the furtiveness of shielding your self defense tool from view in the hopes of being able to have more control of a situation where you would need it use it. Ocers simply gamble on the notion that criminals will prefer an easier target. If I were absolutely sure of the overall effectiveness of the deterrent angle I would not also carry a concealed gun as I do.

As far as SA, I think the guy in the OP was quite removed from 100%. As impossible as undeviating 100% SA is there is no excuse to ever be running on empty. I try to add a special level of vigilance in this area knowing what may happen if lax awareness combines with a criminals desire to relieve me of my possessions. That's why I have stressed the point so much in this thread as well as do everything I can short of the spin walking that has been mentioned.

I only take exception to an argument that doesn't acknowledge that OC has merit. If you, or anyone, looks at the evidence and contemplates all possible outcomes and chooses CC exclusively I am fine with that. I only object when someone claims there are no other viable conclusion and therefore asserts that an OCers motives are necessarily a desire for attention.

 

[1032JBT]

I will go on record to say that OC'ing has merit in certain places. I understand that and have OC'ed, but only while on the clock. When off duty I prefer to CC and for what it's worth I spent a year in a plain clothes unit and CC'ed on duty and loved that when I was doing it. I just prefer to CC.

My only issue is that most of the people I run into, and just through what is posted here, a lot of the OC'ers do it for the attention it gains them. It is that mindset I have a problem with. Yes there are those that don't do it for this reason and I have no issue with that.

 

[Jay]

HOW one carries is up to that particular individual. There isn't any RIGHT, or WRONG....

The trump is the mental condition of the person who is carrying. Nothing is 100%, but if you're gonna be responsible enough to carry, you gotta be aware enough to know that you are being approached from the rear. Nope, no mirrors on eyeglasses, no partner across the street, no ninja tactics, no keyboard heroics............ just common sense...... it's not rocket science....... really, it isn't........ even an Ostrich can get it's tail-feathers plucked if it's head is buried in the sand

 

[Jack Ryan]

Can't you admit that the outcome may have been drastically different if he had noticed the two guys coming his way at any point before the "metal object" came into play? It is easy to mock situational awareness. I don't see the humor in what I said. I see the common sense.

Sure it might have been different "IF", if this if that, if horses were wishes then beggers would ride.

If a lot of things, I don't deal much in ifs until the "next time".

Now how about a few of you guys with the spider senses and eyes in the back of your head step in to the real world. LOL. That's what is funny. Half laughing at kids and half laughing at what it was like to be one of them. ROTFL.

 

[cce1302]

This is a discussion board. We're here to discuss, even if we <gasp> disagree.

Rep added for the entire post, but I'm stealing this for my signature.

 

[cce1302]

I will go on record to say that OC'ing has merit in certain places. I understand that and have OC'ed, but only while on the clock. When off duty I prefer to CC and for what it's worth I spent a year in a plain clothes unit and CC'ed on duty and loved that when I was doing it. I just prefer to CC.

My only issue is that most of the people I run into, and just through what is posted here, a lot of the OC'ers do it for the attention it gains them. It is that mindset I have a problem with. Yes there are those that don't do it for this reason and I have no issue with that.

Did you ever think that it is not always for the attention it gains someone personally, but for the attention it gains firearm owners collectively? I don't need to open carry for personal attention. I have the three cutest kids ever, so if I want attention, I take them out in public. I always get comments on how cute they are, how well behaved, etc. 80% of the time when I'm open carrying, I have the kids with me. I'd rather people see me open carrying, and think of an average guy with three cute kids (ages 1, 3, and 4) instead of the crap spewed by rappers, muggers, newspapers, TV, etc.

 

[1032JBT]

Did you ever think that it is not always for the attention it gains someone personally, but for the attention it gains firearm owners collectively? I don't need to open carry for personal attention. I have the three cutest kids ever, so if I want attention, I take them out in public. I always get comments on how cute they are, how well behaved, etc. 80% of the time when I'm open carrying, I have the kids with me. I'd rather people see me open carrying, and think of an average guy with three cute kids (ages 1, 3, and 4) instead of the crap spewed by rappers, muggers, newspapers, TV, etc.

See the last line in my last post that you quoted.....I said there are people that don't do it for personal attention, just that most of the ones that I RUN INTO and a lot of stuff posted here on INGO. Like I said, if someone OC's becaue that is what they are comfortable with and/or feel it gives them a tactical advantage then that's fine. It's the people that self admittedly do it for the attention and "shock factor" that I have issue with.

 

[cce1302]

good point. I missed that part.

 

[roscott]

Here's some food for thought (and a feeble attempt at curbing any degenerative OC vs. CC posts):

If you were in the same situation, and you realized that someone was attempting to remove your gun, what would you do?

Would a reaction of lethal force (by you) be warranted?

Curious as to your thoughts. . . .

If someone puts a cold metal object to the back of my head and demands my property, I definitely consider THAT as warranting lethal force!

 

[groovatron]

IMO...If you are going to OC, you must CC another pistol. This story shows a situation where this could have been necessary. Even a knife would be helpful. Whether this guy had bad spidee sense or not, he was robbed specifiaclly for his open carried pistol. For all the OCers out there, this should be enough indication that CCing a backup is imperative. If we are supposed to train for every situation possible, I think that this could be added to the list. You may think to yourself..."I would have done this", or "That wouldn't have happened to me." Well guess what folks, it could happen to anyone.

 

[ihateiraq]

If someone puts a cold metal object to the back of my head and demands my property, I definitely consider THAT as warranting lethal force!

i definitely consider that a good reason to hand over my property.