Why Carrying Concealed is important. - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Why Carrying Concealed is important.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle:224569
    Cops get attacked because they present a threat to criminals, they are willing to stop a crime from taking place, which is exactly what you are arguing is true for you and all other open carriers. You say that open carrying deters crime because open carriers are willing to stop crime from taking place just like police.

    And the job of police is much more than to "pursue criminals, catch them, and put them in jail". If your statement was true, then police would sit in an office waiting for somebody to report crime and then they would attempt to catch the person who did it. But in reality, police patrol the streets to attempt to deter crime. Even though cops patrol 24/7 with loaded guns, they do not deter much of the crime and they are attacked all the time, regardless of their loaded gun.
    I only deter crime in my vicinity, that is going to happen to me, not the store next door, or the store in the next neighborhood.

    Actually yes that is mostly correct. Police usually do have to wait to be dispatched to a crime to pursue the bad guy. Because they do deter crime where they are at. The majority of police being shot by their own weapon is during the resisting of arrest. I'm not arresting anyone. Where did you read that police don't deter crime and are attacked all the time? I think police deter crime all the time, just not everywhere because they can't be everywhere. Its more common they get resistance then attacked.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Even though cops patrol 24/7 with loaded guns, they do not deter much of the crime and they are attacked all the time, regardless of their loaded gun.
    Let me ask you a question, Deserteagle. You want to rob a shipment of money. You have two choices. You can rob the Brinks fully armored vehicle with 3 armed guards. OR you can rob the Volkswagen bus with a magnetic sign on the door "Bubba's Financial Transportation Company, LLC" manned by three 70 year old twice-retired guys wearing plastic security guard badges and no guns. Assuming both vehicles have the same amount of money in them, which vehicle are you going to choose? Which vehicle do you assume ANY criminal would choose?

    What you are failing to take into account, and will refuse to take into account because your theory is programmed into your closed mind is the reason that armed cops are attacked by criminals and Joe Citizen visibly armed is not is two fold. First, ALL cops in the US are armed. The criminals don't have a choice with cops. If they are going to attack a cop, they must attack an armed cop. Do you think if the criminals had the choice to attack an armed vs. unarmed cop they would pick the armed cop to attack? Both cops would have the same benefit to being attacked - it would prevent them from capturing the criminal and sending them to prision (a reason for attack which does not exist for Joe Citizen, btw). So, if they accomplish their same goal to prevent capture by shooting the unarmed cop who was unable to shoot back, do you honestly think they would choose to shoot the armed cop instead? Get real. They shoot at the unarmed cop and fail - what happens... they get captured and go to prison. They shoot at the armed cop and fail - what happens... they get shot back at and possibly killed.

    Now... given the choice between armed Joe Citizen and unarmed Joe Citizen, exactly WHY is the criminal going to pick armed Joe Citizen to attack? The potential gains are going to be the same. The criminal already has a gun... the potential gain is whatever happens to be in Joe Citizen's wallet. So why in hell would a criminal CHOOSE to attack the Joe Citizen who they KNOW can shoot at them and potentially kill them...for a few credit cards and $$$ that may be in Joe Citizen's wallet when there are 99.5% of the rest of Joe Citizens who are not visibly armed that they can get the same benefit from - a few credit cards and $$$ from their wallet, without the KNOWN possibility that they may be killed in defense?

    And if Mr. Criminal doesn't have a gun and he wants one, which choice is less harmful to their health? To steal $200 from unarmed Joe Citizen and buy or have someone buy a gun for them? Or to attack a person with a gun who can shoot at them? Even criminals know that it is not healthy to bring a knife to a gun fight.

    It is impossible for you to possibly comprehend that cops are attacked for different reasons than Joe Citizen. It is also, somehow, impossible for you to possibly comprehend that the criminal is simply not dumb enough to not choose the path of least resistance in order to accomplish their goals.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefighterchen View Post
    I only deter crime in my vicinity, that is going to happen to me, not the store next door, or the store in the next neighborhood.

    Actually yes that is mostly correct. Police usually do have to wait to be dispatched to a crime to pursue the bad guy. Because they do deter crime where they are at. The majority of police being shot by their own weapon is during the resisting of arrest. I'm not arresting anyone. Where did you read that police don't deter crime and are attacked all the time? I think police deter crime all the time, just not everywhere because they can't be everywhere. Its more common they get resistance then attacked.

    Try reading this actual, legitimate research. "The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe".

    There are many other great quotes in this research article about how police do not deter criminals.
    Also, where did you come up with the conclusion that police are shot by their own gun more than the criminal's gun?

    http://courses.missouristate.edu/Kar...40/kelling.pdf

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Let me ask you a question, Deserteagle. You want to rob a shipment of money. You have two choices. You can rob the Brinks fully armored vehicle with 3 armed guards. OR you can rob the Volkswagen bus with a magnetic sign on the door "Bubba's Financial Transportation Company, LLC" manned by three 70 year old twice-retired guys wearing plastic security guard badges and no guns. Assuming both vehicles have the same amount of money in them, which vehicle are you going to choose? Which vehicle do you assume ANY criminal would choose?

    What you are failing to take into account, and will refuse to take into account because your theory is programmed into your closed mind is the reason that armed cops are attacked by criminals and Joe Citizen visibly armed is not is two fold. First, ALL cops in the US are armed. The criminals don't have a choice with cops. If they are going to attack a cop, they must attack an armed cop. Do you think if the criminals had the choice to attack an armed vs. unarmed cop they would pick the armed cop to attack? Both cops would have the same benefit to being attacked - it would prevent them from capturing the criminal and sending them to prision (a reason for attack which does not exist for Joe Citizen, btw). So, if they accomplish their same goal to prevent capture by shooting the unarmed cop who was unable to shoot back, do you honestly think they would choose to shoot the armed cop instead? Get real. They shoot at the unarmed cop and fail - what happens... they get captured and go to prison. They shoot at the armed cop and fail - what happens... they get shot back at and possibly killed.

    Now... given the choice between armed Joe Citizen and unarmed Joe Citizen, exactly WHY is the criminal going to pick armed Joe Citizen to attack? The potential gains are going to be the same. The criminal already has a gun... the potential gain is whatever happens to be in Joe Citizen's wallet. So why in hell would a criminal CHOOSE to attack the Joe Citizen who they KNOW can shoot at them and potentially kill them...for a few credit cards and $$$ that may be in Joe Citizen's wallet when there are 99.5% of the rest of Joe Citizens who are not visibly armed that they can get the same benefit from - a few credit cards and $$$ from their wallet, without the KNOWN possibility that they may be killed in defense?

    And if Mr. Criminal doesn't have a gun and he wants one, which choice is less harmful to their health? To steal $200 from unarmed Joe Citizen and buy or have someone buy a gun for them? Or to attack a person with a gun who can shoot at them? Even criminals know that it is not healthy to bring a knife to a gun fight.

    It is impossible for you to possibly comprehend that cops are attacked for different reasons than Joe Citizen. It is also, somehow, impossible for you to possibly comprehend that the criminal is simply not dumb enough to not choose the path of least resistance in order to accomplish their goals.
    However, open carrying takes away a great tactical advantage. As the criminal is deciding whether or not they should attack you or another guy with no visible gun, the criminal has the reassurance that he knows exactly what your response will be when attacked. He can see your gun, and knows that if provoked, you will reach over and pull out your holstered gun. Knowing that, he can come up with a plan of attack to get whatever he wants from you, such as shooting you in the back, and then taking your gun, and your wallet.

    As for choosing which person to rob in your scenario, it is a perfectly reasonable choice to attack the armored (open carrying) guards instead of the not visibly armed guards of the other truck because you don't know what their response will be. You have no idea if they are packing under their shirts or if they even have assault rifles ready to go but just out of your sight. At least with attacking the open carrying guards, you know what weapons they have and what their response will be when attacked. The not visibly carrying guards could have a not so nice surprise for you.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Try reading this actual, legitimate research. "The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe".

    There are many other great quotes in this research article about how police do not deter criminals.
    Also, where did you come up with the conclusion that police are shot by their own gun more than the criminal's gun?

    http://courses.missouristate.edu/Kar...40/kelling.pdf
    So, tell us how your article applies? Firearm nor gun are mentioned once in the article. We are talking about Joe Citizen carrying a visible firearm as a deterrent. The article you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    However, open carrying takes away a great tactical advantage. As the criminal is deciding whether or not they should attack you or another guy with no visible gun, the criminal has the reassurance that he knows exactly what your response will be when attacked. He can see your gun, and knows that if provoked, you will reach over and pull out your holstered gun. Knowing that, he can come up with a plan of attack to get whatever he wants from you, such as shooting you in the back, and then taking your gun, and your wallet.

    As for choosing which person to rob in your scenario, it is a perfectly reasonable choice to attack the armored (open carrying) guards instead of the not visibly armed guards of the other truck because you don't know what their response will be. You have no idea if they are packing under their shirts or if they even have assault rifles ready to go but just out of your sight. At least with attacking the open carrying guards, you know what weapons they have and what their response will be when attacked. The not visibly carrying guards could have a not so nice surprise for you.


    That was great! Do you have a writer, or do you make this stuff up yourself?
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pasco, Washington, United States
    Posts
    6,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Deserteagle View Post
    Try reading this actual, legitimate research. "The experiment did show that routine preventive patrol in marked police cars has little value in preventing crime or making citizens feel safe".

    There are many other great quotes in this research article about how police do not deter criminals.
    Also, where did you come up with the conclusion that police are shot by their own gun more than the criminal's gun?

    http://courses.missouristate.edu/Kar...40/kelling.pdf

    I'll see your Missouri State and raise you Harvard. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/facul..._LSR_Cohen.pdf

    I never said they are shot more by their own weapon than a criminals weapon. When they are shot by their own weapon, again not the scenario they are shot by a criminals weapon, the gun is not taken from behind the officer, but during some kind of resistance during the arrest. I'm trying to understand where you're view is coming from. Explain this a little further please, your argument that police are attacked all the time, are you saying the officers are confronted by the offenders(the actual crime is against the officer), or that the offenders attack the officer after the officer is attempting to detain them (for a crime that has all ready happened)?

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Axeanda45 View Post
    So, by your logic, those who open carry are more likely to be robbed?


    Wow, I cant believe anyone would rather rob a visibly armed person over one who isnt.....That would be one very crazy and stupid (read deathwish/wants to die) robber.......




    Would you like to know why I dont believe it? Because here in the real world (not fantasy land like your mind) robbers/thieves want to stay alive just as much as you do..... Open carrying a weapon instead of hiding it is a MUCH BETTER deterrent than the thought that someone MIGHT be armed...

    I think the OP was simply stating that his believe is that concealed carry is proper. You can certainly assert that you believe open carry is the best but you don't have to insult him.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From a Marine Sniper -- "you can run but you will just die tired"
    Semper Fi

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    And if Mr. Criminal doesn't have a gun and he wants one, which choice is less harmful to their health? To steal $200 from unarmed Joe Citizen and buy or have someone buy a gun for them? Or to attack a person with a gun who can shoot at them? Even criminals know that it is not healthy to bring a knife to a gun fight.
    Ding! Ding! Ding! we have a winner.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    OHIO
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Sooner View Post
    I think the OP was simply stating that his believe is that concealed carry is proper. You can certainly assert that you believe open carry is the best but you don't have to insult him.
    Dude, next time look at who the post is talking to, in this case, it WAS NOT the OP........... It was someone who thinks the "element of surprise" is the most bestest thingy EVAH!!!!!!!.....


    Also, Since when is pointing out actual flaws in a theory or statement considered an insult?

    By your logic... anyone who is wrong or loses an argument or discussion has been insulted... Wow....

  11. Quote Originally Posted by dojoman View Post
    At least desert sees my point as well. That's all I was tying to say. In most cases I prefer hidden just because of my area, how many times do I have to say that. If I was allowed OC Yes having a gun on my hip allows me to increase my chances of survival, whether it is hidden or exposed. I don't know anyone that would disagree with me there.
    Makes sense. I may be new to the forum, but it would seem that as with most things in life there is no right or wrong for all circumstances. Sometimes it may be better to OC & sometimes CCing might be the better option if licensed. I'm not sure how you would research the likelihood of becOming a victim while OCing because the circumstances are never constant, so I'm not sure how you would get data for such a study. In the end even if carrying it may not be the best option to even draw. It's a judgement call everytime you carry, but there's no universal right or wrong.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast