FL Knockout Game Perp Pops Vic After Asking If He’s Armed

Neptune Beach (courtesy virtualtourist.com)

“The victim told police that he believed the boys were playing the ‘knockout game,'” members.jacksonville.com reports. “He said he was approached on the beach by one of the boys who asked him if he had a ‘Glock.’ The man was punched after admitting that he was unarmed.” What does that tell all those anti-gunners who counsel people not to carry a gun for self-defense, and advise crime victims to cooperate with and capitulate to their attackers? Not a damn thing. They’d say a gun – in either person’s hand – would have escalated the situation. Yes, well, setting aside the otherwise inescapable fact that a single punch to the head can be fatal, how about this . . .

Fearing that the boy would continue to hit him until he was unconscious, the man grabbed at a folding knife that he had tucked into his waistband and pretended to have a gun. The boys fled, and the man enlisted the help of his neighbor to search for the boys.

So having a pretend gun stopped a brutal attack. Just like having a real gun would have. In fact, it’s not a great leap to think that an affirmative answer to the initial question may have stopped the attack as well.

Of course, there’s no way of knowing what would have happened if either or both sides of this horrifying encounter had been GLOCKed-up. And I never met an anti yet who couldn’t spin common sense self-defense into a case against common sense self-defense.

But it is interesting to note that a violent punk made Gaston Glock’s handiwork a topic of pre-attack conversation. Just as it’s good to know the police captured the perps. I bet the victim will carry a gun from now on. I mean, who wouldn’t?

comments

  1. avatar C says:

    The case for open carry?

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      As a CHL holder, I think this would be a perfect situation in where an OC’er could’ve just been left alone instead of getting hit multiple times.

    2. avatar Delmarva Chip says:

      Indeed.

    3. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      Food for thought:
      If kids are stupid enough to be playing the knock-out game, it’s really not a stretch to imagine that one day they may be playing the “grab the gun out of the holster” game.

      1. avatar Alpo says:

        Further food for thought: retention holster

        1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

          If everyone used a retention holster and had proper training to deal with someone trying to grab their firearm, that would be great. But everyone doesn’t.

        2. avatar Accur81 says:

          Retention is nice, but a little training also allows the observant individual the ability to remove a firearm from a retention holster pretty fast.

        3. @accur

          If it were that easy to remove firearms from holsters, then police wouldn’t open carry.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Second gun.

          Some OCers carry a BUG. I do. 😉

          My EDC single action rides in a Tom Threepersons with a leather thong for basic retention. Nobody’s trying to get that out of my holster without me noticing. If they even try making a grab, the BUG is present as an option.

        5. avatar JoelT says:

          As I understand it, most of these attacks happen without the victim seeing them coming until it’s too late. The point is that it’s a sucker punch that will take them out cold. Once it’s lights out, there’s nothing preventing them from removing your firearm, retention holster or no, and then putting you or someone else’s lights out permanently. There’s no doubt that a gun will deter some, but it could just as easily attract others who want that gun, or want to take on a “tough guy openly carrying a gun in my neighborhood.”

          I like legal open carry, because it affords more protection under the law if your concealed handgun were to accidentally to become visible. That doesn’t mean I would do it, particularly in an area where this kind of attack happens.

          I think thugs are less likely (I said ‘less likely’ not ‘it never happens’) to mess with police officers open carrying, because they know if they mess with them, there are more cops who are going to hunt them down. Who do you have to hunt them down if something happens to you?

        6. avatar Patrick says:

          Joel:
          “There’s no doubt that a gun will deter some, but it could just as easily attract others who want that gun”

          I would replace “just as easily” with “also”. I believe the ratio of deterrence/attraction is high, not equal. If I wanted a gun and could not acquire one by normal purchasing means, I (and I think most people) would go the route of underground procurement rather than attacking someone with a gun and risking my life taking it.

          I know that people do use the attack-and-take method, but I believe the number is a lot lower than agreeable underground trade, etc.

          I think that open carry in general prevents more attacks than it encourages; an unexpected attack, though very difficult for the defending party to defend, is still a lot more risky to the offending party when the defense is known to be armed (compared the the “unlikely status” of a not apparently carrying person).

          While some folks like a challenge, usually a seemingly weaker, more defenseless party is more at risk.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        If you’re going to OC, you’d BETTER have a retention holster.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I wouldn’t fault someone if they did carry in a retention holster and I also recommend it to those who ask my opinion. But, I only have one holster with any sort of retention that I regularly use and it just has a leather hammer thong. The other holsters I use (less often – different handguns) are high ride pancake varieties with no retention. I carry at least one other firearm, OC, and it really isn’t that dire of a need for retention, IMHO. If I were a cop or bail enforcer prone to wrestling with perps then I wouldn’t be without a very good retention holster.

        2. I don’t open carry but I needed a way to conceal carry in swim trunks. I came up with this:
          https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=62EEB3FCDE5FEAB5!128&authkey=!AIM8THXK8ouZ88Y&ithint=folder%2c
          After all, it did happen on a beach.

      3. avatar ThomasR says:

        You can imagine all kind of imaginary fears; tj; just like an anti- gun person does every time gun carry is expanded and they cry “blood in the streets”.

        But what is the reality? The reality is that if such a scenario happened where an OC’er had a gun taken away and used against him it would be national front page news.

        Human predators follow the sales rules as animal predators. They hunt the helpless, weak and the unaware; if you OC and have good situational awareness; you are none of those things. So the odds that in a crowd of people if you are the only one OCing? You will be the last one picked.

        As this predator showed when he asked if the prey had a gun; and when the prey said no; BAM!

        And yes; I use a retention holster. Because like all rules of human behavior; there are always exceptions.

        1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

          You can imagine all kind of imaginary fears; tj; just like an anti- gun person does every time gun carry is expanded and they cry “blood in the streets”.

          So many assumptions, where to start…

          First, you seem to assume I’m anti-gun. I’m not. Then you assume I’m imagining all kids of “imaginary fears”. Really. The “knock-out” game was imagined into existence, wasn’t it? And like I prefaced my reply, if kids are already this stupid, it’s pretty clear to me that human stupidity has no limits. Not to mention, this specific article already bridges the gap of knock-out game participants are already clued-in about armed citizens to ask first if you are carrying before beginning their per-meditated attack.

          So it’s not as big a logical leap as you make it out to be where kids will eventually start to up the ante once punching is just not enough of a rush. The knock-out game is already assault and it’s potentially lethal.

          And the reason I brought up the gun-grab game is because it specifically targets OC, which is what the replier was talking about. And I’m very certain there have already been instances of people getting their guns grabbed in the past — it just wasn’t considered a game. And now with social media, it’s very easy for such activities to “catch on”.

          So no, it’s not an imagined fear — it’s taking this scenario to it’s logical conclusion. And my mentioning it doesn’t make me anti-gun, it makes me aware of the depth of human stupidity — and able to prepare for it.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          I wasn’t sayingyou are anti-gun tjlarson; you wrote how you CC.

          I’m saying how you; like an anti-gun type; will imagine all kind of bad scenarios that could happen when a person is carrying a gun; and none of it is backed by facts. In my case, as an OCer; I have heard all the horror stories that could happen by OCing as reasons to not to OC by CCers.

          “The mass murderer will shoot you first before starting his killing rampage”.

          “The thief will shoot you in the back to get your gun”.

          This one by you, “the knock out gamers might start a game of grabbing OC guns “.

          None of it is backed actual facts; no one has pointed out where this has actually happened. It is all conjecture; in my opinion, these imagined fears allow the CCers to justify their own decisions for CCing versus OCing.

          The other point I made in another post; in actual fact; people that CC are more likely to be attacked by a predator; we definitely read more frequently of a CCer having to use thier gun to defend themselves than we read of an OCer doing the same.

          Is it because there are more CCers than OCers? Or is it because predators don’t know if a CCer is carrying a gun? A study should be done.

      4. avatar Swamp Daddy says:

        If my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle……..

      5. avatar Meissama says:

        Sorry it doesn’t quite work like that. When you are struck in the head when your not expecting a fist hitting you, a good % of the time your gonna drop. And in a panic situation like that where your head is throbbing or your KO’d no amount of training or special holster is typically gonna make a difference.

        1. avatar J Star says:

          It all depends. When I worked as a bouncer I got sucker punched hard enough to crack my wisdom tooth in half. Did not knock me down, did not KO me. I was able to defend myself just fine. (Much to the person and his skull’s regret) In fact, I have been knocked in the skull quite a few times without ever going down.

          BUT, I have seen guys take a tap to the jaw and go completely unconscious. Anybody remember Toughman? I used to go watch the qualification fights at the arena in my town. Some guys can take a dozen blows to the head and keep fighting, some guys get one light test punch and either throw in the towel or go down. Some of the 1 hit wonders were huge guys. The truth is you won’t know which you are until it happens.

          I know which I am, but I would recommend against finding out unless you like pain. I would rather not know. (And no, I am not being a tough guy. Trust me, that wisdom tooth hurt like a mother.)

  2. avatar Cameron B says:

    He had a knife? Better than nothing I suppose.

    1. avatar FoRealz? says:

      Knives don’t run out of ammo.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Why not carry both?

        1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

          Plus pepper spray.

        2. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Two reasons:
          – Personal preference
          – Cost

          Since this happened in FL, another reason:
          – Local laws
          doesn’t count there, where it would in, say, New Jersey..

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        No, but your arm does. Besides, I like being able to stop a threat outside bad breath distance.

  3. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    I don’t open carry specifically because of this – I don’t want some punk to pop me in the back of the head to get my pistol. And since I don’t have simultaneous 360 video monitoring, I’m always vulnerable to attack from behind. Even at the range, where I don’t expect a knockout player, but could be subject to a gun grab, I use a retention holster.

    Concealed means concealed. Open carry, regardless of the political expression issues associated with it, is just a bad choice tactically.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      People like you who claim they carry concealed so they can surprise an attacker are foolish. Once you are attacked you are not on your own terms. Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that you are unarmed. The probability of you being a victim of a violent crime is completely unchanged by the fact that you have a gun hidden beneath your shirt.

      1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

        Dan, your post seems a bit misguided. I’m not even sure why you’re so focused on method of carry, as either method has it’s own set of pros and cons. It’s simply a preference.

        People like you who claim they carry concealed so they can surprise an attacker are foolish.

        First off … “People like you”? What does that even mean? People that carry firearms legally are all in the same boat. We’re armed citizens. Secondly, you completely put words in his mouth when you said “so they can surprise an attacker”. I hope you realize that’s not the only reason people choose to carry concealed? Part of the reason people carry concealed is to not startle the sheep. Because some of us are self-aware enough to realize that not everyone enjoys the sight of a firearm and the fact that open carry can draw unwanted attention — whether that is from the police, from hoplophobes that love dialing 911, or more to your point, from criminals that are already determined to perpetrate a crime on us (being armed citizens).

        Once you are attacked you are not on your own terms.

        True. But that has nothing to do with concealed or open carry. That is a situational awareness issue as much as it is an “avoid stupid people, doing stupid things, in stupid places” issue. Sure, sometimes, evil and/or stupid chooses the time and place for a confrontation despite our best intentions. At which case, it’s good enough we’re carrying at all. When/if we’re being attacked, the method by which we carry is moot.

        Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that you are unarmed.

        Again, situational awareness and how you carry yourself comes into play. Not the method of carry. And this argument is bordering on “blame the victim for the crime”. How you carry, OC or concealed doesn’t necessarily prevent a crime from occurring. A lot of crimes don’t even take bystanders into account. The criminal is typically focused on the ATM, the cash register, getting your wallet, etc. At least with CC, you blend in with the bystanders and are less of a threat (and not a target).

        Your likelihood of being the victim of a crime depends entirely on the determination / confidence of the criminal and what type of crime is going to be committed. Sure, it’s reasonable to infer that OC does offer some degree of crime deterrence. A pickpocket probably isn’t go to go after you if they can clearly see you’re armed. But a criminal with their own gun may simply size you up and then wait for the right time to catch you off-guard if possible.

        Hence why it’s more important to not put yourself at a disadvantage by wandering into dark alleys by yourself or walking to your car alone in a deserted parking garage, etc. You make yourself a target, OC or concealed.

        Physical fitness, the way you carry yourself, how you’re dressed, if you’re aware of your environment etc. are all deterrents for a would-be criminal sizing you up from a distance. For example, a morbidly obese person dressed like a slob OCing a pistol in a non-retention holster is probably going to be seen as more of an opportunity for a free gun than someone else that is fit and seems aware of their surroundings and looks like they can handle themselves in a fight and who doesn’t present them with an easy target.

        The probability of you being a victim of a violent crime is completely unchanged by the fact that you have a gun hidden beneath your shirt.

        Perhaps the more important statistic to research is the survival rates of OCers vs. Concealed Carriers when they are victims of crime. Perhaps you recall that Las Vegas incident where two police officers were gunned down from behind during their lunch break? Same goes for the concealed carrier that confronted the murderers later?

        They all died the same way, shot in the back. You can be sure criminals that want to kill you aren’t going to give you a chance to draw your gun. If you’re OCing and murder is on the criminal’s mind, as an OCer you’re presenting yourself as a lethal threat and you are now a primary target for the criminal. If they are smart, they’ll just ambush and shoot you from behind just like the Las Vegas couple. However, as a concealed carrier, that criminal may make the mistake of being over-confident, thinking you’re unarmed, and approach you from the front (or they may ignore you). The concealed carrier did, in fact, get the drop on one of the criminals, but failed to notice the second that snuck up behind him.

        So again, this is less about method of carry as it is situational awareness. If the police, who were in uniform and OCing noticed the couple with guns, they probably could’ve had the chance to fire back. Just like the concealed carrier if they noticed that there were two shooters, not just one.

        1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

          Here’s another thing to consider: That gat on your hip is like OCing your wallet. The more tricked out and fancy it is, the more enticing to a criminal that isn’t afraid of it. And that firearm may as well be a fat stack of bills for any criminal that can get the drop on you.

          As the Chris Kyle murder illustrates, no matter how much training you have, if you don’t see a threat coming it doesn’t matter. Your fancy EDC kit won’t save you.

          The OC / CC debate has more to do with public perception. Functionality and comfort are large factors, but again, that’s personal preference.

        2. avatar Rob says:

          The way you carry yourself is most important. I’ve had a CCW for years but rarely carried. Over the years, I’ve been in some nasty places, but was never bothered. Two years ago, I tore my quad. I was limping into Wal Mart & a guy walking out gave me a look that had never been directed at me before. He was looking at me like I was a victim. I noticed him standing around when I came out.

          It was at that point I faced the facts. I’m over 60, I have a bad knee, bad feet & am overweight…. I look like a victim. Since that day, I have never gone anywhere without being armed.

          Open carry vs concealed carry. I work at the gun counter of a major outdoor retailer. I see open carry all the time. None of the people I’ve seen have any situational awareness, nor do they look like they’ve had any training. I’m going off of body language. Very few of them use retention holsters. I’ve seen holsters & guns dragging their pants down.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          @Rob: Some of us attempt to look laid back, especially in retail establishments because we are open carrying. The more relaxed one appears, the less attention one attracts. Most people don’t even notice the handgun on my side and part of that is my comfortable demeanor. I assure you that the situation awareness of those who have been practicing it for a long time is not always perceptible to others. IMHO, my departed great-uncle was a master at it. Put me back in the hood and perception of me changes. Environment dictates intentional projection. Someone telegraphing high situational awareness in a run of the mill retail environment looks like a criminal to the uninformed.

          However, yes, I believe that a lot of people (CC, OC, or no carry) are probably walking around less situationally aware than is prudent for their own safety.

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Using that Los Vegas police execution in this debate is disingenuous at best and willfully misleading at worse.

          They were attacked not because they OC’d. They were attacked because they were in uniform and the attackers had a grudge against cops.

          There is precisely ZERO data showing OC has a higher attack or survivability rate than CC, or we’d be seeing the citations from those studies every time this debate comes up.

          First Rule: Have a Gun.

        5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          TJ, you raise some good points and some that I disagree with. I’ll try to address most here, even if I don’t always quote what I am replying to in your post (for brevity).

          Dan, your post seems a bit misguided. I’m not even sure why you’re so focused on method of carry, as either method has it’s own set of pros and cons. It’s simply a preference.

          I agree that each method of carry has its pros and cons, but in my opinion the pros outweigh the cons. However, as you state it is a personal preference. The reason I posted what I did, and the reason it’s not a misguided post, is because the OP wrote, “Concealed means concealed.” What does that have to do with anything here? “Concealed means concealed” is an argument against printing, not OCing, and the author was the one that “mandated” concealing rather than leave it up to the individual. Although I OC my primary, I don’t tell others how they should carry. In this case I simply pointed out to him just one of the negatives of CCing, which is applicable to cases like this, that you appear to be unarmed and a soft target. His position was that, should he get attacked for appearing to be unarmed, he could surprise his attacker with his “concealed means concealed” weapon. Once you are attacked you are not on your own terms. Can a successful defense be made then? It is possible, but why appear to be defenseless and a soft target in the first place? People who want that “element of surprise” always assume they will simply be a bystander instead of the target victim. Your element of surprise doesn’t work when you are the one being surprised by a direct attack for giving the impression of being an easy target rather than assuming you’ll be a bystander.

          Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that you are unarmed. Every study says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. I do not understand the advantage of appearing to be unarmed. I don’t want to have to shoot someone. The people that will attack an open carrier are rare. If you feel better concealing, that’s your choice. I prefer to stop the threat before it turns into a real life physical threat if I can. If you think it’s better to stop the threat once you’re on your back getting your head smashed in to the pavement by using your surprise tactics, that’s your decision to make. If you think it is better to lure someone into attacking you rather than deterring them from attacking you, you may want to rethink your strategy. If a criminal has pulled a weapon on you, he has already made up his mind on his course of action. Your element of surprise plays no role in deterring the criminal’s decision to attack you. There is well-documented and researched analysis by criminal profilers and psychologists that says criminals will look for a soft target. As with everything there are exceptions to the rule, but the majority of criminals are indeed opportunistic and run when facing something that will keep them from accomplishing their goal. As one open carrier stated, “I’m not a ninja. By concealing you have to attempt to ambush your ambusher in order to use your weapon, and that is just something I’m not interested in doing.”

          I will never claim that openly carrying a firearm will deter all criminals. The world is not that black and white. I am of the opinion that open carry is one tool in a vast arsenal that can help reduce your chance of being selected as a potential target.

          a morbidly obese person dressed like a slob OCing a pistol in a non-retention holster is probably going to be seen as more of an opportunity…[or] looks like they can handle themselves in a fight

          I agree. That’s why I always dress well and wear a Safariland SLS retention holster. I try to keep SA while being presentable to the masses. But let’s face it, we all get old. Some people have infirmities. Sometimes there’s more than one bad guy. Oftentimes there’s more than one bad guy!

          While I’m happy to see you didn’t trot out the old “Open carry sets you up as the first target to be eliminated by bad guys” argument, your post still contained some of the same types of “Blood will run in the streets” hyperbole that anti-2A people have said about CC over the last twenty-five years.

          I wrote a 3,700 word article on the pros and cons of open carry, exposing the oft-repeated myths by anti-OCers, that was published last month. It goes into much more detail than I was able to present here. There is a saying among backpackers: “Each person has to hike his own hike.” It is the same with self-defense. If some choose to carry concealed, that is fine. It is up to each person to provide for his own self-defense however seems best to him or her. That may be carrying a firearm, pepper spray, employing martial arts, or using nothing at all, simply choosing to rely on law enforcement for protection.

          Stopping a violent crime before a criminal injures a citizen is practically unheard of. It simply is not humanly possible, no matter how dedicated the police force. In the end, you must take responsibility for your own safety, and you are the only one who can guarantee that safety. How you choose to do so is up to you. Open carry is one option for carrying a firearm for self-defense, concealing is another. Finding the balance is an exercise for the reader.

    2. avatar xwing says:

      Carry with retention. Someone hitting you from behind isn’t likely to know how to release it and wouldn’t be willing to fiddle with it while standing over a person.

      I’m in FL and would like the open carry option. There are many instances where I’m not dressed for concealed carry (like back from work where I carry off body) and I’d love to just pop on an OWB holster on and run somewhere like the grocery store without having to completely change.

      EDIT: I read gud… my comment stands. I agree.

    3. So when the punk asks you the same question, what do you say? I say “none of your f###ing business. Then you create space. If you are approached after your last comment then the guy is looking for trouble. Give it to him. The guy that was punched should have been on alert after the punk asked about a Glock. Self defense tip: Don’t talk to strangers. If they talk to you, keep your guard up. Make eye contact and don’t smile. I never give beggars money and if you get a stupid question like “do you have a glock?” you need to end the exchange and get to safety.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Michael in GA wrote:

        “So when the punk asks you the same question, what do you say? I say “none of your f###ing business.”

        Give him a big-ass smile and say “Wanna find out?”.

        1. avatar KCK says:

          Do ya feel lucky?
          Well, do ya?
          Punk?

          That has a nice ring to it.
          I think I’ll write that down.

        2. avatar Esemwy says:

          “When someone asks you if you’re a god, you say YES!”

        3. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Correct, Goeff!

      2. avatar Cogitans says:

        I emphatically agree with your advice, I live in downtown that is very nice during the day but sketchy once the sun goes down. When I get approached by someone that I think is trying to hit me up/size me up, and if your paying attention you can tell who they are, I just blow right by them when they address me. Completely baffles them since it through them out of their zone.

        1. Yeah, I don’t know what makes people want to engage strangers who obviously look like they are up to no good. My wife is like that. She is an only child so maybe that has something to do with it. Her mom says as a child, my wife would talk to anybody. She acknowleges bums that speak to her as we are walking down the street, even stopping to hear what they have to say. I have to grab her by the arm and say “Lets go!” I warn her that the guy might want to mug her and she says “well that is why I have you to protect me and you have your gun with you.” I say to her “don’t ever do that again”.
          I have been to the worst sections of New Orleans, Atlanta, Seatle, New York, San Fran, Tampa, Detroit, Phoenix and a few smaller towns all before I carried. I never felt threatened and that is not why I carry today. You just have to look like you know your way around and keep moving. Either don’t talk to people or keep it short like “No”, or “I can’t help you”. Actually, now that I am older and packing heat, I don’t find myself frequenting such culturally diverse sections of town after dark no matter how good the food and music may be.

    4. avatar tdiinva says:

      You can keep good 360 degree SA. You don’t need to be continuously looking. You have to be continuously scanning the scene. It helps when you know the environment because you have an idea of what normal is. It gets more involved when you when have no idea what an anomaly looks like. People make the mistake of thinking that you have to evaluate and keep track of every person. Generally, you don’t care about people with strollers, granny or clearly benign individuals. Even the ghetto is not populated exclusively by threats. Getting surprised is always a possibility but the right surveillance/counter-surveillance techniques are not that hard to learn and they will greatly reduce your chances of being attacked given the threats we face. It’s not like we are defending ourselves from SPETSNAZ.

    5. avatar ThomasR says:

      Well TOD; if it was “bad tactically” to OC; then cops would be plain clothed and CC’ing.

      There is one part of being a citizen OCing. That is to be a visible deterent to bad guys. The other part is to reacquaint Americans to their traditions; their responsibilities to be the first line of defense for their community and that a regular person OCing a gun can be the good guy.

      The odds of a predator targeting me as an OCer is not zero; but how many cops of the hundreds of thousands in uniform and OCing have gotten shot in the back without warning? Two?

      This is why I say that the odds of someone CCing of being targeted by a predator is much higher just because the criminal doesn’t know if your armed.

      And that is what we read about in the paper, almost daily; of another CCer having to use a gun against a predator.

      How many again have we read of an OCer being attacked and using their gun to defend themselves ; none?

      I rest my case.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Yep. I also believe that both methods of carry are important. I think that we need more OC as a general deterrent to crime and tyranny. I think that by having plenty of CCers adds a deterrent effect since perpetrators won’t know for sure if someone is actually armed or not. It all starts with many OCing, though.

    6. avatar last marine out says:

      Carry a inside the pants rig or even in the pocket and a extra large t-shit , problem fixed and don’t forget a extra magazine….

    7. avatar meadowsr says:

      When LEO comes up with a reason for officers to CC, then I’ll reconsider. Until then, I will continue to to OC when I can, and only CC when necessary.

      Besides the complete lack of any evidence whatsoever that OC presents me a higher risk of becoming a victim, my ability to represent gun owners/carriers as responsible, honest, law-abiding folk is increased when I OC, and completely and 100% eradicated when I CC. I’ve talked to people while carrying, about my carry, whom I’d like to think left thinking “hey, that guy was carrying a gun, but he really seemed like an OK fella”, and I have no reason to believe that they didn’t.

      Don’t discount the societal and political impact of images of honest, responsible, law-abiding OC. Especially in today’s climate.

      Absent actual data and facts to back it up, the phrase “OC is a bad choice tactically” needs to be retired.

  4. avatar Excedrine says:

    Hopefully Florida Carry, OpenCarry.org, and the rest can push open carry ASAP. If we can make at least some of these punks think twice, that’ll do more to deter violence than any gun control law ever written will ever do.

    And that’s a fact, Jack!

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1000 OC has so much potential benefit.

  5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    If Obama had a son

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    I get a bit tired of the lame stream media referring to violent criminals as “boys”. Maybe I should get a Glock brand Glock for CCL. At least he had a knife. Bring back Charles Bronson…

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      …and Bernard Goetz.

  7. avatar v v ind says:

    “No I dont have a glock”. punch. BANGd huh, turns out its a s&w buddy

    1. avatar Yossarian says:

      +1

  8. avatar Calvin says:

    What do we think the right answer would have been had the victim been armed? I don’t think Yes is the go-to response here. Me? I’m partial to “Go f’ yourself!” as I rest my hand on the TCP in my pocket.

    1. avatar v v ind says:

      I agree. I say the response is “you have a death wish? Or “you willing to chance it?”

      1. avatar soccerdad1150 says:

        this +1

      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        Amen. “Only one way to find out — are you willing to risk your life?”

      3. avatar jwm says:

        “Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you?”

    2. I have used that very line twice, once in NO and once in SF. Punks prey on tourists that are walking around in condition white and overjoyed to be on vacation. At the time of both encounters, I was not a gun owner. The scam was the old “I bet I know where you got yo shoes at” trick. Besides being an improper sentence, the victim is supposed to say “no way”. Then the punk says “on yo feet”. So even though technically you did not lose the bet, the punk feels righteous in shaking you down for whatever cash you are carrying as well as bringing along his partners to enforce the results of the lost bet. “Go f\/ck yourself” and kept walking has sent the message that I don’t play and they simply wait for a sucker.

    3. avatar tom says:

      Never underestimate the effect of silence and an empty stare.

    4. avatar Yossarian says:

      “Why don’t you come a little closer, and let’s find out.” – spoken tight jawed with an intense glare and devious smirk.

  9. avatar racer88 says:

    If the victim had any sense of “SA,” he would have gone from “yellow” to “red” just from the “interview.” If someone approaching me asked me such a question, I’d be MOVING away, if possible. And, if not possible, I’d be expecting that “fight’s on.”

    Really a strange story.

  10. avatar Sheepdog6 says:

    Can somebody please find me a single news article referencing a crime committed where a non-police officer civilian was targeted by the criminal while open carrying in an effort to either disarm an obviously armed person and/or to gain access to a weapon?

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I am only aware of one incident which happened to a Wisconsin man who routinely carried openly before Wisconsin passed their concealed carry law. The man claimed that an attacker snuck up behind him, either threatened or put a gun to his back, and announced that the attacker was relieving the man of his handgun … which indeed happened and without injury fortunately.

      Here is a link to a story about it:
      http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/95999354.html

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        My recollection of the facts is slightly different than yours, but yes, the incident did happen.

  11. avatar RALPH says:

    My answer: “No. I have a Smith & Wesson.” Of course, by then I would be sticking it into the little sh!t’s mouth.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      My response would be “say hello to my friend John Moses Browning.”

  12. avatar Alpo says:

    Witty comebacks aside…

    If you’re ever actually approached by random yutes, I would suggest no interaction other than “Stay right there.” or, if you think you’re hood enough to pull it off believably, “Don’t be comin up on me!”

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Exactly.

      Craig Douglas’ “Managing Unknown Contacts” courses worth every penny for situations like this one.

      From what I gather, Douglas advocates NOT getting into conversation and doing what is need to maintain distance.

      Seems like good advice to me.

  13. avatar Muddy Waters says:

    When I was growing up in Kansas City (not very long ago), “Vic” was the word for a cop, based on the Crown Vics they drove. I was obviously confused when I read the headline explaining that someone had asked a cop if he had a gun.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      that is the only time I have heard that referring to a cop. Must be a regional thing.

    2. avatar meadowsr says:

      A friend of mine used to drive an old Crown Vic. He looked about the least like a copy that you could get, unless we’re talking undercover infiltrating a drug ring (which was also 100% out of character). More than once he got waved at by troopers along the highway, thinking he was a fellow officer, as he sped by them at well over the speed limit.

  14. avatar Royal T says:

    From my time in Oakland and SF I’ve learned the best response to trash like this is incomprehensible muttering like a “bluhhh”. They never know how to respond, and can’t get all indignant for you ignoring them as they are wont to do. Don’t know if that would’ve helped in this case; these punks were probably set on assaulting someone.

  15. avatar jimmyjames says:

    I could have answered truthfully…”no, I have 3.”

  16. avatar Great Scot says:

    The title got me in a bit of a guddle. Took me a couple of times to figure it out!

  17. avatar Jim says:

    No doubt these were Amish “children” all hopped up on buttermilk and out on a rampage.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Clip clop. Clip clop. Bang! Bang! Clip clop. Clip clop.

  18. avatar Steve says:

    Regardless…Personal space and active awareness. One should be comfortable with the weapons they have and train with them all and train for encounters like this.

    crocodile dundee that’s not a knife: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vW54lAtldI

    Anti’s don’t accept that your life is saved if an attacker is hurt or killed with a gun. They don’t react should the knock-out victim be beat to a coma or death; at least no one died from a gun.

  19. avatar John L. says:

    “And I never met an anti yet who couldn’t spin common sense self-defense into a case against common sense self-defense.”

    More often than not, to me it sounds like the argument comes down to “we should be nicer to each other and the world should be a better place. So we shouldn’t need guns. Let’s start by getting rid of the guns as a step towards that state of being.”

    Sounds a little backwards to me. Plus, if we were all nice to each other, we all wouldn’t need to worry about a person having a gun, now would we?

  20. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    Well, the color schemes changed again! Just within the last few minutes. I much preferred the white background. It looked much more professional than this grey one. And I think it is easier to read black on white rather than black on blue-grey.

    The biggest complaint I had about the previous “look” was that hyperlinks weren’t obvious. Just fixing the font issues would have been fine.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email