I'm not against OC, but what end does it serve?
All it does is cause fear and confusion amongst the ovine-americans.
Some people think it causes fear in the person who's about to commit a robbery in the Circle K store you just happen to be standing in at the moment, which in turn, causes the BG to wait until the OC'er leaves. THEN he goes back in to rob the unarmed sheep because it's so much easier & safer for the crook to do things that way.
Even crooks are smart enough to always be on the lookout for ways to reduce risk to themselves during crimes, whether it's the risk of going to jail on charges far worse than just robbery, or the risk of being shot by good guys. I think most robberies are committed by guys who just want to steal money without incurring the risk of murder charges, since most have still never committed a murder before. The idea that such a crook will BEGIN a robbery by murdering an OC'er makes little sense when waiting three minutes for him to leave DRASTICALLY increases the chance of getting away from the crime clean, because usually, no shots are fired and the police are not likely to be notified as quickly when the noise is kept down.
Why is it that people who theorize about how "the OC'er is always the first one to get shot" never want to acknowledge that (in America) there's a total absence of crime reports where a robbery (in the real world) actually happening that way?
No... OC does accomplish something. It makes the OC'er and everyone around him safer for as long as he's there. When he leaves, the risk to the sheep goes up, in spite of their false beliefs to the contrary.
atriot:
