You can't have it both ways. If people don't notice then it can't be a deterrent. If they do notice, then they can be a target for someone looking for a gun.
Assuming that he notices them, then yes. For the same reason a bad guy looking for a gun might choose to attack a lone cop for his gun but wouldn't go looking in a police station for one.
No, what's weak is trying to deny that bad guys want guns and are willing to and have been known to kill people to obtain them.
Same thing here. Why would a civilian OCer be more intimidating than a cop? If someone's willing to kill a cop or try to snatch a gun from a cop, why would they be unwilling to try the same thing on a civilian? It doesn't make sense to try to argue otherwise, and the "give me a cite" is a weak attempt to prevent the use of logic. i.e. "Don't confuse me with logic--it can't happen unless you can find an instance where it has happened."
First of all, the fact that something hasn't happened might mean it's improbable, but it certainly doesn't mean it's impossible. So even if we could prove it's never happened, that wouldn't prove that it can't happen in the future.
Second, the fact that a particular person or group of persons can't come up with a cite doesn't mean it hasn't happened, only that they can't find an instance where it has.
For what it's worth, I spent some time with internet search awhile back and found an incident where a man was attacked for an OC handgun which was taken in the attack. Citing the incident changed no one's mind--and I knew that would be the case up front. If a person is intentionally structuring their arguments to rule out the use of logic then there's little chance of changing that person's mind.
I think the same thing. I seriously doubt that the sight of a gun is sufficient motivation, in and of itself, to cause bad guys to steal. However, that doesn't mean that a bad guy already looking to steal a gun wouldn't find an openly carried gun an attractive target. And we all know that guns are widely known to be a desirable target of theft for criminals.
Here are two instances where persons were abducted by criminals and were later able to turn the tables on the criminals by accessing a concealed firearm. It happens that in both cases, the firearms were concealed in a vehicle, but the principle is sound. Because the guns were concealed, the victims were able to wait until the time was optimal to make their move--and in both cases they succeeded.
Had the guns been openly displayed, they would have either been confiscated immediately by the criminals, or the victims would have had to take their chances making a play for them up front.
Case 1
A doctor named Peebles and his wife who were abducted by a double-murderer named Eizember and were apparently being forced to drive the felon to Mexico. As in this case, the abduction had been in progress for some time before one of the victims was able to access a gun hidden in the car and take control of the situation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1028254/posts
"While driving through Angelina County, the Peebles convinced Eizember to allow them to use the restroom. That's when an altercation ensued between Dr. Peebles and Eizember at which point Eizember was shot four times. Dr. Peebles had been able to recover a handgun that was concealed in the minivan."
Case 2
Husband shoots 2 bank robbery suspects who kidnapped him, his wife .
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Bank...e-robbery-suspects-in-Columbus-218148611.html
Here's a third case that is very different from the other 2. In this situation, a gun store was held up and the employees were herded out back to an alley. At that point, one of the employees (the only one armed) was able to access his concealed handgun and effect a positive outcome. The criminal took the employees by surprise and had any of them been openly armed, they would have been disarmed or otherwise neutralized. The fact that the defender's weapon was concealed allowed him to bide his time until he could effectively respond.
Scroll down for the posts by QuarterBoreGunner.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=46699
For what it's worth, I typically CC but I have OCed on many occasions even though it's only legal in very limited circumstances in my state. I support both OC and CC but I get tired of either side trying to pretend that their preferred approach is the only one that makes sense. Both strategies have advantages and disadvantages and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Last edited:
