You have peaked my interest... I am going to open a thread to see if anyone here from Utah is an OCer. Explain one thing... What is it about OCing that deters crime? It can't just be the fact that they know you have a gun. If it was so there wouldn't be nearly as many police officer widows. But i'm fairly new so i'm not sure of the arguement.
grmerrill,
Deterrence is about benefit v. consequence. If you can convince your opponent that the consequences of them attacking you outweigh the benefit they might gain by attacking such that they decide the consequences far out weigh the benefit....then you have deterred them.
That's why it is impossible to compare police officers getting shot at to Joe Civilian getting shot at. There are a completely different set of benefits to the criminal for doing so.
Why would a criminal face the consequences of getting killed, or at a minimum starting a gunfight which is much more likely to draw attention to them and get them arrested, when there is nothing to indicate that they can gain any more benefit from attacking me than they can get from attacking the next guy to come along who looks just like me, except they aren't visibly armed? It just doesn't make sense.
Let's try to put out this example: you are a five year old kid at a reception. You've already had 1 cupcake and mom has told you no more, but you want another one. There are two tables of cupcakes, one table has a group of adults around it talking, including your mom. The other table of cupcakes is across the room with nobody standing around it. Which table would have less potential for consequences for snatching a cupcake? The table with the adults standing around it, or the table all by itself? The benefit is the same, but the chances of dire consequences are much greater.
That's why deterrence with a visibly carried firearm works with the majority of criminals. The benefits of attacking the unarmed person are likely to be exactly the same, but the consequences of attacking the visibly armed person are much greater. The benefits to attacking a police officer are entirely different.
And then there is the argument that a criminal will attack the visibly armed citizen in order for them to get their gun. Well, the first question is, if the criminal doesn't have a gun, do you REALLY think they are going to attempt to forcibly take away a gun from a person carrying it? Kind of uneven odds. Would it not be much, much easier for a criminal to steal a couple hundred dollars and buy a gun or have someone buy it for them? And would it not be much, much easier for a criminal to steal that couple hundred dollars from a person who is not visibly armed?
And, if the criminal already has a gun, then where would this overwhelming desire come from to use that gun to attempt to take another gun from an armed citizen? Even if they did get the gun, they would still have to sell or pawn it. Would it not be much easier for the criminal just to steal a credit card or cash from someone not visibly armed?
It just does not make any kind of sense at all for a criminal to attack Joe Citizen who is visibly carrying a gun, when all that criminal has to do is walk down the street one block, or wait two minutes for the guy with the gun to leave, and the criminal will have any number of other targets to choose from that aren't visibly armed, and from which they are more likely to obtain the exact same benefit from attacking that they would get by attacking the visibly armed person. There simply is no increase in benefit for the criminal to attack the armed person.
Cops and armed security guards are entirely different because the benefits to attacking them for the criminal is completely different.
And then there is the argument that I am in a bank, and the bank robbers come through the doors and the red neon light suddenly appears over my head that flashes "SHOOT ME FIRST, I HAVE A GUN!" That simply does not happen in real life, and has never been documented to happen in real life because the criminal conducting the hi tempo, fast paced, "guns blazing" robbery isn't going to take the time to examine what everyone is carrying on their belts. Now, the all day hostage situation, sure. But again a person needs to examine odds v. benefits. The odds that I am going to encounter the ordinary street thug are much, much, much greater than the odds of me being in a bank at exactly the wrong time. And the odds that my visible firearm will deter the ordinary street thug so that they just wait for the next victim are greater than than those that my gun won't deter them.
There is no reason for me not to play the odds that are in my favor. Other people have their reasons for not doing so, and that's fine - it's their chips they are gambling with, not mine.
Call my posts anything you want, it's not my issue you couldn't realize sarcasm without it being bold and underlined.
