Everyone has a choice on how they wish to defend themselves should the need arise. The carry movement (both open and concealed) seeks to expand those choices.
That’s correct. Unless there is some special relationship (legally defined) between the person and police, or there was some state created danger (also legally defined), police have no duty to protect any particular person or persons, even if they are alerted by 911 or directly in person. Were you ignorant of this?
Yes you could, if it were so, which it isn’t.
If there were a rash of victims who just happened to be openly carrying a weapon there would be a stat on it. You can’t cite that stat because it doesn’t happen often enough to be significant. Use reason and logic for once: is a mugger going to go after someone he knows to be armed and ready to rock & roll, or is he going to go after someone who does not appear capable of defending themselves?
There is a statistic you can cite though: how old are you?
:dubious:
Maybe not in all situations, but just what did you have in mind? Pepper spray and judo?
Is a mugger going to go after someone carrying an easily portable $600 item on their hip, or the person maybe carrying ten bucks and a SNAP card?
I’d also point out that using the words “reason and logic” to describe the actions of a mugger is not going to get you very far.
Couple of semi random thoughts.
I can support the idea of open carry. So, I can support the folks that open carry to show open carry is not some scary bugaboo.
I can also understand the idea of not having to show an ID. Personally, I’d rather it be required to show it, but I can support the former.
I think the open carry folks should NOT be trying to force both issues at the same time in the same place.
And while Chuck Norris I am not, off the top of my head, if I was unarmed, I rather have to faced a crazed gunman with a rifle than a handgun.
I have to admit. I’m freakin FLOORED! Cops really have no obligation to defend you. I just read about the case of Joseph Lozito who fought off a crazed killer who was stabbing him on a train. The cops were JUST on the other side of a subway compartment door. They saw him being attacked, didn’t do shit until Lozito subdued the killer himself, THEN they came out of the compartment. Lozito sued, the courts dismissed his case.
You know, that really DOES make me rethink the issue. You’d think these things would be more widely known.
I was requesting JesterX use reason and logic. You have also failed that test.
You seem to think a mugger is going to go after someone to steal their firearm but be undeterred that said firearm is carried to repel such an attempt.
The folly of that thought is that it just doesn’t happen!
Once again, I request that a cite showing significant stats that open carriers are frequent targets of armed/strong armed robberies.
Those are older cases Scumpup cited. How old are you?
I’m not sure a person’s age is relevant to the discussion - it’s perfectly reasonable to be unaware of various precedent for many reasons unrelated to age. As a gun rights supporter, I think it’s important to act as an ambassador of the cause whenever possible. I’m glad ignorance was fought on this particular nuance.
For future reading, I suggest reading the Hellerdecision, then follow up with the Perutaand Mooredecisions if you haven’t already. “Bear” from the 2nd amendment must mean something.
It is when their posts sound like they’re coming from a teenage knowitall. I’d rather not waste my time arguing with someone who has no life experience yet wants to tell the rest of us whats what.
Reason and logic to do what? Understand the motivation of a mugger. This requires the mugger to use reason and logic as well.
Criminals regularly rob banks despite the fact that banks are covered in surveillance cameras, have silent alarms, and put exploding dye packs in with their money.
Why would they do such a stupid thing? Because banks have more money than hair salons. Criminals doing stupid things for money is basically the MO of every criminal ever.
I’m not asserting that these crimes happen, I’m saying you can’t rely on the intelligence and risk-averse nature of muggers as proof it doesn’t happen.
They don’t happen. But in every thread about open carry somebody invariably posts about how an OCer is setting themselves up to be a target for crime. Then when challenged to cite a stat where this is a frequent occurrence they always fail to do so.
Your comparison to bank robbery is absurd at best. You’re comparing the robber to getting eventually caught to getting his head blown off during a mugging attempt. 2 completely different consequences that even the stupidest criminal can comprehend and make decisions based on.
That does not mean the gun is deterring the crime.
A random mugger? You may be right. But random muggings are becoming scarcer and scarcer even WITHOUT the majority of the public being armed. For robbery in general, same point, if someone wants something from someone bad enough, the gun will not deter them. It would only be one more thing to plan for.
It could be why I referred to the Lozito case in 2011, instead of scumpup’s cites. How well do you read?
If you’re carrying a gun it’s a lot less likely that they’ll face any consequences or worry about any, since it makes it so easy to claim that you were a danger and had to be shot. The same goes for non-cops, for that matter; if you have a gun then it’s going to be a lot easier for someone to convince a judge and jury they were defending themselves when they killed you.
Guns are about offense, not defense. They don’t bounce bullets, they kill people. Walking around with a gun won’t help you when someone decides to shoot you; the real world is not a Wild West movie, in a gunfight the aggressor, the person who already has their gun drawn wins. That’s why cops who think the person they are dealing with draw their guns before approaching.
And open carry is mostly about thuggery, anyway; not self defense. It’s about bullying and intimidating people. Self defense is just the excuse the bullies use.
I can’t tell if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with the statement you quoted. Was your post meant to have any meaningful connection to the statement quoted?
I’m not sure I agree with the inclusion of “a lot,” but yes, it does allow you to argue that deadly force was being used and your own deadly response was justified.
Of course, as more and more officers use body cameras and dash cameras, fewer such opportunities appear.
I read that you seemed awfully stunned by the fact that the police have no duty to protect you which has been somewhat common knowledge for a while now. Which is why I question your age. Another reason is you seem awfully ignorant to what lawful action the police can take in light of court decisions, AG opinions, and the law. Are you young or just naive?
It’s not weakness to admit ignorance on something - it’s welcome so that we may take advantage of the opportunity to educate. And while that piece of information is common knowledge to a lot of folks, I would not be surprised if it was not known among the majority of voting adults. It would serve everyone who supports gun rights to welcome that opportunity when it presents itself. Remember the best way to convert an anti is to take them shooting. That door is closed if they refuse to engage in discourse.
It’s only common knowledge if it’s commonly known by almost EVERYONE. Non-gun advocates or people who are NOT particularly interested in the legal status of gun use wouldn’t be up on the minutia of lower court decisions or even SC decisions if it’s not widely publicized. Although, I could well understand how the average gun enthusiast would.
However, what is NOT uncommon is for a gun enthusiast to call anyone who doesn’t agree with them, “young” or “naive”.