[Warp]

Originally Posted by series1811

Well, I didn't mean it to insulting and if it came out like that, I apologize.

What I meant was, that normal, nice, regular people, who are the kind of people who OC, don't get mixed up enough with really bad people, to see just how bad they are. For police, that is our job, to get mixed up with really bad people.

I really don't want to see any good people get hurt. That's the whole point of carrying a gun.

But, if you took it that way, maybe others did, too. And, I do apologize.

Understood.

[dnuggett]

Originally Posted by RussP

Okay, then you choose a word to replace "cause".

How about, "Open carry provided the opportunity and gave the suspect motive to attack the victim."

"Open carry provided an opportunity."

It was not the cause, it did not give motive.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by dnuggett

"Open carry provided an opportunity."

It was not the cause, it did not give motive.

I agree.

I, totally and seriously, think that claiming open carry gives the motive for a gun grab is exactly the same thing as saying that an attractive woman wearing a skirt provides the motive for sexual assault.

[zbusdriver]

Originally Posted by Warp

I agree.

I, totally and seriously, think that claiming open carry gives the motive for a gun grab is exactly the same thing as saying that an attractive woman wearing a skirt provides the motive for sexual assault.

You sir, are exactly right! However, wearing that short skirt OR showing off your pistol in a high crime-rate neighborhood is only inviting trouble...to each their own...but please don't play victim when something happens.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by zbusdriver

You sir, are exactly right! However, wearing that short skirt OR showing off your pistol in a high crime-rate neighborhood is only inviting trouble...to each their own...but please don't play victim when something happens.

If an EMU student wears a skirt, she can't "play victim" when she is sexually assaulted, because the city has a high crime rate?

[AKmik]

"Open carry provided the opportunity."

If its not hanging out there no one can grab it.

If you have not been trained in weapon retention tactics, it is my OPINION that you have no right to endanger those around you by providing an opportunity for an accessible weapon to any would be assailant.
I have said this before I wish CC was a nation wide option and that OC was only available to law enforcement or military in uniform.

Call it infringement of your rights or flame away, but that is just my opinion.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by AKmik

"Open carry provided the opportunity."

If its not hanging out there no one can grab it.

Not necessarily.

I think a lot of people are over-confident in their concealed pistols going completely unnoticed by everybody else out there. The kind of person who is willing to attempt a gun grab is also more likely than average to notice a concealed pistol

Also, I don't know what holsters you are referring to, but my OWB holsters do not "hang it out there".

Originally Posted by I Shooter

If you have not been trained in weapon retention tactics, it is my OPINION that you have no right to endanger those around you by providing an opportunity for an accessible weapon to any would be assailant.

Even a concealed pistol is potentially accessible by those around you. And that holster probably doesn't have an active retention device. Just something to keep in mind. Your setup may be 100% undetectable. Most are not.

Originally Posted by I Shooter

I have said this before I wish CC was a nation wide option and that OC was only available to law enforcement or military in uniform.

Call it infringement of your rights or flame away, but that is just my opinion.

That is unfortunate.

[G31]

It seems like there is a lot of arguing over irrelevant (to the topic) information. Who cares if the guy didn't actually lose the gun? The point is, in this situation, it seems that the OCer was specifically targeted because he had an openly exposed gun. The BG obviously wasn't scared, and was confident in his ability to get the gun.

Personally, I've worked LE and can agree with 1811 on his points. Unfortunately, many people do fit right in with what he said. That does NOT mean all people do, but many do. I've spoken with a lot of idiots who open carry and/or concealed carry. It does not make someone a trustworthy, upstanding person because they carry a gun legally.

I've also met quite a few criminals who could not give a rats butt about your gun, and will not be deterred at all. They do the same crap to each other day in and day out, full well knowing they could be murdered over it, so why would they be fearful of you?

[Warp]

Originally Posted by G31

It seems like there is a lot of arguing over irrelevant (to the topic) information. Who cares if the guy didn't actually lose the gun? The point is, in this situation, it seems that the OCer was specifically targeted because he had an openly exposed gun. The BG obviously wasn't scared, and was confident in his ability to get the gun.

Personally, I've worked LE and can agree with 1811 on his points. Unfortunately, many people do fit right in with what he said. That does NOT mean all people do, but many do. I've spoken with a lot of idiots who open carry and/or concealed carry. It does not make someone a trustworthy, upstanding person because they carry a gun legally.

I've also met quite a few criminals who could not give a rats butt about your gun, and will not be deterred at all. They do the same crap to each other day in and day out, full well knowing they could be murdered over it, so why would they be fearful of you?

What do they do?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by dnuggett

"Open carry provided an opportunity."

It was not the cause, it did not give motive.

What, then would be a/the motive?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by G31

It seems like there is a lot of arguing over irrelevant (to the topic) information. Who cares if the guy didn't actually lose the gun? The point is, in this situation, it seems that the OCer was specifically targeted because he had an openly exposed gun. The BG obviously wasn't scared, and was confident in his ability to get the gun.

Personally, I've worked LE and can agree with 1811 on his points. Unfortunately, many people do fit right in with what he said. That does NOT mean all people do, but many do. I've spoken with a lot of idiots who open carry and/or concealed carry. It does not make someone a trustworthy, upstanding person because they carry a gun legally.

I've also met quite a few criminals who could not give a rats butt about your gun, and will not be deterred at all. They do the same crap to each other day in and day out, full well knowing they could be murdered over it, so why would they be fearful of you?

Considering your experience with law enforcement, I am surprised you ask that question.

[zbusdriver]

Originally Posted by Warp

If an EMU student wears a skirt, she can't "play victim" when she is sexually assaulted, because the city has a high crime rate?

Warp, you seem awfully confused by many of the posts in this thread. I am merely stating my opinion. You are rather confused by many opinions and try to dissect them and argue them as if they were stated facts. Anyone can play the victim ALL they want, but NOT to me! I won't listen to them. Short skirt on campus is not as dangerous as wearing that short skirt one block off campus in a bad neighborhood. Just my opinion! If you wish, come up to visit and I will drop you off in a short skirt while you open carry in the surrounding neighborhoods just off Eastern Michigan University's campus. Just an offer...

[SpringerTGO]

I think the reason a lot of people here are getting really defensive about the person almost losing his handgun, because they count on the mere presence of a handgun on their hip to prevent crimes against them. Several people have posted as much.
Like it or not, criminals go after easy targets and easy money. And as our victim discovered, just having a handgun visible does not make you immune to crime.

So now that we've discovered that, the next response seems to be to blame the criminal. Duh! Of course it's the criminals fault he decided to commit a crime. But that doesn't entirely let the victim off the hook, for choosing to wear anything that might attract a criminal, and not doing due diligence.

I doubt very many people here would have much sympathy for someone from Manhattan deciding to take a stroll through Harlem, wearing his best cloths and jewelry. Of course the criminals would be wrong for robbing him. But he would share some responsibility for putting himself in such a situation.

OC activists take on great responsibilities, since they choose to represent all of us, even though we don't elect them.

[RussP]

EMU Police Safety Notices

[Warp]

Originally Posted by RussP

Considering your experience with law enforcement, I am surprised you ask that question.

He could be referring to any number of things, and those different things would be differently relevant to this topic. I can either assume to know what he is alluding to or I can ask him. I opted to ask for clarification.

Originally Posted by SpringerTGO

I think the reason a lot of people here are getting really defensive about the person almost losing his handgun, because they count on the mere presence of a handgun on their hip to prevent crimes against them.

I cannot speak for others, but it is statements like this that pique my attention:

Originally Posted by series1811

That's my take on most open carriers. They think that open carry will scare the bejesus out of any criminal who sees them, and that thugs will wet their pants, rather than try and rob a person with a gun showing, and this will supercede any need for alertness or SA.

It's much the same way concealed carriers are likely to feel when people start spouting about how they carry a gun to make up for having small genitals, or because they need a gun to give them a leg up in all of the drunken confrontations they get into with their fellow billy baddass troublemakers.

[TBO]

Originally Posted by RussP

EMU Police Safety Notices

zbusdriver is looking like he does indeed know the area.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by G31

It seems like there is a lot of arguing over irrelevant (to the topic) information. Who cares if the guy didn't actually lose the gun? The point is, in this situation, it seems that the OCer was specifically targeted because he had an openly exposed gun. The BG obviously wasn't scared, and was confident in his ability to get the gun.

Personally, I've worked LE and can agree with 1811 on his points. Unfortunately, many people do fit right in with what he said. That does NOT mean all people do, but many do. I've spoken with a lot of idiots who open carry and/or concealed carry. It does not make someone a trustworthy, upstanding person because they carry a gun legally.

I've also met quite a few criminals who could not give a rats butt about your gun, and will not be deterred at all. They do the same crap to each other day in and day out, full well knowing they could be murdered over it, so why would they be fearful of you?

Okay...I relied on the information in the first paragraph being what he meant in the last paragraph.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by RussP

Okay...I relied on the information in the first paragraph being what he meant in the last paragraph.

Criminals open carry, and are attacked by other criminals for the gun, day in and day out? This is news to me.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by series1811

That's my take on most open carriers. They think that open carry will scare the bejesus out of any criminal who sees them, and that thugs will wet their pants, rather than try and rob a person with a gun showing, and this will supercede any need for alertness or SA.

Why do you keep harping on series1811's comments, escalating the situation, when he subsequently posted:

Originally Posted by series1811

Well, I didn't mean it to insulting and if it came out like that, I apologize.

What I meant was, that normal, nice, regular people, who are the kind of people who OC, don't get mixed up enough with really bad people, to see just how bad they are. For police, that is our job, to get mixed up with really bad people.

I really don't want to see any good people get hurt. That's the whole point of carrying a gun.

But, if you took it that way, maybe others did, too. And, I do apologize.

He apologized...let it go.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by TheeBadOne

zbusdriver is looking like he does indeed know the area.

Yep...

[Warp]

It seems to me that he was going to go in a direction that pointed out how some criminals do dangerous things, and expose themselves to great risk, on a regular basis. However, I don't want to assume too much and I want to see exactly how it is tied together before I ask more questions or comment further.

I have a feeling that the motives behind the various risk exposures being referenced will vary from the motive behind a gun grab.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by G31

It seems like there is a lot of arguing over irrelevant (to the topic) information. Who cares if the guy didn't actually lose the gun? The point is, in this situation, it seems that the OCer was specifically targeted because he had an openly exposed gun. The BG obviously wasn't scared, and was confident in his ability to get the gun.

Personally, I've worked LE and can agree with 1811 on his points. Unfortunately, many people do fit right in with what he said. That does NOT mean all people do, but many do. I've spoken with a lot of idiots who open carry and/or concealed carry. It does not make someone a trustworthy, upstanding person because they carry a gun legally.

I've also met quite a few criminals who could not give a rats butt about your gun, and will not be deterred at all. They do the same crap to each other day in and day out, full well knowing they could be murdered over it, so why would they be fearful of you?

Originally Posted by Warp

Criminals open carry, and are attacked by other criminals for the gun, day in and day out? This is news to me.

How's that, Warp...

"Criminals open carry, and are attacked by other criminals for the gun, day in and day out? This is news to me.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by RussP

How's that, Warp...

"Criminals open carry, and are attacked by other criminals for the gun, day in and day out? This is news to me.

Criminals are attacked by other criminals. Yes. All the time. For many reasons, the majority of which would not seem to apply to the situation at hand.

Examples: Criminals attack other criminals because they are members of rival gangs, because they are competing for business (drug sales, etc), because they know the other criminal(s) won't call the police to report it, because they have drugs/large amounts of cash on them, because the other guy dis'd them, etc.

What I don't see is what of the above, or the many other reasons I left out, is relevant, and how.

Also, it strikes me as very odd that in order to make your point you have to completely cross out the "open carry" part. Isn't that the basis of this thread and this discussion? Open carry of a firearm?? How relevant can something be when you have to remove the open carry aspect?

[deckard2000]

I'm going to post my .02 cents and will probably get my nose broken. I didn't read all the posts so it may have been said, but the police didn't stop the robbery either.

[dnuggett]

Originally Posted by RussP

What, then would be a/the motive?

We don't know if there was a motive. If there was one, some of the more plausible motives would include fencing the gun for street value or the need for protection against another hood rat.