There is also the statement I hear a lot, "Well, cops get shot because of their guns!" And my answer to that is, cops get shot because they have the ability to arrest the criminal and send them to prison. It's not about the cop's gun, it's about escaping arrest. If it is believed that the cop was shot because of their gun, then one would have to logically conclude that the same cop would not have been shot if they were not carrying a gun. Are we really going to believe that?
Absolutely. Kirkwood, Mo. Police Sgt. William Biggs was shot solely because his murderer wanted his .40 caliber pistol, which had a higher capacity than the perp's .44 Magnum revolver. The shooter used the gun to shoot several others in a gun free zone. Biggs wasn't about to arrest anyone. He was on his way to dinner.
My problem with this whole discussion is that both sides tend to make universal statements and apply those statements to try to be convincing that CC is universally better or the OC is universally better. You have to analyze your own situation, your location, how much harrassment you are willing to put up with, how important your rights are to you, how confident you are. I can't tell you what is best for you. You can't tell me what is best for me.
I think people offer opinions based on their personal environments and situations.
If a perp needs a wallet and a set of wheels, and I am walking to my car in a Wal-Mart lot, I am probably a potential target--and so are all of the other customers.
If the perp wants to do the deed without undo commotion he will likely target people parked near the edge of the lot, and probably those who look most vulnerable. He'll avoid anyone really big and tough looking and people who appear alert and competent. And I think one can assume that if one customer has a gun on his hip, the perp will choose another.
On the other hand If there are a two or three extremely violent and desperate perps, say meth heads, looking for a victim in a more crowded area, the most vulnerable person is probably either an an oblivious person or someone carrying something of value.
It would seem to me that that would rule
in a man carrying a gun openly,
if the perps thought they could get the jump on him quickly, and rule him
out otherwise. Probably not that likely that they would try anything out in the open. Maybe not too big a challenge in a parking lot full of SUVs and vans near an alley and a busy street. Probably no challenge at all on a very crowded sidewalk where the citizen simply cannot keep a distance of more than two or three feet between himself and others in the crowd, I think.
The gun is not only something that can be easily fenced, it can be used in armed robberies or in gang fights--say, to defend against the angry crook to whom the perps owe money. The open carrier advertises that he has one, but the person carrying concealed does not.
So, the risk vs. advantage quotient of carrying one openly would probably vary with the situation and with the nature and motivation of the assailants, and their numbers.
Personally, I would like to be able to show a holstered firearm casually to deter a potential threat. But personally, I would not usually want to advertise that I have an item of real value.
I feel like I can support that right every day in a small way by open carrying and showing those around me that it really is acceptable, legal and even normal for me or any American to care enough about myself and those around me to have the means available to protect ourselves.
More power to you. My belief is that people where I live are so anti-gun that anything that reminds them that guns are lawful will motivate them to try to change that.
