2230 posts here, and you don't that subject just might have been previously discussed? Just sayin..
LOL!
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Roadie again.
2230 posts here, and you don't that subject just might have been previously discussed? Just sayin..
I wonder if any of the people who try to remove all the validity in the "element of surprise" argument in this thread, are part of the crowd trying to remove the validity of the test in this thread, by pointing out that the shooter knew who had the gun.....
Interesting, if so...
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...332928-people-who-carry-live-dream-world.html
Guy decides to OC, bad guy walks in, targets him first because he sees this guy is armed.
THAT scenario is met with IMMEDIATE and UNSWERVING resistance from a good portion of those who chose to participate in these kind of topics.
Guy walks in and targets the guy he has been told has the gun.
THIS scenario is said to be unfair because the shooter knew where the gun is....
If you wear your gun out in the open, its likely the shooter will know your armed. Thus making the two scenarios VERY much related. Maybe not red delicious to red delicious, but CERTAINLY red delicious to granny smith.
There is no ONE answer to the OC vs CC question, its a case by case deal, and only when we are gifted with hindsight, and we look back at what happened, can we decide for ourselves which would have been best for that situation.
My biggest beef in these threads is the amount of people on both sides who can not see the good in the method they chose not to partake in.
RARELY is one choice ALWAYS the best, and those who think it is are inconsiderate of alternatives.
BOTH sides have a portion of their proponents who are completely inconsiderate of the other sides' argument.
If you choose to OC you need to realize the possibility of being targeted first. ITS UNLIKELY FOR SURE, but its not as preposterous as some claim it to be. You also need to be prepared for the aftermath of panicked sheep with cell phones.
If you choose to CC, you need to realize that there may be times where being openly armed, might have stopped the badguy from choosing to strike. Also, you better train to draw and fire from concealment, because its a hell of a lot easier to have that gun right on your hip, with nothing in the way of getting to it.
There are upsides and downsides TO BOTH METHODS OF CARRY.
It just gets old to watch the same mindless droning on and on, by the same people who seem to be unable to open their minds just a bit, and see that nothing is black and white.
JFC
Guy decides to OC, bad guy walks in, targets him first because he sees this guy is armed.
THAT scenario is met with IMMEDIATE and UNSWERVING resistance from a good portion of those who chose to participate in these kind of topics.
Guy walks in and targets the guy he has been told has the gun.
THIS scenario is said to be unfair because the shooter knew where the gun is....
If you wear your gun out in the open, its likely the shooter will know your armed. Thus making the two scenarios VERY much related. Maybe not red delicious to red delicious, but CERTAINLY red delicious to granny smith.
There is no ONE answer to the OC vs CC question, its a case by case deal, and only when we are gifted with hindsight, and we look back at what happened, can we decide for ourselves which would have been best for that situation...
Better chance of getting hit by lighting than getting shot first because you OC though.
Well if that's your argument you might as well not even carry, because the odds are about as good that you'll ever need to use it in the first place regardless of your method of carry.
There really is no point explaining things to people unable to be realistic.
I like how I am assumed to be a staunch CCer, because I have muttered words that aren't perfectly in line with the staunch OCer's narrative.
Life is a gamble, and to assume you know what is always best, and that it is the same thing every time, is ridiculous.
Theres good and bad to every choice we make in life.... How is this any different?
There really is no point explaining things to people unable to be realistic...
The first line of my last post has now been proven as fact.
Well if that's your argument you might as well not even carry, because the odds are about as good that you'll ever need to use it in the first place regardless of your method of carry.
1) Your grammar in that sentence is poor, which makes your statement weak.
2) What fact did you prove? Do you have statistics or some kind of evidence to prove that "fact?"