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

[Guest kirkosaurus]

...I'm suspecting he just likes to argue on the internet.

C'mon, no one likes to argue on the Internet.

[MacGyver]

Just a reminder to keep your discourse civil. There's no reason for anyone to insult anyone else over a simple difference of opinion. Insults not only detract from your argument, they may also detract from your membership here.

[Guest TheMikeLurie]

There is no data.

None that I could find. There isn't a single article or instance of an OC being specifically targeted because he was open carrying.

There are probably several reasons why that is the case... but I won't go into that because it is just my opinion and the OP already stated he doesn't want any opinion, just facts.

So the fact is that you won't be able to find any articles or links that discuss OC's being specifically targeted by bad guys.

In other news, I couldn't find any articles about the potential dangers of eating asbestos, shoving red hot pitchforks into your anus or bare-backing $3 dollar prostitutes every Thursday night for 50 years... If anybody can provide some links to those being actual dangers, I would greatly appreciate it. I would look myself, but I forgot how to use Google like the OP.

[mikegideon]

There is no data.

None that I could find. There isn't a single article or instance of an OC being specifically targeted because he was open carrying.

There are probably several reasons why that is the case... but I won't go into that because it is just my opinion and the OP already stated he doesn't want any opinion, just facts.

So the fact is that you won't be able to find any articles or links that discuss OC's being specifically targeted by bad guys.

In other news, I couldn't find any articles about the potential dangers of eating asbestos, shoving red hot pitchforks into your anus or bare-backing $3 dollar prostitutes every Thursday night for 50 years... If anybody can provide some links to those being actual dangers, I would greatly appreciate it. I would look myself, but I forgot how to use Google like the OP.

There IS at least one documented case on gerbils...

Armagedon Sound Clip and Quote

[DBTN]

I do not know about bad guys targeting an OC individual but the police will certainly target them and detain them untill they determine the person has a permit. I guess some people just crave the attention and police interaction.

[RobertNashville]

C'mon, no one likes to argue on the Internet.

No...absolutely not...no one likes to argue on the internet; most especially not on a forum dedicated to and populated by firearm enthusiasts.

[G27]

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?

It's equally clear that you don't realize that if al you want it facts, do your own research. It's simple enough to find factual data, discussion boards typically revolve around, err, discussions...

Have fun.

[DRM]

but I forgot how to use Google like the OP.

I am well aware of how to use Google, and google has been of no help in finding relevant info. If were able to use Google to find what was requested, you could always share, instead of simply being obtuse.

Not OC, but it seems this article does reference someone targeted for their gun collection: Thieves Beat Gilroy Man, Steal Up to $2M in Guns - KION - Monterey, Salinas, Santa Cruz - News Weather

[tnhawk]

The laws of TN give one a choice of how to carry, if they choose to carry. They have to make those decisions and live with the consequences.

[tnhawk]

The laws of TN give one a choice of how to carry, if they choose to carry. They have to make those decisions and live with the consequences.

[Fallguy]

I didn't read every post...

To the OP and others that may want to ask Open Carry questions on TGO....it really can't be done without starting a debate, no matter what you may put in your post. You may want to ask, "What holster do you use to OC?", "When you OC do you stay even more aware?" or just any OC topic....and 9 out of the first 10 responses are going to be why you shouldn't OC and/or that OC is bad.

The Anti-OC feelings here are a thousands time more strong than the anti-gun feelings any "Brady Bunch" member may have.

If you really want to ask OC questions I suggest OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum

Edited February 8, 2011 by Fallguy

[DRM]

The Anti-OC feeling here are a thousands time more strong than any anti-gun feeling and "Brady Bunch" member.

I noticed that

If you really want to ask OC questions I suggest OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum

I'm not a member there, and really don't want to join. Several of the threads I found in searching were from that forum, and they seemed to run up against a similar lack of evidence. Besides, what good is a response from a bunch of people who already prefer OC? At least here - with the majority anti-OC attitude - I *hoped* at least a few could provide data to support their position.

[RobertNashville]

....The Anti-OC feelings here are a thousands time more strong than the anti-gun feelings any "Brady Bunch" member may have.

I would suggest that you have that exactly backwards. It's been my experience that it is those who open carry who are far less accepting of those who carry concealed than the other way round.

There is a significant difference between choosing "not" to open carry vs. being "anti-open carry", I am the former, not the latter yet I've been verbally attacked/accused on this forum as being "anti" simply for stating why I chose to conceal.

I, and I suspect most who conceal carry, am/are perfectly content to let those who chose to open carry do so...it is those who open carry that seem to want to "convert" us "lost souls".

Edited February 8, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Fallguy]

I would suggest that you have that exactly backwards. It's been my experience that it is those who open carry who are far less accepting of those who carry concealed than the other way round.

I humbly disagree, however it could be as simple as we've had different experiences. At least I haven't seen that on this board or the OC board that I linked to.

There is a significant difference between choosing "not" to open carry vs. being "anti-open carry", I am the former, not the latter yet I've been verbally attacked/accused on this forum as being "anti" simply for stating why I chose to conceal.

I agree that there is a difference between Not OCing and being Anti-OC. My post wasn't directed toward any one person or about just this thread. I almost always CC, in fact have only OCed once or twice and wasn't that comfortable, but I feel those that want to should. I also feel those that want to ask questions related to it should be able to without having to defend it as their choice.

I, and I suspect most who conceal carry, am/are perfectly content to let those who chose to open carry do so...it is those who open carry that seem to want to "convert" us "lost souls".

Again...I have to humbly disagree...

[Guest kirkosaurus]

I didn't read every post...

To the OP and others that may want to ask Open Carry questions on TGO....it really can't be done without starting a debate, no matter what you may put in your post. You may want to ask, "What holster do you use to OC?", "When you OC do you stay even more aware?" or just any OC topic....and 9 out of the first 10 responses are going to be why you shouldn't OC and/or that OC is bad.

The Anti-OC feelings here are a thousands time more strong than the anti-gun feelings any "Brady Bunch" member may have.

Which is really sad. I'm disappointed in some of the people here. The guy asks a simple question and plainly says he doesn't want to debate the OC issue and he's attacked by the 3rd post.

[RobertNashville]

Which is really sad. I'm disappointed in some of the people here. The guy asks a simple question and plainly says he doesn't want to debate the OC issue and he's attacked by the 3rd post.

Attacked?

The fist post that had anything remotely negative to say about the thread was Post No. 4 when Punisher84 said...

Sigh. Hasn't this been covered to death? Just let it go already. Why is it so important to prove everyone wrong? It's an OPINION.

However, if that simple statement constitutes an attack by your definition then you might want to consider revising your definition of the word.

I took it as nothing more than one person expressing what many of us feel; that being that we are tired of the almost constant threads about Open Carry/Concealed Carry...yes, I realize that the OP says this one is to "gather facts" but even if that is the intent, many of use would like to see the entire subject given a rest for a while...expressing that desire isn't an attack; they are just a hope.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

I took it as nothing more than one person expressing what many of us feel; that being that we are tired of the almost constant threads about Open Carry/Concealed Carry..

And as it had been pointed out to you and others over, and over, and over, and over again in this thread this is not a debate about OC vs CC.

You and Punisher failed to comprehend the original post and jumped to that conclusion. And it's obvious you still don't get.

[RobertNashville]

And as it had been pointed out to you and others over, and over, and over, and over again in this thread this is not a debate about OC vs CC.

You and Punisher failed to comprehend the original post and jumped to that conclusion. And it's obvious you still don't get.

I know I didn't and I doubt that punisher "failed to comprehend" anything...I listed my thoughts on the purpose of the thread a few posts above - whether you agree with my "take" on the stated purpose or not it doesn't mean I didn't understand the OP's stated intent.

What , perhaps you don't comprehend is that punisher, myself and many others know that, "intent" not withstanding, these threads always go on for page after page and devolve into NOTHING constructive.

[Guest kirkosaurus]

What , perhaps you don't comprehend is that punisher, myself and many others know that, "intent" not withstanding, these threads always go on for page after page and devolve into NOTHING constructive.

Then why do you keep adding NOTHING to it?

[Fallguy]

What , perhaps you don't comprehend is that punisher, myself and many others know that, "intent" not withstanding, these threads always go on for page after page and devolve into NOTHING constructive.

But is that the fault of the person that simply asks a question or those that respond to it not with an answer to the question but with opinion as to why the question is silly and/or shouldn't have been asked in the first place?

[RobertNashville]

Then why do you keep adding NOTHING to it?

I don't know....maybe for the same reason as you???

It could be I just missed it but other that parroting DRM I haven't noticed any significant contribution from you either.

[RobertNashville]

But is that the fault of the person that simply asks a question or those that respond to it not with an answer to the question but with opinion as to why the question is silly and/or shouldn't have been asked in the first place?

Sure...the reasons why these threads turn out that way are obviously the fault of those that participate in the threads (including me). However, I wasn't trying to examine why they turn out that way or place blame; just making what I believe is an accurate observation of the usual outcome.

[Fallguy]

Sure...the reasons why these threads turn out that way are obviously the fault of those that participate in the threads (including me). However, I wasn't trying to examine why they turn out that way or place blame; just making what I believe is an accurate observation of the usual outcome.

Your observation to the outcome is more or less correct....but more or less for the reason I stated I believe...

[Guest TheMikeLurie]

I'm curious why the OP, if his intent was in fact to just gain information and specific examples of Open Carriers being targeted and not just to start another OC vs. CC thread to get a rise out of people, hasn't responded to or acknowledged the fact that there is no sample size for this data?

It's been mentioned 3 times in this thread, that the documented cases of gun carrying citizens (whether it be OC or CC) being targeted by bad guys is slim to none. Several people, including myself, have mentioned that you can't find this data anywhere. The OP already admitted that he couldn't find it on Google. I couldn't find it on Google... And anybody else who looks to Google will find the same lack of information as the OP and me. So I have to wonder what he expected to come from this thread? Did the OP honestly think there were people on this forum with first hand knowledge of being targeted by bad guys while open carrying? Or that any of us have a database of this information stored either in print or in our heads?

If the Op knew full well that none of this data existed on Google, because he looked and couldn't find it, then what did he expect to gain from starting yet another thread on this topic? The only thing the members of this community could do is go look at Google, the same way he did, and come up with nothing, just like he did. So he knew full well that this information didn't exist and brought the topic here for the sole purpose of getting into a debate with anti-OC people.

He more or less started this thread by asking for instances of OC carriers being targeted, and then put the burden of proof for this non-existant data on the anti-OC posters by stating that this is the most frequently cited reason for anti-OC'ers to not approve of open carry. He essentially said "this is why you don't think OC is a good idea, now prove it, but leave your opinions out of the debate). And it all goes back to the "opinion" that open carry leaves you susceptible to being targeted. You can't call people out for an opinion by telling them they need to provide facts that don't exist. If you want facts, then go find them yourself and come here and start a thread demonstrating how those facts apply to the discussion. Don't put the burden of proof on everybody else to show you examples of something that can not, and has not been documented.

How many airliners have crashed in the last 40 years when being flown by a pilot who has had more than 5 beers in his system? Well, we don't know. Because when the plane crashes, there is nothing left. Is there a chance that out of all the planes that have crashed in the last 40 years, at least one of those pilots was piss drunk? Sure, there's a chance. Will we ever know? No. Because his body was disintegrated upon impact. Is it a good idea to get into the cockpit of an American Airlines jet after consuming five or more beers? No. Why? I mean, there is no documented evidence that this has ever happened... but at some point, common sense comes into play. You might not be able to PROVE that drinking 5 beers before piloting a plane directly leads to crashes, but not a single one of us would get on that flight. The burden of proof, for someone wanting to disprove that theory, would be to find how many pilots have consumed 5 or more beers and landed successfully. Not for the people who are against flying drunk to point out how many planes have crashed under those circumstances. It's an absurd argument.

And common sense dictates that if a bad guy walks into an establishment with the intent of killing 20 people, he might just think about looking for the security guards and armed citizens to take out first... is there documented proof? No... but it makes sense. And so you have to introduce factors like logical reasoning and common sense. And yes, opinion too. Because this is a message forum and people come here with opinions and sometimes (not all the time) they have facts to back that opinion up. Assuming facts exist to back it up.

He claims he doesn't want opinion, and has said multiple times when people did offer opinion on the subject that they didn't understand the point of his thread... which, in my opinion is a passive aggressive attempt to start a heated debate (one that has raged multiple times already) while not committing to any opinions of his own.

I haven't been on this forum long and I don't know many of the posters very well, but it doesn't take a genius to see what this guy is doing. And frankly, I don't think anybody in this thread has been overly harsh to the guy, despite the fact that they have every reason to be.

There are a few things in this world that are certain. Taxes, death and message forum ass peanuts. I'm not saying this guy is one, and I'm not saying he's not. Look at his profile, read the other threads he has posted and decide for yourself. If it seems like he is combative and disagreeable in his other threads... then you make the call. If it quacks like a duck and it waddles like a duck... guess what.

[Guest Old goat]

I see a great Gieco commercial here, Can Gieco really save you 15% of car insurance? Is open carry to a cell block D reunion a bad idea?