The Open Carry Argument

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

2230 posts here, and you don't that subject just might have been previously discussed? Just sayin..

LOL!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Roadie again.

 

[danielson]

I wonder if any of the people who try to remove all the validity in the "element of surprise" argument in this thread, are part of the crowd trying to remove the validity of the test in this thread, by pointing out that the shooter knew who had the gun.....

Interesting, if so...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...332928-people-who-carry-live-dream-world.html

Personally, I think people need to stop calling it the element of surprise, it makes it sound malicious.

I think its more about keeping your firearm an option, not possibly making it the only path to take.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I wonder if any of the people who try to remove all the validity in the "element of surprise" argument in this thread, are part of the crowd trying to remove the validity of the test in this thread, by pointing out that the shooter knew who had the gun.....

Interesting, if so...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...332928-people-who-carry-live-dream-world.html

This thread didnt have anything to do with a test did it?

 

[ATM]

It wasn't just that the shooter knew who had the gun or where they would be seated every time, it's that his sole purpose was to target that one person so that the "test results" would feed the agenda they'd carefully (and ridiculously) designed it around.

The "report" reminded me of the old punk'd series, highly scripted, slightly comical but certainly not very realistic.

 

[danielson]

I just thought it would be ironic to see someone in THIS thread saying that allowing everyone around you to know you have a gun doesnt single you out, or give you any less of a chance if SHTF, and then in THAT thread, say that because the shooter knew he was the one with the gun, the test isnt valid.

Redirect, and flame away. Im gonna go to bed now.

JFC

 

[ATM]

I wouldn't see any irony or illogic in holding/defending both those positions simultaneously as they are only vaguely related if at all.

Comparing apples to oranges would be much closer.

 

[danielson]

Guy decides to OC, bad guy walks in, targets him first because he sees this guy is armed.
THAT scenario is met with IMMEDIATE and UNSWERVING resistance from a good portion of those who chose to participate in these kind of topics.

Guy walks in and targets the guy he has been told has the gun.
THIS scenario is said to be unfair because the shooter knew where the gun is....

If you wear your gun out in the open, its likely the shooter will know your armed. Thus making the two scenarios VERY much related. Maybe not red delicious to red delicious, but CERTAINLY red delicious to granny smith.

There is no ONE answer to the OC vs CC question, its a case by case deal, and only when we are gifted with hindsight, and we look back at what happened, can we decide for ourselves which would have been best for that situation.

My biggest beef in these threads is the amount of people on both sides who can not see the good in the method they chose not to partake in.
RARELY is one choice ALWAYS the best, and those who think it is are inconsiderate of alternatives.

BOTH sides have a portion of their proponents who are completely inconsiderate of the other sides' argument.

If you choose to OC you need to realize the possibility of being targeted first. ITS UNLIKELY FOR SURE, but its not as preposterous as some claim it to be. You also need to be prepared for the aftermath of panicked sheep with cell phones.

If you choose to CC, you need to realize that there may be times where being openly armed, might have stopped the badguy from choosing to strike. Also, you better train to draw and fire from concealment, because its a hell of a lot easier to have that gun right on your hip, with nothing in the way of getting to it.

There are upsides and downsides TO BOTH METHODS OF CARRY.

It just gets old to watch the same mindless droning on and on, by the same people who seem to be unable to open their minds just a bit, and see that nothing is black and white.

JFC

 

[Dead Duck]

Guy decides to OC, bad guy walks in, targets him first because he sees this guy is armed.
THAT scenario is met with IMMEDIATE and UNSWERVING resistance from a good portion of those who chose to participate in these kind of topics.

Guy walks in and targets the guy he has been told has the gun.
THIS scenario is said to be unfair because the shooter knew where the gun is....

If you wear your gun out in the open, its likely the shooter will know your armed. Thus making the two scenarios VERY much related. Maybe not red delicious to red delicious, but CERTAINLY red delicious to granny smith.

There is no ONE answer to the OC vs CC question, its a case by case deal, and only when we are gifted with hindsight, and we look back at what happened, can we decide for ourselves which would have been best for that situation.

My biggest beef in these threads is the amount of people on both sides who can not see the good in the method they chose not to partake in.
RARELY is one choice ALWAYS the best, and those who think it is are inconsiderate of alternatives.

BOTH sides have a portion of their proponents who are completely inconsiderate of the other sides' argument.

If you choose to OC you need to realize the possibility of being targeted first. ITS UNLIKELY FOR SURE, but its not as preposterous as some claim it to be. You also need to be prepared for the aftermath of panicked sheep with cell phones.

If you choose to CC, you need to realize that there may be times where being openly armed, might have stopped the badguy from choosing to strike. Also, you better train to draw and fire from concealment, because its a hell of a lot easier to have that gun right on your hip, with nothing in the way of getting to it.

There are upsides and downsides TO BOTH METHODS OF CARRY.

It just gets old to watch the same mindless droning on and on, by the same people who seem to be unable to open their minds just a bit, and see that nothing is black and white.

JFC

So I guess this means you're still not going to Open Carry.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Better chance of getting hit by lighting than getting shot first because you OC though.

 

[ATM]

Guy decides to OC, bad guy walks in, targets him first because he sees this guy is armed.
THAT scenario is met with IMMEDIATE and UNSWERVING resistance from a good portion of those who chose to participate in these kind of topics.

Yes.

Guy walks in and targets the guy he has been told has the gun.
THIS scenario is said to be unfair because the shooter knew where the gun is....

Unfair in the context of an "experiment" which had a clear agenda to "prove", simply unrealistic in the context of reality.

If you wear your gun out in the open, its likely the shooter will know your armed. Thus making the two scenarios VERY much related. Maybe not red delicious to red delicious, but CERTAINLY red delicious to granny smith.

Not even close. Merely knowing that someone is armed and opting to shoot them as the first act of a crime does not compare to being hired specifically to target such a person in a fabricated safe and legal exercise just to "prove" a point for a television crew and the cast of actors who are also in on the joke.

There is no ONE answer to the OC vs CC question, its a case by case deal, and only when we are gifted with hindsight, and we look back at what happened, can we decide for ourselves which would have been best for that situation...

Wise folks prefer to learn from the hindsight of others.

 

[CTS]

Better chance of getting hit by lighting than getting shot first because you OC though.

Well if that's your argument you might as well not even carry, because the odds are about as good that you'll ever need to use it in the first place regardless of your method of carry.

 

[ATM]

Well if that's your argument you might as well not even carry, because the odds are about as good that you'll ever need to use it in the first place regardless of your method of carry.

Violent crime rates are much higher than lightning strike rates.

It's violent crime rates instigated by open carry that are farther fetched.

 

[danielson]

There really is no point explaining things to people unable to be realistic.

I like how I am assumed to be a staunch CCer, because I have muttered words that aren't perfectly in line with the staunch OCer's narrative.

Life is a gamble, and to assume you know what is always best, and that it is the same thing every time, is ridiculous.

Theres good and bad to every choice we make in life.... How is this any different?

 

[protias]

There really is no point explaining things to people unable to be realistic.

I like how I am assumed to be a staunch CCer, because I have muttered words that aren't perfectly in line with the staunch OCer's narrative.

Life is a gamble, and to assume you know what is always best, and that it is the same thing every time, is ridiculous.

Theres good and bad to every choice we make in life.... How is this any different?

And how many times do OCer's get targeted compared to those who CC?

 

[danielson]

The first line of my last post has now been proven.

Im not your enemy, and Im not looking to fight with people I consider on my side, no matter how closed minded they are.

Why does everything have to be a debate about sides with conservatives? We are so quick to fight within ourselves, and at the same time, wonder why we cant seem to win elections.

As I said before, life isnt black and white.

JFC

 

[ATM]

There really is no point explaining things to people unable to be realistic...

If you are unwilling or unable to support your positions and opinions when they are questioned or refuted, what exactly keeps you coming back to this particular thread?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I never claimed either way was better, but the 1st one shot is just so absurd that it is laughable. The odds of getting shot are so very remote as well. I am 43 and never been close to being around a shooting

 

[protias]

The first line of my last post has now been proven as fact.

1) Your grammar in that sentence is poor, which makes your statement weak.
2) What fact did you prove? Do you have statistics or some kind of evidence to prove that "fact?"

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well if that's your argument you might as well not even carry, because the odds are about as good that you'll ever need to use it in the first place regardless of your method of carry.

I agree, the odds of any of us using our guns is very remote.

 

[danielson]

1) Your grammar in that sentence is poor, which makes your statement weak.
2) What fact did you prove? Do you have statistics or some kind of evidence to prove that "fact?"

Maybe you should look in the mirror.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

I am not your enemy, I would appreciate it if you would look beyond your childish need to lash out at that which causes you to evaluate your opinions. To do so, is actually healthy.