Which is better? Protect yourself/family or remove criminal from face of earth?


OC for Tactical Advantage
bob16066:228211 said:
Open carriers are seeking Validation from Society or Law Enforcement or both.

This is clear to me even if it's not clear to anyone else.

Troll alert!!!!!!!


New member
More discussion:

Naturally, It couldn't be that I feel CC is safer for the carrier. Am I looking to change any of your beliefs? No. Would I like to bring up some good conversations to get people THINKING? Yes.

Sure you could feel that way. However, Joe Citizen is the safest when the criminal never attacks them to begin with.

One motivation may be that you feel concealed carry makes Joe Citizen safer. However, you have clearly expressed another motivation that you have for concealed carry:

For the reason of deterrence.

For the individuals who carry in order to deter crime to happen to another person instead of this. That is not deterrence. Deterrence is the prevention of crime though some act, which we all know is impossible. A dirtbag will always be a dirtbag. Therefore, your reasons for opening carrying a firearm are intimidation to would be criminals saying "Dont F with me, I'll shoot you." This could be my law enforcment part of me talking, but I chose to conceal carry for if that day a criminal decides to attempt to make my family or myself a victim, if given the oppurtunity, they will be in the body bag. It is not to just push the criminal to murder, rape, rob etc a less prepared law abiding 19 year old girl that knows nothing about firearms.

Clearly to you the only deterrence that is satisfactory is to deter the criminal from ever committing another crime ever. And in order to accomplish that goal, if given the opportunity, you will nominate yourself as judge, jury and executioner.

To those who say, "The criminal didn't F with me cause I was carrying and decided to go attack another". I dont know how you can live yourself with that attitude. Personally, If I can do anything to help prevent bad things happening to other people, I am going to do it. Not just hope they go do it to somebody else.

I love how you twist self-defense into hoping that a criminal attacks someone else. What part of self-defense do you not understand? Well, heck, I didn't even have to ask that question, obviously it is the self part. I'm not Captain America or Ironman. I don't have the luxury of saving the world from any one particular criminal. I am not responsible for the criminal's actions. Don't put the blame on me because a 19 year old girl is raped because I didn't kill a criminal when I had the chance to. Put the responsibility where it belongs - on the criminal committing the criminal acts. Put the responsibility on the legislature that passes laws that prevent the 19 year old girl from being able to have and carry the means she could use to protect herself. I don't hope that the criminal goes on to attack someone else. But I also don't hope for the oppurtunity to kill either.

Grognard Gunny

New member
Remember the pharmacist in Oklahoma that shot the BG (which stopped the threat), got another pistol and executed him. He now is convicted of murder!!

.... and rightly so! (Trying to stay on the moral high ground, however..... CAN be somewhat tedious at times. LOL!)


Grognard Gunny

New member
Specific case in point; Home invaders. This particularly vicious sort of BG, by doing his B&E, knowing full well that you are home, is a step above and beyond your general run of the mill burgler. H.I.s are fully prepared to wreak havock on you and your family, in fact generally plan on same.

I have to try to put myself into a frame of mind that not only urges me to steal and loot, but to throw in physical assualt, even murder, into the "plan". I simply have no way of doing that. This type is anti-social, vicious and particularly outside the pale of civilized behavior.

On the other hand..... say you are confronted with a brand new "team" of H.I. types. Never tried the MO before. If you stop them and turn them over to the Police.... they will be charged with tresspassing, B&E, maybe attempted assault, and whatever else the DA can pin on them. Barring any previous convictions of note, however, they are going to "get off" with short time.

Upon release from their incarceration, the probabilities are high that they will go right back into a life of crime. Maybe not H.I., per se, but something! Given that we have already determined that they are more likely than not anti-social, dangerous villians, above and beyond the norm.... eventually they will seriously harm or kill someone in the plying of whatever "trade" they get into.

On the other hand, if the H.I.s manage to defeat your best efforts to thwart their plans...... I don't know the experience in other areas of the Country. But, from what I have seen, most of these "teams" only get caught after their second or third effort. Then, of course, the book gets thrown at them and they do hard time.... LONG time.

Yet, I am not one to want to be one of those victims counted as "history" when the BGs finally come to justice. .... and it "bothers" me that these miserable excuses for civilized human beings generally wreak a lot of havock before they are finally brought to justice.

We noted that these cats are outside the pale of civil behavior. More like mad dogs than human. Still, one doesn't retrain rabid dogs, they are killed. Yet potential victims are NOT judge and jury..... what to do?

My wife and I are both excellent marksmen (-persons?). Time available, the 12 gauge is the first line of defence. Our pistols of choice are second. Between the two of us we can put out some firepower.

Thus, while our intention is not murder..... if it happens that we permanently end the budding criminal career of this (these) vicious anti-social(s)..... well, ain't life a [female dog]? Like the man said, "I wouldn't shed a tear!" Hell, I'd almost consider it a public service!

Just sayin'.



New member
Then you will be able to provide real life examples where your theory has been proven true?


I will not go as far as to posit this as a theory. It is simply a collection of my own experiences in South Central L.A., observations and interviews of maximum security/lifer prisoners while on Grand Jury Law Enforcement committee and collected stories from a family member who used to spend time on the inside. I do not have enough data to form a workable theory and start postulating towards something more scientifically provable.

I do, however, feel I have enough data in my own mind to know that there is a very small percentage of criminals out there - I'm talking about the less than 1% - the hardcore, serial killer, serial rapist, sociopath, the criminal that kills with no thought to the fact that you are a human. He sees you as prey or worse yet, a form of entertainment. They are not deterred by my OC, nor by police officers, nor by the FBI. As long as they are out there, I do not want to be the one that arms them by showing I have a weapon and then being jumped for it. I agree that I would probably stop crime in public if I OCed, but my large size alone has incited violence in others in the past and I cannot imagine that adding a viewable weapon would help that situation when it's possible drugs or alcohol may have already impaired their judgement. I imagine this is why an individual is allowed in many states to treat an unruly crowd or mob as armed even if they are not when threatened by them because the mob mentality and the number of people in and of themselves is equivalent in danger to the individual to the mob having a weapon.

I guess the difference between me and most other people is that others plan for the most likely eventuality and I try to plan for the absolutely worst case, most heinous thing I can possibly imagine. If I turn the corner and Hannibal Lecter is holding my wife at knifepoint, I want to have already run the scenario and drill over and over again in my head. If I'm walking through the woods and happen upon Charles Manson and 10 or 12 of his friends, I don't want it to surprise me. So I have asked myself, "Do I want Chuck and company to know I have a firearm before I pull it? Will any or all of them be threatened by the fact that they can see it?" I have personally decided on my own answers and carry accordingly.

Others may choose differently, but I think everyone needs to seriously examine why they carry and if they can handle a shooting and the taking of a life if it is warranted. All of the psychological roadblocks have to be worked out long before you ever strap on a gun or clear leather to defend yourself. Beyond that, I would think that OC or CC is a matter of law or preference because a method of carry won't make a difference to a person that has decided he is going to be involved in an execution.


New member
NavyLCDR,I do, however, feel I have enough data in my own mind to know that there is a very small percentage of criminals out there - I'm talking about the less than 1% - the hardcore, serial killer, serial rapist, sociopath, the criminal that kills with no thought to the fact that you are a human. He sees you as prey or worse yet, a form of entertainment. They are not deterred by my OC, nor by police officers, nor by the FBI. As long as they are out there, I do not want to be the one that arms them by showing I have a weapon and then being jumped for it.

56% of felons said they would be dettered if they knew their potential victim was armed. To me it makes no sense to give up the chance that I can deter, at a minimum, 56% of the criminals that are likely to encounter me in order to "protect" myself from the 1% you speak of. Also, this 1% that you speak of is going to attack you no matter what... so what difference does it make to them if you are openly carrying a firearm or not? The outcome is the same. Do you really think that the "element of surprise" will help you against this 1% that you speak of? You are at no more danger from that 1% whether you open carry or not. Do you really think that 1% of criminals out there are going to wait around for someone carrying a gun just to attack them, and let the other 99.5% of the population pass on by unmolested?


New member
The key here is threat assessment. You cannot fire upon an attacker unless you are (or someone in your charge is) in imminent danger. Unless there is no other option, you should not shoot. If you are forced to shoot, then you shoot to stop the threat. With the multitudes of scenarios that you can imagine, each will have shoot / no shoot options. You are not god - you are a citizen. You will be judged in a court of law. THEN - you will possibly be involved in a civil suit - brought by the family of the deceased / wounded. Basically, if training the firearm on a perp causes the individual to flee - consider yourself lucky and call the police to give all details - if you hadn't already done so previously (if that was a possibility at an earlier time).


New member
Total BS.

If life were like the movies, and you were faced with some malicious jerk, and you KNEW his past, and you KNEW the nature of his crimes, and you KNEW the system was going to fail, then morally, I would not object to someone getting all Dexter on a scumbag.

But the danger is in assuming that you know the history and motives of everyone out there.

The guy LCDR was engaging is obviously looking to play out his revenge scenario on the first available candidate. It's just not a smart thing to do. Frankly, it's not even a smart thing to talk about.
It must be a terrible burden for you, being able to read everyone else's minds all the time. I mean, that's one heckuva lot of thoughts running through your little head in addition to your own. How do you keep up? You say the danger is in LCDR assuming he knows the history and motives of everyone out there, and then in the very next paragraph you do exactly that for his hypothetical intruder.

The only true BS in this thread is people calling other people BS. They're expressing opinions. You may not agree with them, and you may consider their opinion to be BS, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if you want to focus on something really off the wall, a person deciding they know what the character in another person's hypothetical scenario is thinking, more than the person who actually created that hypothetical scenario.... Well, yeah, that could easily come close to BS.


New member
Also, this 1% that you speak of is going to attack you no matter what... so what difference does it make to them if you are openly carrying a firearm or not? The outcome is the same. Do you really think that the "element of surprise" will help you against this 1% that you speak of? You are at no more danger from that 1% whether you open carry or not.

If I have correctly practiced my CC, I will be attacked as an unarmed civilian which will most likely be different than an armed civilian. The BG will not be fully aware of all conditions and will not modify his attack strategy to take into account all relevant data, thereby allowing me to modify my defensive strategy by: 1.)Choosing which weapon to draw; 2.)Choosing when and/or where to engage the BG, and; 3.)Deciding when the gun will come into play. This is the answer to "What difference does it make if I am OC or not" in my opinion.

This gets a little murky because it is also dependent on your ability to practice situational awareness and at what level you follow security rules. If a BG cannot approach you except by certain vectors controlled by you, all of which you are aware, it keeps the situation more under your control. If you are more lax and don't care who is behind you or how close and often walk past blind corners without clearing them, then it is very possible that you will never be aware of the BGs approach. My "element of surprise" coupled with my heightened awareness may or may not give me an advantage, but I choose to try to employ every advantage I feel I can to first avoid the situation and then overcome it.

I do feel I am in more danger if the serious criminal can modify his attack to overcome my exposed firearm. No, I do not feel like he is going to "let the other 99.5% of the population pass on by unmolested" - I believe he is targetting everyone he perceives as unarmed equally and everyone he sees as armed he either avoids or modifies his attack. If he is one that is smart enough to modify his attack, I do not want to be the guy waiting for a subway car or bus and all of a sudden get pushed in front of it! This BG with just a nudge could act like he's checking me out for my health, take my wallet and gun and be gone.

So, NavyLCDR, when you say, "You are at no more danger from that 1% whether you open carry or not" I guess we just have to agree to disagree. :biggrin:


New member
Guess what? With very few exceptions, none of us are cops or lawyers. We don't get to decide who is a "criminal." And that "criminal" may be an average, honest person like you who was just having a really bad day. Do you know this guy's history? Do you know all his priors? What, exactly, makes you qualified to call someone a criminal? How many people here have NEVER committed a crime? That BS Dirty Harry mentality needs to be kept off the forums and off the streets.

HOWEVER, when you have been put in a situation where your life is in danger, the individual who did that, whether he is a "criminal" or not, has made a choice. His choice put him at the other end of your gun. You don't really get to say whether he was a criminal, or a choirboy. You do get to say that your life was in danger, and you took the necessary steps to save it.

I'm sure that lumping everyone together into the "criminal" category makes taking a life easier. I'm sure that imagining them all as puppy-raping grandma-kicking welfare-milking fiends makes some people feel like they're taking out the trash. But the reality is, there are very few of us who are innocent. There are also very few of us who are absolute sociopaths who "need" to be taken out of society.

It's all about choice. The choices the criminal, or the bad guy, or whoever, made to get to where he is standing in front of you with a gun. And at that point, you have a series of choices to make. Just remember, the choice you are about to make may very well earn you the label of "criminal" as well.

Well said. I agree completely


New member
So, here's my questions:

Do you feel, as gun carriers, is it better that we simply prevent a criminal from attacking us and our family, and protect ourselves and our families from criminal actions; or is it better for us to execute the criminal?

Execute?? Like walk up and put 2 in his head? Not in my book! However, the reason I carry is to protect me and mine. If the sight, either from OC or from brandishing it during the rising situation, does not deter the BG, then it is shoot to kill.

If my aim is off and I wound the BG and that is enough to stop the offence then so be it, but I would feel no compulsion to administer 1st aid. I will call 911 and report the incident but that's as far as I go on behalf of the BG.

Do you feel that, as gun carriers, some of the responsibility of the criminal's future actions falls upon us if we are presented with the opportunity to kill the criminal and we choose not to?

Ooh! Tough one. I don't think I can be responsible for the future actions of some BG that I 'let go' after a confrontation that ended with the BG still standing. I think it is a sure bet that a career criminal will just think they were the lucky one and move on to their next victim. Is it my responsibility to prevent that? No.

I believe my responses to the person above will indicate where I feel on this issues.

There was a poster on here (usacarry) a while in tha past that admitted his reason for conealed carry vs. open carry was the he hoped to have the opportunity to execute a criminal. I'll try to find that and post it as well.

NOTE: I believe the desire to execute criminals only exists in a very, very small minority of people who carry guns.... so please, don't think I am trying to make a blanket statement applicable to most concealed carriers.[/

I have to agree with you in this respect. :pleasantry:


New member
Second thoughts.

Had a discussion with my better half and she asked the question "What about a home invasion?" and the ensuing discussion covered a lot of ground.

If the situation arrises that the confrontation with the BG is out in the open and he has no idea of who I am or where me and mine live, then letting the BG go alive is a strong possibility as long as the situation culminates with the BG bugging out after being confronted with an unexpectedly armed citizen.

However, If the confrontation is a home invasion, all bets are off. I WILL chase them down and kill them. Even if it means dragging a wounded BG back into the house and finishing the job. Harsh? Yes. Worth the aftermath? I believe so.

Think about it a minute. In the open yo are just a possible victim. In a home invasion you are an address. If the BG gets away, what's to say they won't come back for revenge? They don't care who you are but they sure as hell know WHERE you are. In my book home invasion means someone is going to die. God willing it will be the BG!


New member
I vote to simply stop the attack. Stopping the attack is the primary concern, isn't it?

Having said that, I will, hopefully, continue with my tissue-disruptor until he/they hit the ground and there is near zero possibility of his/thier getting up to continue... BTW, all the more reason to carry/use a gun that has as much capacity as possible.

Although it must be horrible to be put into that kind of situation it is my understanding that some here on this forum have. I wonder if they'd be willing in some cases to post thier experience? What happened, what they remember thinking during the attack and maybe how they handled it afterward. I don't mean a thread where us soap-box types can rebutle or critique (how could we?), but maybe a way for those who have looked the elephant in the eye to help the rest of us better understand just such an experience. If someone wants to start that thread, someone who has been there, I'd sure read it and I'd read it with respect.


New member
Walt - Posting that you would drag a BG back in the house? Really.... NOT a good post. I would rethink that if I were you. Shoot to stop the BG. Aim center and keep going until you are dang sure BG is not going to get up and come after you, but to chase them down will be considered murder.
Just sayin....


New member
To drag the bg back in the house is only setting up the prosecutor time to decide how long you will sit in prison. I agree with your thoughts on them coming back but, to go as far as to drag them back in is a little to much in my opinion. Hope we never have to have a bg in our home but if we do, I have one thought since he is in my home and that is that he is there to do me and mine harm.


OC for Tactical Advantage
I agree with the drag them back in being a bad idea...but I have had a Corvallis Officer tell us (Christian house of about 35 guys) if we catch a person vandalising our cars again, we should drag them inside and restrain them, prosecute for criminal trespassing, and its 45 against 1....we never did it or planned to do it, just kept calling 911 if we caught them. That idea is out there though, even from the side of law enforcement.


OC for Tactical Advantage
Has anyone come across an article of a home owner shooting a bad guy in the back and getting charged with murder?

I'll try and find the article of the Eugene Dutch brothers that was robbed, the coffee guy pulled his handgun, killed the closest guy, and shot at the fleeing second guy. The whole incident was considered self defense, no charges for firing at a fleeing criminal.

Members online

Forum statistics

Latest member