Request for examples of "Open carry victim is targeted first"

[Punisher84]

are you in the scouts

Not anymore. Too big for the uniform!

[DRM]

Punisher84, I was under the impression these sub forums were for discussing the specific issues described in the forum headings. Out of respect for the forum's atmosphere, I've tried to adhere to those guidelines.

If you want to play internet tough guy, feel free to start a thread in the O/T forum and we can carry on there. I can guarantee I've been at this game longer and sparred with more competent verbal opponents that you seem to be able to present, so give it your best shot

[mikegideon]

Punisher84, I was under the impression these sub forums were for discussing the specific issues described in the forum headings. Out of respect for the forum's atmosphere, I've tried to adhere to those guidelines.

If you want to play internet tough guy, feel free to start a thread in the O/T forum and we can carry on there. I can guarantee I've been at this game longer and sparred with more competent verbal opponents that you seem to be able to present, so give it your best shot

Isn't it a little late to take it somewhere else?

[DRM]

Isn't it a little late to take it somewhere else?

Like I said, I was trying to abide by the playground rules as I understood them. Evidently I didn't get the memo

[Punisher84]

Punisher84, I was under the impression these sub forums were for discussing the specific issues described in the forum headings. Out of respect for the forum's atmosphere, I've tried to adhere to those guidelines.

If you want to play internet tough guy, feel free to start a thread in the O/T forum and we can carry on there. I can guarantee I've been at this game longer and sparred with more competent verbal opponents that you seem to be able to present, so give it your best shot

Aww that's cute. You're flexing. Calm down guy it's gonna be OK. No one is challenging your alpha male status. Hard as it may be to grasp for you, I tried to participate in this thread. As did others, but you chose to disregard anything and everything that didn't fit your mold because you wanted to argue. Anyone that's posted here in the last couple weeks can see that's what you want to do, especially on this topic. No one is trying to play tough guy with you here. Like I said earlier, if you don't like what I have to say simply click my name, and then click "add to ignore list". Then you can go about your trolling without having to worry about big old mean me or my "verbal sparring skills".

[Chucktshoes]

I've been thinking about a parallel to this - not quite the same, but very similar - what about armed guards in banks. There are plenty of those who have been targeted first thing in a robbery. Seems like it should apply should it not?

Since everything that is actually on topic in this thread is conjecture because the data to support either side simply doesn't exist I am going to throw my 2 cents in at this point.

I don't think it is quite the same for the same reason attacks targeting LE is different. The uniform changes the dynamics of the interaction. The uniform makes a guard highly visible as a point of possible defense and therefore a priority target. An openly carried sidearm, though obviosly more visible than a concealed one, isn't as big of an identifier as a uniform.

This is point is purely conjecture, but I think the deterrant level of an OC'd gun likely has more to do with level of professionalism of the criminal. An experienced professional will be able to quickly take note of details like OC civilians and guards, assess the situation and take proper steps to mitigate those risk factors. An ametuer may not notice or may not take the proper steps and decrease their chances of success while increasing the likelyhood of any armed defense. Or if he does notice, may abort if he decides the risk is too great. I would imagine there is safety in numbers though, I wouldn't want to be the lone guy with a gun if I could avoid it.

Once again it is all a guessing game because the data simply isn't there to support any theory.

As far as the back and forth in this thread, while I do side with DRM in principle, I can admit to there being a couple of documented cases of an OCer being targeted. However, 1 or 2 anecdotal instances does not make for conclusive or even hard data. Ultimately, this is one of those subjects decided for each person on emotion more than anything else.

Sent from my MB511 using Tapatalk

[DRM]

Aww that's cute. You're flexing. Calm down guy it's gonna be OK. No one is challenging your alpha male status. Hard as it may be to grasp for you, I tried to participate in this thread. As did others, but you chose to disregard anything and everything that didn't fit your mold because you wanted to argue. Anyone that's posted here in the last couple weeks can see that's what you want to do, especially on this topic. No one is trying to play tough guy with you here. Like I said earlier, if you don't like what I have to say simply click my name, and then click "add to ignore list". Then you can go about your trolling without having to worry about big old mean me or my "verbal sparring skills".

You sure do think you've got it all figure out, don't you?

I've already figured you out - you're one of those people who posts and posts and doesn't have anything of substance to say. As for putting you on ignore - no thanks. I ain't going anywhere, and your lack of substance and immaturity becomes more evident every time you follow me around and reply. Keep it coming, Mr. security guard!

[Punisher84]

You sure do think you've got it all figure out, don't you?

I've already figured you out - you're one of those people who posts and posts and doesn't have anything of substance to say. As for putting you on ignore - no thanks. I ain't going anywhere, and your lack of substance and immaturity becomes more evident every time you follow me around and reply. Keep it coming, Mr. security guard!

LMAO I love when people resort to that like it offends me. What exactly do you do every day that's so much more glorious? Since you've got "No" checked by LE and Military I'm going to assume not much. Your post and the little popcorn icon just goes another step further to prove my point that you want to stir up trouble. As far as substance goes I'm sure there are more than a few people here who can vouch that, in a debate worth it's merit, I have plenty of substance. On the "immaturity" quote, well I guess I'll just take that as a jab at age since that's the pot calling the kettle black. I knew alot of kids in grade school who whined when they didn't get the answers they liked too.

Anyhow, out of respect for Macgyver, and only for Macgyver, I'm gonna bow out. This thread is as useless as the poster of it and I think I've engaged you long enough for anyone who stumbles across this now to think what they will about either of us. Good day sir and best of luck doing whatever it is you do at your place of employment.

[RobertNashville]

...I've already figured you out - you're one of those people who posts and posts and doesn't have anything of substance to say.

There you go again...maybe you need to just put all your mirrors in the closet.

[RobertNashville]

If you truly wanted an answer to your "alleged" honest question (rather then simply wanting answers that fit your agenda and/or that you could argue about) you would go out and do the research rather than sitting on your ass and trying to get a small group of people (this forum) to do the work for you.

There are likely volumes upon volumes of local, state and federal crime statistics that you could research. Of, if you couldn't find the answer there then go out and conduct your own, REAL research - maybe you could write a book when you are done.

There are good, logical, tactical reasons for carrying concealed and not letting a potential attacker know beyond doubt that you are armed...anyone with an ounce of working gray matter can figure that out even if there isn't a single instance of ANYONE being targeted first by a bad guy because the bad guy saw his weapon.

Some people disagree and say that making your weapon visible will make you less likely to be a target...that may be true if the bad guy is just some punk looking for an easy grab and run at a convenience store; they may well just go somewhere else. However, that line of reasoning probably doesn't work if the bad guy is actually several bad guys who have for weeks been planning a major robbery and will do their crime whether you are there or not and will if THEY have an ounce of working gray matter, immediately take out any thread they see (including YOU with a visible firearm).

So...if you really want to know, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH then come back and enlighten all us mean posters that haven't played by your rules.

I suspect, however, that you just want to sit here and argue.

Edited February 24, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DRM]

As far as the back and forth in this thread, while I do side with DRM in principle, I can admit to there being a couple of documented cases of an OCer being targeted. However, 1 or 2 anecdotal instances does not make for conclusive or even hard data. Ultimately, this is one of those subjects decided for each person on emotion more than anything else.

I think that is a fair assessment. My main gripe is in discussions about this, it seems the anti-OC side act as if it is a foregone conclusion that their position is correct, which it clearly is not. It is - as you say - more of an emotional position than a factual one.

[timcalhoun]

Here is an idea!!

Let's arm all the CC and OC guys with airsofts. Then we go at it as we live our daily lives and lets see who wins.

Let us see if OCing is not a huge disadvantage for them.

[RobertNashville]

I think that is a fair assessment. My main gripe is in discussions about this, it seems the anti-OC side act as if it is a foregone conclusion that their position is correct, which it clearly is not. It is - as you say - more of an emotional position than a factual one.

The only thing clear here is that you are obsessed with the subject of open carry (this is like the third or fourth thread you've either started or have been a major player in in just that past few weeks). The only real emotion being displayed here is coming form you through attacks on anyone who doesn't respond to you in ways that you demand and/or that don't support your likely already formed opinions about open carry.

You claim to want "data" instead of opinion while concurrently making wild-ass, baseless assumptions about what is "clear" and who is "against" open carry.

I can't help but wonder what "facts" you have to support the position that open carrying does not make one a "first target" in an altercation? Understand that I DEMAND facts...not opinion and certainly not some emotional argument about how great open carry is and you must respond in only the way I want or I'll get wine about it and call you names.

ROTFLMAO

Edited February 24, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

I think that is a fair assessment. My main gripe is in discussions about this, it seems the anti-OC side act as if it is a foregone conclusion that their position is correct, which it clearly is not. It is - as you say - more of an emotional position than a factual one.

I think that is a fair assessment. My main gripe is in discussions about this, it seems the anti-OC side act as if it is a foregone conclusion that their position is correct, which it clearly is not. It is - as you say - more of an emotional position than a factual one.

DRM,

Please don't confuse my post as being supportive of you in this debate. Though I am in the pro-OC camp, your debate style in this thread definitely would not qualify for a chapter in "How to win friends and influence people". You set yourself up for failure in you OP where you asked for "just one" instance of someone being targeted because of OC. When what you asked for is given, you dismiss it because it doesn't meet the some arbitrary standard not given in the original post. Is the mind of the majority of those debating you already made up on the subject, yep. But so is yours and you refuse to even acknowledge anything that doesn't support your position as a legitimate response. It is a style that is strangely familiar to me and some others.

BTW, not everyone you were debating is anti-OC, some just felt the need to call shenanigans on your responses to others in this thread.

You claim to want "data" instead of opinion while concurrently making wild-ass, baseless assumptions about what is "clear" and who is "against" open carry.

ROTFLMAO

This.

[Fallguy]

I skipped several post....

But for the record...I gave up trying to "mod" OC threads that get this off track a long time ago....

[mikegideon]

DRM,

It is a style that is strangely familiar to me and some others.

It sure is.

[DRM]

DRM,

Please don't confuse my post as being supportive of you in this debate.

I didn't confuse anything - I took your reply at face value.

Though I am in the pro-OC camp,

What is the pro-OC camp? I'm not in any such camp. I'm in the pro "people do whatever they want unless there are legitimate and valid reasons why they shouldn't" camp. What you pointed out earlier is the correct position - that there is not sufficient evidence to prove on way or the other, and in light of that the proper course of action is to let each man or woman decide for themselves, based on their own needs, desires, and situation.

Unfortunately, the real problem here are the CC people who are so militant about THEIR position being right, that they start making assumptions and presumptions any time someone disagrees with them... such as several here who assumed I am some kind of OC fanatic. As I already stated - I have OC'd a handful of times since I have had my permit, and really have no desire to accelerate that count any time soon. I looked at my carry needs, situation, and requirements and decided that pocket carry was the best option for me.

your debate style in this thread definitely would not qualify for a chapter in "How to win friends and influence people".

I have plenty of friends all across this country and several others - I'm not crying if a few mouthy internet posters don't want to come over and play kick ball with me any time soon

But at least I'm aware of how to debate the issue, instead of the low-brow approach many of the CC people take when they immediately skip to the personal attacks.

You set yourself up for failure in you OP where you asked for "just one" instance of someone being targeted because of OC

On that you are 100% correct... I did not clarify the OP as I should have.

When what you asked for is given, you dismiss it because it doesn't meet the some arbitrary standard not given in the original post.

Sorry, but this is a matter of opinion... I happen to disagree that what was given was what I asked for.

Is the mind of the majority of those debating you already made up on the subject, yep.

You don't say?

But so is yours

Really? What opinion is that, exactly?

and you refuse to even acknowledge anything that doesn't support your position as a legitimate response

This is incorrect. There was one example presented, to which I disagreed fell under the criteria of what I asked. Me disagreeing with it - and giving my reasoning - is not the same as your claim that I am dismissing *all* opposing views for simply being opposing views. There is a difference.

It is a style that is strangely familiar to me and some others.

As is the childish personal attack style several of the posters to this forum are so quick to jump to when they lack anything of substance to say.

BTW, not everyone you were debating is anti-OC,

I would think by now anyone paying attention would realize I'm well aware of the difference in how to discuss a position whether you hold that position or not... but I guess not.

It's pretty clear who the anti-OC people are... they are the ones who barged in telling everyone they already had this all figured out and why everyone else is wrong

Some just felt the need to call shenanigans on your responses to others in this thread.

I don't engage in shenanigans... I heard you can get STD's that way.

[DRM]

But for the record...I gave up trying to "mod" OC threads that get this off track a long time ago....

Mildy amusing that everyone around here knows these discussions drift off fairly quickly...

every - single - time

But somehow it's the "new guy's" fault, not the guys who participate in driving the thread off course...

every - single - time

[RobertNashville]

Mildy amusing that everyone around here knows these discussions drift off fairly quickly...

every - single - time

But somehow it's the "new guy's" fault, not the guys who participate in driving the thread off course...

every - single - time

I keep waiting for you say something remotely correct but I suppose I'll have to keep waiting.

By the way, you've been a member of the forum for three years...how are you the "new" guy here? What you really are is a

Also, claiming one has "plenty of friends" is like a vice president claiming he has an "open door policy"...if you have to claim it, you probably don't.

[DRM]

Also, claiming one has "plenty of friends" is like a vice president claiming he has an "open door policy"...if you have to claim it, you probably don't.

You just keep thinking that, Robert

[Erik88]

[strickj]

Is this thread serving a useful purpose anymore?

[Erik88]

no. It's entertaining though.

[mikegideon]

Still waiting for somebody to be targeted under the right conditions. Just killin' time until then

[RobertNashville]

Is this thread serving a useful purpose anymore?

Anymore? Are you implying that it ever did???