Buck, " criminals only have to believe some may be [carrying]" and "the odds are, someone else in that public place is carrying concealed" are not the same thing at all.
One main argument for CWC is that criminals won't know if their intended victims are carrying a weapon or not, thus they refrain from attacking.
That argument has been made, and there is likely some validity to it, but the stats on how many people are carrying would indicate that the effect is probably insignificant. That was my point.
The real argument is that the concealed carrier can defend himself or herself, should the need arise.
Otherwise there is no deterrent from attack to be gained from CWC, only defense after the fact.
Deterrence is not my objective, but if I play my cards right, I will be able to stop an attack "before the fact" once the imminent threat has been presented.
With the same reasoning, OC deters attacks because criminals know folks are armed, thus eliminating them as victims.
Sometimes that will work, and sometimes it will have the opposite effect.
Consider this scenario: you are leaving the WalMart store, inside which you have been very safe indeed. You are walking through the lot to your car.
In front of you, milling around among the cars, are some shady looking characters. I should think that a firearm on your hip, carried openly, would likely add to your security.
But if there are people behind you who might do you harm, that firearm would be of little use to deter those whom you cannot see unless you can get to your car before they shoot you. And that nice, inviting firearm just might be what motivates them to do it.
If it is that new computer you are carrying that they are after, they may , for want of a better term, start a lot lower on the force continuum. and then you concealed firearm just may end up being of some use.
Wisconsin and Illinois have just gotten CWC, are you saying that since they didn't have it for so long, it should have been prohibited or just not used in the rest of the country also? Or are you saying since they didn't have it, the rest of the country was wrong in their beliefs?
I said nothing of the kind. My point was that the only lawful carriers in Florida and Texas, except on private property, are the concealed carriers, and that thus the active license percentages are germane to the analysis.
That's their choice. Attempts to change the laws in those places have been made. So far, no cigar.
Folks continue to come up with off the wall excuses to validate their concerns over open carry. For some reason they tend to think there should be some kind of compromise on other folk's right to OC, since they don't like it. But then scream when other folks have the gall and ask them to compromise theirs. You either support gun rights and OC where it is legal or you are no different than the libbies that want us to register our guns or limit their capacity.
I do not oppose legal open carry. I have pointed that out more than once.
But I do think that in some places, it is an extremely imprudent thing to do.
And I do resent it when "activists" parade around like exhibitionists and cause the electorate and their representatives to oppose not only open carry, but also concealed carry, as has happened here. Their actions have not been helpful.
