Originally Posted by windplex
my thanks to those who discussed their experience with criminals and how we cannot imagine how they think. i believe it.
Yes, I had the misfortune of enduring an early exposure to an environment that fortunately many others don't ever see...including many cops. I could make some politically incorrect remarks on how that happened, but I suspect it would be quite a derailment.
Point being, while I can appreciate that some LEOs often see things on a daily basis that many don't experience in a lifetime, that's not always the case. And I could certainly provide examples.
What I'm seeing is a tendency to assert that since you cannot properly (as defined by someone with that LE experience) assess the risk of OC'ing without walking in their shoes, you should not OC because you can get hurt or killed. Leave that to the military or LE.
One could carry that argument much further. 'Unless you've been in the military or LE and have been in an armed confrontation, you should not carry...period.' Obviously no one has said that, just extending the logic. I would argue "isn't that where personal responsibility comes in?"
Isn't this where a person accepts the responsibility of being armed whether OC or CC? Their level of risk is dependent on their own environment, and their own efforts in getting the equipment that is best suited for their needs, getting the right training that is best for them, and practicing. I see where not having exposure to a criminal environment could add risk (depending upon your specifics). But I just don't see it as "the" major litmus test for determining whether OC should be allowed to extend beyond the military and LE.