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

[Punisher84]

Thank you for taking the time to post those links. Several of them I had already found myself prior to starting this, and reading through the others, I am not seeing any reference to actual cases supporting the position. Did you find source data in there? If so, can you point to it? What I did see was several stating the same frustration with there being no evidence presented. I also see several links to supporting data against the position that OC makes you a target, however that's not what this thread is about so I decided early on not to clutter the thread up with that data.

I posted those in response to this...

Excellent. So you can point to any threads where this topic has been discussed?

I don't think anything different has ever been said. That was my point. Honestly, at this point, I imagine even if someone on the CC side of this debate found proof they probably wouldn't share it just out of spite for the insane circle jerk circus these threads are becoming.

[DRM]

My point is even with facts that it HAS happened or COULD happen there are arguments that make sense on both sides of the issue

It is becoming clear some of you have trouble understanding the difference in a request for facts, and a discussion based on opinions. A thread requesting facts does not seek to answer anything, it simply requests facts. Those facts can then be discussed (preferably elsewhere) and formulated into opinions.

Do you really not understand the difference? Why do you keep talking about opinions, when I asked about facts?

[DRM]

I don't think anything different has ever been said. That was my point. Honestly, at this point, I imagine even if someone on the CC side of this debate found proof they probably wouldn't share it just out of spite for the insane circle jerk circus these threads are becoming.

Again, you show your inability to understand what "the topic" is. See, I posted what he topic is (a request for facts), and you decided you wanted to talk about another topic (opinions).

These threads become "circle jerks" when people like you fail to adhere to the topic (a request for facts) and instead ramble on about another topic (opinions).

I hate to be blunt - but this thread would stop being a "circle jerk" the moment some of you learn the difference and either post facts, or stop posting to this thread.

[Guest RevScottie]

The OP simply asked if there is any factual proof that OC makes you a more likely target and no one can provide even one proven example of this happening. I find it funny that one of the links posted as supposed "proof" had this to say:

"Does open carry make you a target for some thug to attempt a gun grab? These are all important questions and the debate cannot be addressed on this page."

So how is that link even relevant to the question at hand?

A middle school girl on her debate team would absolutely destroy most people on this forum in a debate because she would understand the difference between factual based evidence and opinion.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

I typed "does open carry make you a target" in Google and got...

The "Open carry makes you a target" argument?

Has open carry ever made you a target?

Open Carry: Yes or No? | Gun Digest - The World's Foremost Gun Information Authority

Open carry (good or bad) - TheFiringLine Forums

And here's a couple from TGO!

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/28512-open-carry-story.html

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/8505-open-carry-bad-idea.html

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/45479-open-carry-opinions.html

Now I think several of these fit the bill. What say you all?

Well, I looked at the first 2 links you posted and they are just arguments with no specific instances other than the bogus Milwaukee story.

So once again it is obvious people are not understanding the topic of the thread and the OP's question.

I would encourage everyone posting to please read the title of this thread again and read the first post.

Once again, what is being requested is not links to arguments on the opinion but actual, factual stories of where someone was targeted because they were OCing.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Punisher84]

You know what I give. I understand the topic, I really do. I also understand the point of the thread and it's not a fact finding mission. It's an exercise in patting yourself on the back to feel good about your choice mode of carrying your firearm. You're not going to get the "facts" you're looking for and you damn well know it, because they don't exist in the manner you would like them to. If they did you'd have found them in one quick search. You guys can get all hung up on that word "facts" all day, but the point most of us have been trying to hammer in your heads is that "facts" can be dismissed to formulate or keep your own OPINIONS. I know you can't accept that, that's fine.

The truly hilarious thing about this is that I'm not even saying you guys are wrong for open carrying. Hell, I do it from time to time. I just don't understand the obsession with these debates. 9 vs 45, glock vs 1911, OC vs CC, for ****'s sake why can't we just focus on important **** like shooting and carrying the god damn gun? Why does it always have to be "**** YOU I'M RIGHT!!!" It's mind numbing. It's like children talking.

In the words of Rooster Cogburn "I BOW OUT!"

[JayC]

Wow, yet another open carry debate... Here is my personal take on the subject...

The reason this keeps popping up, is that anytime somebody mentions open carry somebody else comes along and says it's not safe because of reason X (normally that you'll be the first person targeted by criminals)... And open carry folks take offense to this generalization.

How about we all agree on these simple facts:

1. Where legal, carry a gun for self protection.

2. When practical, carry it concealed.

3. It's better to OC than to go unarmed.

Frankly, I think we can all agree on those 3 statements, and stop arguing about this.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

Wow, yet another open carry debate..

No, this is not an open carry debate, although some people seem to keep making it one misunderstanding the original post.

It's so funny how many opinions and assumptions are in this thread. I don't open carry, I never have. I don't know if the OP does or not. All I know is I'd like the question answered myself. I've heard the argument time and time again with no fact to substantiate it.

So far we have gotten nowhere because people seem to want to avoid the question and inject their own opinions and assumptions, including knowing the thoughts and intentions of the people wanting the question answered!

[JayC]

No, this is not an open carry debate, although some people seem to keep making it one misunderstanding the original post.

It's so funny how many opinions and assumptions are in this thread. I don't open carry, I never have. I don't know if the OP does or not. All I know is I'd like the question answered myself. I've heard the argument time and time again with no fact to substantiate it.

So far we have gotten nowhere because people seem to want to avoid the question and inject their own opinions and assumptions, including knowing the thoughts and intentions of the people wanting the question answered!

There is little data on civilian carry to begin with... and even less on OC vs CC data... There just isn't enough information publicly available either way. My gut tells me that the concern is way over blown, and the risks to being unarmed far out weight OC.

But, whether the intent of this was to become a debate or not is mute, it's turned into one

[DRM]

You know what I give. I understand the topic, I really do. I also understand the point of the thread and it's not a fact finding mission. It's an exercise in patting yourself on the back to feel good about your choice mode of carrying your firearm.

I know I shouldn't let you suck me further down your path of nonsense, but here's how I daily carry:

That's my P3AT (in my 99 cent Blackberry holster project).

[Punisher84]

I know I shouldn't let you suck me further down your path of nonsense, but here's how I daily carry:

That's my P3AT (in my 99 cent Blackberry holster project).

Now I'm just confused. So you don't OC, at least normally, but you cared enough about it to start a thread and engage in it spiritedly because...?

As far as nonsense goes, I may not have adhered to what you wanted for your thread but can you really say that myself, and others, haven't made valid points?

[Guest Red5]

But, whether the intent of this was to become a debate or not is mute, it's turned into one

After 59 posts, I'd say nothing about this thread is mute. Moot on the other hand..........

[DRM]

Now I'm just confused. So you don't OC, at least normally, but you cared enough about it to start a thread and engage in it spiritedly because...?

<<sigh>> Because the search for truth and knowledge is independent of my particular wants, needs, or desires?

As far as nonsense goes, I may not have adhered to what you wanted for your thread but can you really say that myself, and others, haven't made valid points?

What you did was take it upon yourself to flub up this thread because you lacked the ability to understand the topic, and STILL seem unable to understand the topic because you now want a pat on the back for injecting "valid points" where none were requested or wanted.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

Now I'm just confused. So you don't OC, at least normally, but you cared enough about it to start a thread and engage in it spiritedly because...?

Yet you just read mind and assume he has an OC agenda...

As I pointed out, I don't open carry either. I never have. Probably never will. I have my reasons and those are my opinions.

But I like facts. I'm a facts type guy. I try to think based on logic and facts not emotions and opinions. That is why I am interested in the same thing the OP is. Facts on actual events where someone was targeted specially as a result of OC

As far as nonsense goes, I may not have adhered to what you wanted for your thread but can you really say that myself, and others, haven't made valid points?

No, you've turned this into another ugly OC vs CC debate.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

OC is pretty rare. Heck, I only see someone OC once every few years....and I associate with "gun people". Doing a search for that data isn't going to be very fruitful.

If one wanted to find some comparable data, it might be beneficial to look for stories on strong-arm bank or jewelry store robberies where armed guards were present. They are going to represent a similar risk to a bg as a OCer.

[Punisher84]

Because the search for truth and knowledge is independent of my particular wants, needs, or desires?

What you did was take it upon yourself to flub up this thread because you lacked the ability to understand the topic, and STILL seem unable to understand the topic because you now want a pat on the back for injecting "valid points" where none were requested or wanted.

More like you were seeking to stir **** up. I never asked for a pat on the back. I simply stated that you can't refute anything that's been said.

You don't get to start a thread like this and control what people say. You've been here for 3 years and you really thought you would post this and get no debate? Please. Sell that crap somewhere else.

[Punisher84]

Yet you just read mind and assume he has an OC agenda...

As I pointed out, I don't open carry either. I never have. Probably never will. I have my reasons and those are my opinions.

But I like facts. I'm a facts type guy. I try to think based on logic and facts not emotions and opinions. That is why I am interested in the same thing the OP is. Facts on actual events where someone was targeted specially as a result of OC

No, you've turned this into another ugly OC vs CC debate.

You remind me of the short kid that followed the red headed bully around in A Christmas Story. You've added exactly zip to this thread except echo DRM constantly. I answered your request for threads where this has been brought up so now why don't you let the grown ups talk if you don't have anything else to add besides basically quoting DRM?

[RobertNashville]

Then kindly stop replying to it, since you are unable to understand it's purpose. Thanks!

I understand its stated purpose quite well...the purpose is, in my opinion, irrelevant.

Thank you for the advice but I'll reply or not reply to the threads as I decide to do so.

Edited February 8, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

You have trouble with simple tasks, don't you?

Common sense told me that the first post I made to this thread made my intentions and request pretty clear, yet you seem unable to understand that... Perhaps -you and Robert could exercise some "common sense" and simply avoid the thread if you have nothing of substance to add to what was requested? Just a thought...

And you seem to have a real problem with not insulting people when they don't play by your rules.

Edited February 8, 2011 by RobertNashville

[timcalhoun]

Like others have alluded to- If you want exacting specific examples of legally armed citizens OCing and getting bested because of it, you will be hard pressed to find it. Mostly because the majority of states require CC only, and the ones that allow OC, the vast majority of folks there CC anyway. Then you compound that with the fact the an insanely small percentage of legally armed citizens are even involved in such things.......well, it's no wonder it's hard to find.

But if you break it down to the basic principle of "know entity VS an unknown entity". Then there is so much empirical data it's overwhelming.

If you go to the pages of ODMP (officers down memorial page) you will see that time and time again when officers were bested in a gun battle, it was because they walked into something where they didn't know where the weapon was or if there was a weapon at all. Many times there was no reason for the cop to suspect a weapon and then it's too late.

When I fly, I know there are armed air Marshals on the plane, but I can't tell you where they are. They CC for the same reason most do, because it is a proven and sound tactical advantage. I know it would be a great help to terrorist if they were in uniform.

A sniper can keep a whole platoon pinned down not because of his superior firepower or numbers, but because they don't know where he is and therefore it's very hard to defend or even know what to do.

So you have to choose to ignore the entirely sound principle and ask for a near impossible examples in hopes of justification???? Why?????

I do believe that OCing has the potential of preventing the crime of a petty criminal robbing say a Mapco or something. However, I fail to see how OCing would ever prevent a highly motivated, hardened criminal that actually has the cojones to pull the trigger, ever do so.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

More like you were seeking to stir ****

Again, more mind reading and assuming.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

You remind me of the short kid that followed the red headed bully around in A Christmas Story. You've added exactly zip to this thread except echo DRM constantly. I answered your request for threads where this has been brought up so now why don't you let the grown ups talk if you don't have anything else to add besides basically quoting DRM?

I thought you said you were bowing out of this thread?

I never asked for threads where this was brought up. I asked for threads where this was brought up and had factual answers. Again, your comprehension is poor.

[RobertNashville]

Thank you for taking the time to post those links. Several of them I had already found myself prior to starting this, and reading through the others, I am not seeing any reference to actual cases supporting the position. Did you find source data in there? If so, can you point to it? What I did see was several stating the same frustration with there being no evidence presented. I also see several links to supporting data against the position that OC makes you a target, however that's not what this thread is about so I decided early on not to clutter the thread up with that data.

It would seem that you've confused an internet forum with the Encyclopedia Britannica or a Harvard Research Study.

Edited February 8, 2011 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

Like others have alluded to- If you want exacting specific examples of legally armed citizens OCing and getting bested because of it, you will be hard pressed to find it. Mostly because the majority of states require CC only, and the ones that allow OC, the vast majority of folks there CC anyway. Then you compound that with the fact the an insanely small percentage of legally armed citizens are even involved in such things.......well, it's no wonder it's hard to find.

But if you break it down to the basic principle of "know entity VS an unknown entity". Then there is so much empirical data it's overwhelming.

If you go to the pages of ODMP (officers down memorial page) you will see that time and time again when officers were bested in a gun battle, it was because they walked into something where they didn't know where the weapon was or if there was a weapon at all. Many times there was no reason for the cop to suspect a weapon and then it's too late.

When I fly, I know there are armed air Marshals on the plane, but I can't tell you where they are. They CC for the same reason most do, because it is a proven and sound tactical advantage. I know it would be a great help to terrorist if they were in uniform.

A sniper can keep a whole platoon pinned down not because of his superior firepower or numbers, but because they don't know where he is and therefore it's very hard to defend or even know what to do.

So you have to choose to ignore the entirely sound principle and ask for a near impossible examples in hopes of justification???? Why?????

I do believe that OCing has the potential of preventing the crime of a petty criminal robbing say a Mapco or something. However, I fail to see how OCing would ever prevent a highly motivated, hardened criminal that actually has the cojones to pull the trigger, ever do so.

I think that's up to each of us to figure out, probably without the use of hard facts

[RobertNashville]

No, this is not an open carry debate, although some people seem to keep making it one misunderstanding the original post.

It's so funny how many opinions and assumptions are in this thread. I don't open carry, I never have. I don't know if the OP does or not. All I know is I'd like the question answered myself. I've heard the argument time and time again with no fact to substantiate it.

So far we have gotten nowhere because people seem to want to avoid the question and inject their own opinions and assumptions, including knowing the thoughts and intentions of the people wanting the question answered!

No one is "misunderstanding" the OP's "stated" reason for the thread; it's simply that...

1. Some of us here may not believe his "stated" reason because of his prior posts in other threads on the subject...I'm suspecting he just likes to argue on the internet.

2. Even if his "stated" purpose is true and his intentions pure, I consider the question irrelevant.

3. Even if his "sated" purpose is true and hit intentions pure, an internet forum is stupid place to look for FACTS or SOURCE DATA.

4. Even if his "sated" purpose is true and hit intentions pure, this is an internet forum...a forum that the OP doesn't own or control. Therefore, it is not up to him (or you) to try an dictate who/how/if/when people will respond to him.

And for the record...

CC is BETTER than OC

1911s are better than Glocks or any other pistol design

PCs are better than MACs

Coke is better than Pepsi OR Dr. Pepper, and

Oswald DID act alone

Edited February 8, 2011 by RobertNashville