Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed.
Why's that? I certainly wouldn't assume that in Florida. They have about fifteen times as many CCW applications in process right now as there are peace officers in all of Missouri.
No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.
Or the armed man sees the "teeth" knows whom to shoot first.
There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened.
Absolute lack of credible evidence? You have studied every shooting in the country?
Well, last year in Kirkwood, MO, a distraught citizen headed for the City Hall with a stolen gun, intent on mayhem.
The first person he shot was an armed policeman in the parking lot.
If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable.
I can't tell you whether the Kirkwood shooter expected to encounter another armed policeman in the council chamber or not, but if he did change his plan at all, it was to shoot the policeman in the chamber second.
In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens.
Doesn't that simply mean that the armed guard is more likely to be shot than the concealed carry citizen?
Back in the 7-11, if he sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright.
Yep--he may be forced to shoot the armed person for hs own self-preservation.
That's what happened in a Stop and Rob case recently related by Mas Ayoob. A policeman unexpectedly walked in during a robbery. One of the robbers died, but so did the policeman. Why wouldn't a citizen carrying openly elicit the same response?
Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny.
Armed robbery and larceny are two entirely different things. If the robber were not prepared to shoot, why would he be pointing a gun?
Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed behind him in the parking lot, someone who is watching right now?
So, there may be others carrying? Possibly carrying concealed?
Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky.
Or reduce the risk by eliminating the obvious threat.
So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make any sense that they would be.
I don't know where you get your "history", but it differs from the cases I know about.
And common sense tells me that
anyone intent on committing an armed criminal action is going to shoot the armed threats first.
Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting as criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens.
Several police officers I know dispute that.
The fact that you may not have heard of something does not mean that law enforcement officers are not well aware of it.
They train to avoid having their weapons taken. And the reason they carry backup weapons is primarily because their service weapons may be taken.
It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, ...
Well, carjackings are a major problem... But which do you think would make a more desirable item to steal, a watch or a handgun?
The several policemen I know tell me that there are three reasons they are instructed to carry concealed when they are off duty: (1) so they are not shot first in the event that they come upon a criminal action; (2) so they are not ambushed by someone after their weapon; (3) to reduce the incidence of "man with a gun" calls that have to be investigated by an already busy police force.
I don't know why
any of those wouldn't be a very good reason for the citizen to follow suit.
Now, when the
uniformed policeman is on duty, he is readily identifiable as an armed person anyway, and he carries radios, cuffs, tasers, etc.
And he is sworn to uphold the law, and he is trained to do so.
And while he is doing so, he is at risk while doing a dangerous job.
