I think he made some valid points, but when he refutes the downsides of OC, he does so with only a narrow and certain viewpoint. For example, he claims that if he was Open Carrying in a 7-11 and a robber came in, the robber would just abort the robbery because he
knew the cops would more actively pursue him if he shot the man carrying, than if he just robbed the store. He also offers other highly structured and one dimensional scenarios for the other reasons OC objectors cite.
I can tell you that if I were a criminal looking to rob joe blow walking down an alleyway, and I saw that he was armed, instead of just walking up with my piece of re-bar and demanding money, I would just crack him in the head first, then take the gun, and any money he had, and use that to further my crime spree. I can also tell you that if I was a career criminal and about to rob a 7-11 and I saw a person with a gun on their hip, my first reaction would be "COP!" and if I was in a 3 strikes state, you better believe that I'd shoot them.
The critical flaw in his arguments is he doesn't give the violent, or drug addled criminal a wide enough berth. while its true many criminals are cowardly and will shy away from a confrontation where they have no advantage, others due to agressiveness, or altered state of mind (drugs, mental illness, whatever) will not, or will possibly be even more inclined to pursue a confrontation.
s on a later day and upon seeing me stand and drop my hammer tie; they did a rapid retreat amid whistles and clapping from the other fishermen.
