FRom wrxguyusa:
That [Kirkwood city hall shooting] 's certainly not a common motive of crime, but the action of a derranged person.
Yep!
It also implies that he will be killing the unarmed people next.
Which was in fact demonstrated.
So which is better, armed and dead first or unarmed and dead second?
I'm not proposing being unarmed at all. I'm simply pointing out that if someone is going to shoot people, he will most certainly take out the obvious threats first.
Now, if one were armed but not advertising oneself as a clear threat to a killer, and an armed man started shooting, one would at least have a chance. The perp's attention would not have been drawn to that person first.
To me that is simple common sense. The man with the gun in view must be taken out first for the assault to proceed. People carrying concealed among the others do not stand out, and they stand a chance.
Also, a couple of people could relatively easily attack from behind in a crowd situation, and the man with the visible side-arm is again the obvious target, not only because he has to be neutralized, but because the extra gun would be a nice prize.
Off duty police almost always carry concealed, and one reason is to give them a chance. When they are in uniform the carry openly because their presence helps enforce the law--which is their job. A fair number of them die each year in the performance of that job.
Civilians, on the other hand, have neither the duty, the same authority, the shield of indemnity, nor the training to do that job. They have the right to protect themselves, and I think in most cases they are likely safer doing so in effective anonymity, unnoticed.
Now, I will grant you that an alert citizen carrying openly probably would be safer against a man in the shadows with a box cutter at an ATM or in a car jacking situation, which may be somewhat more common than the gun-armed felon...provided, that is, that the perp is capable of reason. People who know tell me that many meth people are not dissuaded by much of anything short of a bullet.
Upon reflection, if I had the right to carry openly, I might consider doing so in certain situations at night at ATMs or service stations that are not well illuminated or well trafficked--but not at soccer games!
And as I said before, if a large number of people were carrying openly (and that will never be acceptable in some of our cultures) there would be no single threat to put out of action first, the criminal wouldn't stand a chance, and there wouldn't be any crime at all. Elmer Keith said that long ago.
I think we've gotten off track, but your excellent points deserved consideration.
The primary risks that the woman in PA assumed were those of attracting unwanted attention and causing an outcry, and both outcomes were in fact realized, as incompetent as the actions of the LEO turned out to be.