CCW permit holder killed with own handgun

[Zoogster]

Ponder this: The very idea that citizens may be carrying concealed serves as a deterrent even if nobody chooses to exercise that right.

I have heard this plenty of times, and there is certainly a logic to it. However in reality I do not think it has an effect. These are typically short sighted opportunistic criminals, and thinking about what a tiny percentage of the population might do is not likely to deter them. Concealed carry is a statistic that is unseen, and unlikely to be noticed by those not looking up that statistic.

Concealed Carry also does little to promote gun rights, nobody gets familiar with being around guns, or must face the reality that there is guns around them every day. They retain anti-gun beliefs and spread them, 'safe' in their own perceived reality where guns in public are rare and a threat when present.
It benefits the individual carrying, but has no effect positive or negative on the views of society outside of those who are themselves carrying.

Open Carry on the other hand once it becomes accepted causes the population to be well aware of guns present on a regular basis which are posing no threat and are being used responsibly.
This makes it difficult to retain certain anti-gun beliefs faced with the reality of guns all around you on a regular basis.
People are confronted with their beliefs as they see guns being carried, until they no longer have an emotional reaction to seeing holstered guns.
A population accepting and used to open carry is also one where banning guns becomes quite difficult, and gun rights expand.
Arizona being a prime example, before Constitutional Carry where anyone could carry concealed or openly with no permit, they had open carry a normally observed thing (because it required no permit like concealed carry.)
This is quite likely what allowed the state to progress to Constitutional Carry.
Additionally Open Carry confronts news citizens like say California transplants with the reality regularly, so they can adjust gradually in small numbers as they move there rather than ban guns as a unified voice after relocating in great enough numbers.

Open Carry once generally accepted has a strong pro-gun effect on societal views, while Concealed Carry has nearly no effect. Although initially Open Carry can have a backlash anti-gun effect, once acceptably established the pro-gun effect is significant.
So while Concealed Carry may be preferred strategically, Open Carry should not be derided, it being a normal accepted thing benefits us all.

 

[Bobson]

. . . . while Concealed Carry may be preferred strategically, Open Carry should not be derided, it being a normal accepted thing benefits us all.

IMHO, both of these statements (separated by the bold, underlined comma) are irrefutably true. The only problem I have with it is an individual must choose between the two: Strategic benefit, or the potential eventual lawful enforcement (as opposed to the current denial) of our rights.

That being said, I think it's much more important to carry with strategic benefit as concern #1, and therefore, advocate that civilians exercise CC only. While beneficial in a different light (which you pointed out), it is my opinion that OC is never a better choice [than CC].

Frankly, I think the CC vs OC debate is pretty far off-topic in this thread, but since it's been debated for so many pages now and mods don't seem to agree with me, I figured I would board the train.

 

[billib]

My condolences to the victims of these crimes. Va is an open carry state, but I carrly concealed. May these perps suffer a death of a thousand years. They are the product of the "new deal", you shall reap what you sow.

 

[NavyLCDR]

For those that are wondering, NavyLCDR and family:

Scary, eh?

 

[NavyLCDR]

"Why would I give up my Constitutional right because some soccer mom was uneducated?" That I don't agree with. We everyday have our right to bear arms on the chopping block everyday. We as gun owners have a responsibility to be respectful at the same time as defending our right.

I have a CPL, BTW.

I don't like children around when I eat in a restaurant or fly on an airplane. Should people be respectful of me and not bring kids to restaurants or in an airplane near me?

I don't particularly care for very many perfumes or colognes. So should those around me refrain from wearing cologne or perfume and respect my wishes?

I don't like blue eye shadow. So, women who would normally wear blue eye shadow, should not wear it when I am around?

We can all go on and on about what annoys us, right? Last time I read the Constitution I don't believe I read in there the right to be comfortable with everyone around us all the time and in every place. If my gun, pictured above, makes someone uncomfortable, then why is it my responsibility to make them feel comfortable? Why can't they just go somewhere else, like I would if the perfume was too bad or the kids were too loud? Heck, I recently flew back from TN to WA, and the woman's perfume in front of me was so thick, I could hardly breath. I guess before the door was shut, I should have asked the airline to remove her from the plane, so I could be comfortable?

And.... for those that tremble at the mere sight of a photograph of a gun... how do we expect anyone to ever change their feelings if they never see an ordinary American going about ordinary American activities, with an ordinary American family - who just happens to wear a gun to protect them with? All those people are ever going to see of guns is the image that the Brady Bunch and the anti-gun media show them. They will never see the good side of firearms. I can tell you that I have had more positive comments and inquisitive questions about my gun then negative. And of the negative comments I have had, the majority of those have come from concealed carry only "pro-gun" people telling me I should cover it up.

 

[Bobson]

Now I miss Washington.

Thanks, Navy.

 

[gamestalker]

Wow, that really hits close to home for me. About 3 yrs. ago I was in my neighborhood convenience store standing in line waiting to pay for something, when this little gand banger thug that was standing several feet to my right grabbed hold of my S&W 66-5 and tried to unholster it. In one sweeping motion with my right elbow I came down on his wrist and broke his hold, and probably nearly his wrist.

It scared the living doo doo out of me. If he had, had any idea what he was doing, he may have very likely relieved of my firearm, and then who knows what may have followed. I like to think I'm one who is constantly aware of my surrounding, but I'll admit this little banger caught me off guard.

 

[danez71]

Last time I read the Constitution I don't believe I read in there the right to be comfortable with everyone around us all the time and in every place.
...
...
...
... how do we expect anyone to ever change their feelings if they never see an ordinary American going about ordinary American activities, with an ordinary American family - who just happens to wear a gun to protect them with?

If the enough people are annoyed.... the Constitution will be changed. Keep that in mind as well.

I do agree with the 2nd part. But that is a FAR CRY from large groups of people chanting while carrying firearms (refering to the CA protesters you lauded).


There is pros and cons to either and Navy has pointed out some of the pros to OC, but thats not to say that CC is any lessor.

 

[lobo9er]

I scared a guy running between cars a couple of weekends ago. He was just cutting through the rows and didn't expect to see me react so quickly to his approach. He deserved it. You never know what these idiots will try.

he deserved it? Deserved it why?

 

[danez71]

he deserved it? Deserved it why?

Because he was running/cutting through the cars in the parking lot.

Nevermind that he could have been chasing his dollar that fell or his little child that decided to play "make daddy chase me".

He deserved it!

 

[Strykervet]

I always use retention when open carrying. I just don't feel safe and comfortable otherwise.

 

[lemaymiami]

I read everything on this thread a second time.... once again, some talk about "retention holsters" no discussion of the necessary weapons retention training if you're going to carry a firearm (open carry or concealed). For what it's worth more than one of my firearms trainers could disarm any officer (even with the retention holsters we all were issued..) so quickly that few could react in time (much less properly before some serious training...). The ability to take a weapon from a retention holster (face to face, from the side or from the rear) wasn't hard to learn once you had the basics and it opened a few eyes.

The stat about officers killed with their own weapons never breaks down whether the weapon used was taken from the holster or from the officer's hands in a struggle. It also never mentions the nightmare scenario.... An assailant simply attacks without warning, then removes the weapon after the officer is down and out. We had one of those situations that I was on the scene of some years ago. A large, extremely fit officer who was just a bit over confident approached two young men in front of a large store where an alarm had sounded (the usual "false alarm"). He was so confident of his own skills that he approached them without waiting for a backup. As he was talking to one, the other maneuvered to his side, then attacked with fists knocking him to the ground. One of them took his weapon and was preparing to execute him when a middle aged couple walking their dog approached so they fled on foot with the officer's service weapon. For years afterward we occasionally got word that his weapon was still being "rented out" to guys needing a piece in a very bad area of town.

The officer learned a very hard lesson and later went on to become one of the best officer survival trainers we had.... Weapons retention is about more than just holding onto your gun if someone makes a try for it. It's also a whole mindset with the tactics to go along with it that allows you to finish a shift and go home to your family (every officer's number one job, in my opinion...).

 

[thorazine]

Reasons like this is why we need to carry CCW GRENADES!!

 

[91 whiskey]

Why the heck is there such a heated debate on OC versus CC? We're all basically on the same team here. I don't OC but who am I to tell somebody they shouldn't do it if they are legally able to? Quit the infighting and lets focus on the more important issues.

 

[Neverwinter]

Why the heck is there such a heated debate on OC versus CC? We're all basically on the same team here. I don't OC but who am I to tell somebody they shouldn't do it if they are legally able to? Quit the infighting and lets focus on the more important issues.

The conflict arises from people providing incorrect information and tortured logic in support of OC. See this post for an example.

 

[BLB68]

lemaymiami has the right of it: No level of retention holster, no level of fitness, no level of training, and no level of situational awareness will protect you if you're ambushed by someone who knows what they're doing and catches you buy surprise.

Regardless of how you're carrying, do you think you can respond to an attack if the first punch fractures your skull, orbit, or cheekbone? Have you ever taken a knee to the tailbone? Or given one? Knife to any number of areas? If you get hit hard enough, fast enough, and in the right spot, you are screwed for responding.

Fortunately, the odds or being ambushed by someone who can pull it off effectively are fairly small. The average thug mentality leans more toward bravado than stealth. But the threat still exists. Sometimes, regardless of how prepared you are, you find yourself on the short end of the stick.

IMO, my chances of surviving a serious ambush are higher if my weapon is concealed. There's at least a slim chance to deploy it before being relieved of it.

Does that outweigh the advantages that OC offers? I don't really know. I wouldn't presume to guess without looking at hard numbers that afaik don't exist. For now, I'm personally sticking with CC.

 

[BLB68]

Also, my condolences to the two killed mentioned in the article and their families.

My takeaway from that isn't that the guy necessarily screwed up royally, only that he didn't see a 16 year old kid as a threat, or seem to believe that he'd actually pull the trigger. It's an understandable attitude, but a good reminder not to underestimate anyone. If someone lays hands on us in violence, they should get a uniform response, regardless of how harmless they may appear. Any minor who lays hands on an adult they don't know is far removed from your average playground bully and should be treated as any adult attacker would be.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The conflict arises from people providing incorrect information and tortured logic in support of OC.

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.0/Gun-Facts-v6.0-screen.pdf

Page 12:

Fact: 60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.

Fact: Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.

Fact: A survey of felons revealed the following:
• 74% of felons agreed that, "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."
• 57% of felons polled agreed, "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Fact: 90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type.

Believe it or not, criminals do not relish the idea of getting shot. Given two potential victims, one known to have a gun and the other not appearing to have the gun, there is no reason for the criminal to attack the target that is known to have the capability to shoot them especially when 90% of the criminals have no firearm when they commit their crimes to begin with. Even most (not all) criminals know that you don't bring a knife to gun fight.

That's not tortured logic, that's just plain common sense. There is a minority of criminals out there - mostly gang types - who don't have any common sense. But they are still the minority of criminals.

If guns in general are not a deterrent to crime, then why did the crime rate go down in Washington D.C. after the gun ban was lifted? Why do areas with the strictiest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates? So, given that guns in general in the hands of law abiding citizens are a deterrent to crime, why would a concealed gun be more of a deterrent than a visible gun?

We aren't talking absolutes here, because there are no absolutes. Only odds. Odds are that a criminal is more likely to choose the target that appears weakest and easiest to them.

 

[Neverwinter]

If guns in general are not a deterrent to crime, then why did the crime rate go down in Washington D.C. after the gun ban was lifted? Why do areas with the strictiest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates? So, given that guns in general in the hands of law abiding citizens are a deterrent to crime, why would a concealed gun be more of a deterrent than a visible gun?

We aren't talking absolutes here, because there are no absolutes. Only odds. Odds are that a criminal is more likely to choose the target that appears weakest and easiest to them.

I take it that there is no rational response to the defective reasoning addressed in the post which was linked. This post repeats the same failed logic.

The linked post:

So let's look at this way. Why do car alarms have the red light that flashes on the instrument panel? Is it so a criminal walking down the street can pick the car that doesn't have the flashing light to break into because they are easier to not get caught?

Why do home alarm companies put signs in yards and on windows? Is it so the criminals can pick the houses that don't have alarms to break into because they are easier?

Why do cops wear uniforms and clearly display badges? Why aren't all cops undercover to catch criminals in the act?

When there is a big event, especially a "charged" event where the is a high expectation of trouble, do they put more uniformed security presence there? Why not just undercover cops there to apprehend the troublemakers once it starts?

Why do armored car companies drive clearly marked vehicles and have uniformed guards? Why don't they just drive plain white vans and vary their schedules with "undercover" guards?

All of these big companies must be incredibly stupid, right? They should all take advantage of the element of surprise, because their visible signs, lights, and security measures surely won't be a deterrent, right? Why don't they advantage of stealth, deception and surprise? Wouldn't that be more effective for them?

All of these examples are reminiscent of the logic that spurred the following comment:

So...if we (who have not studied the issue) can't explain why DC crime rates have fallen, it must be because of Heller? How did it get to be the default reason?

The absence of imagination in determining possible reasons for certain behavior is not a blank check to group them all solely under the purpose of deterrence. For example, the alarm signs serve as advertising for the company's services. With a little bit of thinking, alternative reasons for the above situations emerge.

 

[1911Tuner]

If he had, had any idea what he was doing, he may have very likely relieved of my firearm, and then who knows what may have followed.

If he'd have approached nonchalantly from behind and delivered a two-handed haymaker to the slide of your head with with a 2-liter drink or a wine bottle, you'd have been down...maybe with a broken neck or a closed head injury that woulda had you drooling and wearing a catheter and pullup underoos for the rest of your life...and he'd have had himself a nice revolver.

How'd that guy put it...

"One good smack upside the grape, and it's coloring books for Christmas, baby."

I don't open carry...ever...not even while walking my own property. The visible gun may serve as a deterrent for 99 out of a hundred...but there's always that one who will see it at as a challenge and a target of opportunity.

 

[george29]

I began carrying at age 17 in Arizona, probably illegally but I was never one to let laws get in the way of logic. I was a police officer for 10 years and also served in the military both active and active reserves for a good number of years where I was armed most of the time. I have many years experience of having my weapon exposed in different places in the world. When I retrurned to live in the USA full time I had to re-educate myself that I was no longer working in a pack with a pack mentality (police officers and soldiers are pack animals who have back up never too far away), I needed to reevaluate my lifestyle and I personally found that stealth was my best friend. My vehicles are the type driven by ordinary soccer moms (minivan, compact), my jobs are also low visibility (janitor, truck driver, carpet cleaner, etc). My weapons are also stealthy for it is NOT my job to deter crime or save someone else, this is the plain ugly truth. I exercized my right to legally carry concealed though my state allows OC w/o a license (NM).
I find NO advantages to showing every Tom, Dick & Harriet the contents of my wallet or whether I am armed. I don't strut like a Peacock though I do limp like Quazemoto but knowing that I always have 5 friends (.357's) with me allows me to go about my life as a person should, w/o fear of attack whilst doing normal activities within ones boundaries. I went to Albertson's last night after 11pm because I needed something to eat and I get out of work at 11pm. Without a method of SD I would have gone straight home, hungry! What does OC give you? With all the above experience listed I think I am qualified in some way to give a professional opinion.My opinion is that OC is absolutely wonderful for exercising our 2nd amendment rights, if you don't exercise a muscle it leads to atrophy of that muscle, so too with our constitutional rights. Does OC deter a determined criminal, not a chance, it will make that criminal change his/her tactics which may include not attacking the OCer, but how would you know that you've been cased ? Will it make the criminal wait for you to leave or will it make the criminal attack you (the OCer) from behind with a claw hammer? If I was a determined criminal and I saw an OCer in my way he would be my first target. I see no tactical advantage to OCing but I do know that brandishing DOES have advantages, but brandishing is not OCing.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Reasons like this is why we need to carry CCW GRENADES!!

Don't a lot of people do that already with Glocks? 'specially wit dat 40 cartridge?