Untitled-1

“Gun-carrying good guys in a food court can protect others eating there from the dangers of a gun-carrying bad guy. Don’t we want to know who the good guys are so we can sit near them with our families? These good guys are there to serve the public in times of danger, like fire-hydrants and emergency call-boxes. Therefore, the license-to-carry should require good guys to wear distinctive tall hats, easily seen at a distance, so the public will know who protects us when the bad guys come around. Will the NRA support this public-spirited initiative?” – Morton Marcus in Guns in our economy [at nuvo.com]

Recommended For You

111 Responses to Quote of the Day: Sheepdog’s Chapeau Edition

    • Darn straight. I might draw if I think its best, but the bottom line is its my butt not yours that I’m defending.

    • Considering the strangers we save will likely sue the crap out of us because they bumped their knee
      falling over the body of the bad guy, I am inclined to agree. If saving my family means saving strangers, I am in; otherwise, I plan to cover my families escape. If my priority resource (family) is already safe, however, I suspect that my past training and instinct to help will kick in anyway, and I may just maneuver to stop the threat.

      • I forgot to add this… But, just like police, I have no legal obligation to protect strangers, and that includes unarmed, anti-2nd amendment, hateful Progressives who write stupid articles.

    • Depending on circumstances, I may choose to protect the defenseless should the need arise. If you would like me to consider protecting YOU, you need to wear a tall, stupid looking hat bearing the logo “I am deliberately unarmed and carrying a lot of money.” My horselaugh while you are being beaten to death with your wife’s handbag will surely drive away your assailants.

    • Or non gun owning public can put up and wear signs stating they are unarmed. Preferably on their house but a nice placard on their attire would do. Anything that catches a muggers or burglars attention away from me.

      Seriously, these folks are becoming so mentally unstable it’s disconcerting because eventually they’ll act out physically.

    • Gbo beat me to it!

      When all of the people who refuse to be armed wear an equally obvious “unarmed person” hat, I will happily wear my “armed good guy” hat.

  1. And those wishing to improperly practice the first amendment by espousing really dumb ideas should have to wear a ball gag in public so we can tell at a glance who to stay away from.

  2. Because bad guys wouldn’t dare take out gun carriers first. This is my problem with OC in that you are a target

      • I’m not against open carry but if i was a bad guy intent to do some kind of harm in a public place and saw someone open carrying i would:
        1) go commit my crime somewhere else
        or
        2) kill the open carrier first
        If I knew there was more than one person with a gun around it would definitely be #1

        • By this logic, infrequent open carry is a liability to those few who open carry.

          So clearly we need lots more open carry.

        • “I’m not against open carry but if i was a bad guy intent to do some kind of harm in a public place and saw someone open carrying i would:
          1) go commit my crime somewhere else”

          This has happened. There is at least one documented case where a a pair of armed robbers (who were later caught) admitted that they approached one business, saw OC’d handguns among the patrons of that business and went somewhere else.

          Further, this is consistent with the “thin slicing” model criminologists use to describe the violent actor’s victim selection process. In that model, the experienced attacker always defaults to “don’t attack” unless he very quickly can assess the attack will be successful.

          So…seeing a visibly displayed firearm will generally push the attacker to “don’t attack, seek victim elsewhere.” The body of research supporting this is rather large.

          “or
          2) kill the open carrier first”

          As Chip said, [Citation Needed].

          When has this actually happened?

          There have been ambush attacks on cops. That’s as close as one can come to citing cases where a criminal willfully sought after an attack on someone openly carrying a firearm.

          Please cite one case where a violent actor purposefully selected an openly armed victim over other unarmed victims in the vicinity.

          This “attack the OC-er first” shtick sounds good on the Internet, but it does not hold up to real world analysis.

        • JR_in_NC,

          First, let me state that I am a HUGE proponent of open carry. I have carried firearms openly myself many times and will continue to do so. I also support the right of everyone else to choose whether they carry openly or concealed.

          That said, I do know of two documented instances where an attacker purposely targeted open carriers. The first event involved a man who carried openly in Wisconsin shortly before they passed their concealed carry law. One day an armed robber snuck up behind the victim, put a gun in his back, and relieved the victim of his openly carried handgun. Fortunately, the armed robber did not shoot the open carrier. The second instance occurred in the last few months and involved a man who carried a handgun openly. Someone approached that man, had the drop on him, and relieved him of his handgun as well. And, as in the Wisconsin case, did not shoot the victim in the process of taking his handgun. This last event may happened somewhere where the open carrier’s handgun was unloaded because of some law. At any rate I believe The Truth about Guns featured that story.

          So, there are a few instances where brazen criminals have actually targeted open carriers first because they were armed. Of course there are no guarantees in life. As with anything else, there are pros and cons and each person has to weigh their options and choose what is best for themselves in their opinion.

        • My guess (no citation) would be that if the crime you were intent on committing was mass murder, this might be the case, but in absolutely no other circumstance. Even then, only if they are well trained and equipped mass murderers, since otherwise the guy you are targeting just might kill you instead, completely defeating your wonderful mass murder. I have no fear at all of a person carrying a gun, but then I am not contemplating a crime. OTOH, if I were planning to rob the cash register, I would certainly not begin by committing first degree murder. I would go somewhere else.

          I just thought of something! The lack of citations to the contrary *IS* a citation. In the entire country has there EVER been an OC person shot in the back just prior to the killer robbing the place? I’ll even accept a uniformed police officer.

        • “The second instance occurred in the last few months and involved a man who carried a handgun openly. Someone approached that man, had the drop on him, and relieved him of his handgun as well. “

          Was that the one where the guy was OC-ing an UNLOADED gun, and it was (somehow) known to be unloaded?

          Your Wisconsin story is interesting. I like that you provided a specific example that one could presumably verify.

          That said…my problem with the base assertion is that guys are claiming this “will” happen like it happens all the time. I’ll gladly concede that is has happened, but attack of OC-er is at best a corner case. It’s not a trend.

          Now, the real question becomes who gets attacked at a higher rate…OC-ers where the gun is visible or CC-ers where the attacker does not know the person is CC-ing?

      • let me just head down to the local library to check out some microfiche and get back to you. before you ding me on citation format, can you please tell me if you prefer MLA or APA? please feel free to run this through a spelling and grammur checker too and let me know if you have any redlines.

        Here’s my citation: “Chip Should Wake Up.” The Journal of Are You Fuggink Kidding Me? (Bad Guys Shoot Good Guys, Cops, Security All The Time Press, 1999).

        • “Here’s my citation: “Chip Should Wake Up.” The Journal of Are You Fuggink Kidding Me? (Bad Guys Shoot Good Guys, Cops, Security All The Time Press, 1999).”

          Yeah. Nice try. That’s not data.

          Internet snark is not “evidence.”

          Your citation fails. Your logic is more consistent with the anti-gun MDA-ers…snark and emotion.

          Bad guys shooting cops is a very different animal than an OC-ing citizen going about their day. BG’s that shoot cops/security guards are typically in planned ambushes.

          You would do well to study the actual data on the topic of how violent criminals select victims for attack. I suggest you start your study of actual, real world data with the decision making process known as “thin slicing.”

          Read the works of dozens of criminologists that have studies actual criminals and criminal behavior, then get back to us on your unsubstantiated, “I know I’m right” Geezer Science.

        • No need to stress yourself exerting such effort. That you immediately resort to ad hominem sufficiently demonstrates that you have no statistics or other evidence to support the assertion.

        • The assertion was “you are a target”. The demands for “citation” and “evidence” are just silly. A target that has never been shot is still a target. Everybody’s a target and nobody’s a target. Do what you think you need to survive.

        • Chippy, also, while I think your “evidence or it’s wrong” demand is silly, I think your hominem is perfectly fine.

        • Chippy, also, while I think your “evidence or it’s wrong” demand is silly…

          Yes; sadly, it appears that the concept of logical debate is lost on you. The way it works is that one person makes an assertion, the supports that assertion with evidence. The combination of assertion plus evidence is a logical argument. The other person counters that assertion with other, contrary evidence, and/or makes a counter assertion, supported by evidence.

          This back-and-forth is how civil people discuss issues and opposing ideas.

          So, when someone makes an assertion, such as “if you open carry you are more likely to be a target for criminals; therefore, you should concealed carry”, the assertion that supports the conclusion must be supported with evidence that it is true; otherwise, the assertion is specious, and the conclusion cannot be assumed to be true.

          The person making the assertion bears the burden of providing supporting evidence. Ad hominem, begging the question, and non-sequitur – all of which you have used, in short order – are all logical fallacies that fail to support the given assertion.

        • Chippy just because a comment hurts your feelers…

          So, this wasn’t a case of using ad hominem due to lack of a logical response; rather, it appears that ad hominem is the only thing in your repertoire, period.

        • There are lots of OCs out there. If you cannot come up with a single one shot in the back in the course of a robbery, with his gun still in his holster, I shall assume that YOUR assumption is incorrect. And so should you! A person shot after he has drawn his gun is not a player, since concealed or not did not matter.

        • Fooseball,

          The assertion was “you are a target”. The demands for “citation” and “evidence” are just silly. A target that has never been shot is still a target. Everybody’s a target and nobody’s a target. Do what you think you need to survive.

          If a criminal is looking for a gun and is brave he may target an open carrier. But also, if a criminal is going to choose between a person open carrying and person who appears unarmed for a robbery, rape, or other criminal activity this will certainly affect his decision too. The bottom line Fooseball, is neither matters. Open carry is about freedom to carry a firearm – it has nothing to do with “tactics” and everything to do with “freedom.” The vast majority of people will continue to carry concealed (which is great). A guy can now carry a pistol on his hip between the range and his vehicle without worrying about getting arrested by cops (for not hurting anyone).

        • ^^^ This. (Anonymous’ last comment)

          When those wanting to restore the right to keep and bear arms focus too heavily upon tactics and upon crime rates, there is a risk of making a cemented connection in the public mind. If crime rates go up, I certainly am not going to relinquish my right to bear arms in public; even if studies were to show that increased guns were causing crime rates to go up. Open or concealed, it is an individual right and the ability to exercise it has been infringed by our government for too long. Although I understand why the rights movement uses crime rates (and to a lesser degree tactical advantage) to educate the public and sway public opinion, the right does not hinge upon those rates or tactics.

        • chippy, you do realize this is an internet comments section, not a peer-review panel for an esteemed journal of criminology? though you may lament that i have no evidence to back this assertion, i swear it is true.

      • Opinions don’t need citations…

        In my opinion, clowns are freaky as f*ck and Selma Hayek is the hottest chick on the planet.

        *No citation needed*

      • That is the difference between facts and opinion.
        I have an opinion. In my opinion, a robber walks into a Waffle House and sees a man with a Glock 19 on his hip. Feeling the High Point in his coat pocket, he gets nervous, then he gets smart. He turns around and walks out and goes across the interstate to the other Waffle House.
        For every anti gun person that gets nervous seeing a gun in a holster, there is a would be robber that gets just as nervous. You would think that antis would appreciate open carry just for this reason. The mere presence of a good guy with a gun deters crime. Of course, there is no way to track the stats on this. If only we could talk to criminals and get their take on the matter…oh wait…we did that.

        • No, I do know that Waffle House is a frequent target do to the fact that it is a cash only establishment. There have been several successful and failed attempts to rob Waffle House so I was not referring to any one in specific. Remember, we are talking about opinions here. There are facts and there are opinions and then there are opinions based on facts. I like to think I draw from the latter.

        • This one in particular is significant because the robbers, when caught, stated specifically that they did not rob that waffle house precisely because they saw two patrons inside OC-ing before they entered.

          I find it interesting because this is not a run-of-the-mill DGU story…it’s an actual OC as deterrent story.

        • Have you ever been told to “put yourself in the other guy’s shoes”?
          A lot of people like to ask “What would Jesus do?” Then they make up an answer to fit their preconception. The only honest approach is to ask yourself “What would I do?”
          Most thugs are not psychopaths, they are sociopaths. We can put ourselves in the mind of the sociopath by disregarding our morals for a moment while maintaining our logical thought process. It would be insane to go against armed resistance when there are so many alternatives. I believe that the more armed society becomes, the less we are victimized. The more psychopaths we can institutionalize in combination with being armed, the less likely we are to be slaughtered.

        • You know what? That is an excellent way to put it. It dovetails nicely as well with things William Aprill has said on the topic.

          Such things include the idea that “they” are making the same kinds of decisions we make every day, the only difference is the set of ‘moral rules’ they apply. Aprill has stated that it is patently incorrect to think they have no morality guiding their decisions (speaking of the non-psychopathic set of violent criminals).

          This is a mistake I think we too often make…we assume because “the other” plays by a different set of rules, that they have no guiding rules. That’s not true.

          In short, the difference lies almost solely in the willingness to use violence and where the line is that justifies violence. That’s a pretty thin difference, I think.

          Aprill does a good job distilling this stuff down to exactly what you said here…put yourself in the bad guy’s shoes and analyze the situation…just be careful not to overly apply your morality (where it concerns the use of violence) rather than the bad guy’s.

        • AAaargh! JR, puhleeez! He had no reason to elude the story, it was his story! What you need is “alluding to”.

        • “AAaargh! JR, puhleeez! He had no reason to elude the story, it was his story! What you need is “alluding to”.”

          Exactly so. Thanks.

          I type fast and often don’t proof my comments.

          Typos need love, too.

        • I believe that’s gun grabber oxymoron number 7. ” seeing or even believing that their are guns being legally carried makes me scared or nervous or unwilling to enter a conflict with someone, legally carried guns can’t possibly make potential criminals to scared nervous or unwilling to enter a conflict with someone.

      • Would crazy people shooting up the front desk of a police station count? Or shooting a Brinks / Dunbar / Loomis armed guard in the back of the head to steal cash count?

        The OCer can definitely be shot or be the first one(s) shot. It was a consideration for me as a Dunbar money carrier and it’s still a consideration for me as a cop.

        • Apples to cheeseburger comparison.

          Planned ambushes on fortified positions is very, very different than the scenario the article writer was talking about…ordinary folks doing ordinary things getting selected by ‘ordinary’ robber.

          “The OCer can definitely be shot or be the first one(s) shot. “

          “Can be” is a weasel word. Sure. Anything can be said as a “can be.” Shannon Watts can be pro-gun in 2015. See how easy that is?

          Prove it happens to regular Joe OC-ers with citations and actual events, please.

        • No, I don’t think that counts because those guys were intended targets from the outset. The guy shoots the front desk of the police station because he is on a suicide mission and that is as far as he will get. The robbers shoot the guard because he is the resistance needed to be breached in order to accomplish the theft, not unlike the door that must be pried open to rob a home.
          In simulations where “good guys with guns” are planted in the scenario, The bad guy actor is usually told who has the gun. In better sims, where the actor is not aware of who has a weapon, he is not allowed to change his mind and cancel the sim. None of these reflect real life decisions.

        • Would crazy people shooting up the front desk of a police station count?

          Such a person is either attempting assassination or suicide-by-cop.

          Or shooting a Brinks / Dunbar / Loomis armed guard in the back of the head to steal cash count?

          In this case, the victim is selected not because he is openly carrying a firearm, but because he’s the guy with the cash.

          So, neither example represents someone intent on committing a crime seeking out the OC bystander as the first victim in the course of committing that crime.

        • Let’s restate it in purely tactical terms.

          Armed robber wants to rob let’s say a Waffle House. There is some probability that there is an OC-er there when he gets there. There is nothing to lose by de-selecting that particular Waffle House and seeking another victim location or calling it a night.

          In contrast to the scenarios you presented, the ‘target’ is specific and stationary. There is little “chance” involved in finding an armed person at that location, and he chooses to attack anyway.

          That is a very different motiviation, risk-benefit equation and analysis than the ‘street criminal’ looking for a person or place to stick up.

          One is a stationary strong point specifically targeted for attack, and the other is a target of opportunity. Criminals acting in the realm of “targets of opportunity” tend to default to “Don’t Do It” (cf, any William Aprill lecture) and so have to be convinced TO attack, not be convinced NOT to attack.

        • Here you go:

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/dean-weingarten/gun-stolen-open-carrier-wasnt-loaded-required-law/

          Here is my base issue: open carriers can deter crime. However, if you think that you’re open carry will always stop a crime, then you have terrible op sec. If you also think that you’re open carried fire arm will automatically deter a criminal, then you’re situational awareness has dangerously deteriorated. I’ve seen some OC folks who look like they could be very quickly relieved of their firearms.

          Granted, my OC was and is in uniform, unless I’m visiting WI or another free state. My $.02 is to have at least a single retention in an OC holster and always have good op sec. / awareness. Your gun is valuable and can be stolen or used against you.

          I’ve got more than a decade of CC, but virtually all my OC was in uniform, so I don’t claim to be an expert. I think OC is awesome, so long as it is responsible.

          As I said, if guys attack cops and guards I don’t see why they couldn’t pick on an OCer. If I’ve learned anything over 14 years of policework, it’s that criminals are unpredictable and Murphy’s Law is a b!tch.

        • An armored car guard or some such might well be killed because he/she is armed, but that would be because they are the guards, CC or OC wouldn’t enter the equation. A police station? Probably SBC, obviously everybody is armed, so no one would stand out to be killed “first”.

        • @Accur81: (Re: your last comment)

          That’s a good reason for constitutional carry. In order to carry a BUG or two, we now have to have a CHL in Ohio. I prefer to OC but keep at least one BUG concealed, in part, for the rare possibility of a gun grab. This means that I must take a license right now and I shouldn’t have to.

        • ” However, if you think that you’re open carry will always stop a crime, then you have terrible op sec. If you also think that you’re open carried fire arm will automatically deter a criminal, then you’re situational awareness has dangerously deteriorated. “

          Agreed. Only a fool thinks in terms of absolutes.

          As to the last part of your comment, again, there is a very big difference between the kind of criminal that chooses to attack a tactical strong point compared to the type that commits the sort of “street crime” most of us are more likely to encounter.

          We play the odds. It’s the best we can do. OC is not demonstrably, with actual data anyway, more dangerous than CC.

  3. Whether I am carrying or not is nobody’s business except my own. I think don’t ask don’t tell applies perfectly to concealed carry.

  4. If only there is some sort of device that signifies someone’s job to serve the public in times of danger… Some sort of badge, if you will, that is distinctive and easily identifiable… You know, I’m drawing a blank.

  5. Luckily for the rest of us, stupid people will continue to draw attention to themselves and are therefore easy to spot and avoid. This opinion piece is a case in point – I now know to avoid Morton Marcus at all costs.

  6. So if wear a top hat I dont need a permit to concealed carry? Because I would totally rock a top hat if I never had to renew my permission slip from the state. Will a cane gun stilll be an AOW if I wear my pocket watch? I just need a monocle and then its good day to you sir!

  7. Tell you what…just deputize all us CCW’s and give us a badge and a pension plan. Oh, indemnify us too. Then I’ll think about protecting sheep. Or not. I’d rather be militia than police.

    • Wait! Wait! I’ve got it! Why not require the criminals to protect us, instead!? Just give them guns and badges, and the rest of us won’t need them! How brilliant I am! This will be the best ever, let’s get this law passed right now, for the children. We have to do SOMETHING!

      Good grief.

    • They also can’t help injecting their own politics into their critical statements, we argue for the FREEDOM to be armed if we Chose to be. They return that as we want the GIVE guns to everybody as if they were food stamps. Why? Because the concept of in fettered choice may be foreign to them and so they default to what they know. State enforced charity.

  8. YES!!! Finally somebody who agrees with bringing fancy fine gentlemanly top hats back!! How about a pocket watch in the waistcoat and monocle and a pimp ass cane!? Bad dudes beware, not only will good guys shoot you if need be, but they’ll also be classy about it. Tacticlassical

  9. Therefore, the license-to-carry should require good guys to wear distinctive tall hats, easily seen at a distance, so the public will know who protects us when the bad guys come around. Will the NRA support this public-spirited initiative?

    THE FINAL SOLUTION. (Adolf Hitler)

  10. Paint a target on my back? No thanks.

    Don’t want crooks knowing I’m packing and don’t want to be hassled by cops who don’t like OC or CC.

  11. Dear Mr Marcus,

    Nope, I carry a gun to protect me and mine and no one else.

    If you want protection, bring your own gun.

    Also I don’t appreciate your descriminatist tone. Perhaps you need more sensitivity training.

  12. Wow–9 whole comments at that site! What exactly is nuvo.com anyway? Aha–it’s an “alternative voice”, maybe like those weekly rags that burned-out hippies publish to be read by other burned-out hippies? This looks one of those occasions where TTAG might actually give this guy triple the audience he might otherwise have.

  13. Well, his FIRST mistake was picking THAT hat (should have been a white Stetson), but his WORST mistake was writing and posting such a completely moronic idea. It’s not even decent sarcasm…a six year old might have done better. Nonetheless, I respect his right to make an utter idiot of himself. Free speech is a wonderful thing…. and seems to help identify who needs to be removed from the gene pool more and more these days.

  14. “Reasonable” reason to say no:

    Then a criminal knows if there are no hats around making it an easy place to rob.

  15. Much like the article above this one, It is high time to wake up and realize that the antis, along with their corporate and govt backers, are totally insane. Thus explaining why reason, logic, and facts have utterly no effect on them. Because they are unreasonable, illogical, and crazy as loons…

  16. Whut? Is this an Onion article in disguise? And what’s with the endless debate from you guys.? As usual +1 Chip…

  17. I’m a good guy with a gun, true enough. Likewise, I’m a good guy with CPR/1st Aid training, lifeguard training, fire extinguisher operation training, and a supply of basic medical supplies and safety/hazard equipment at home, place of business, and in my vehicle.

    However, I’m not his personal savior. My responsibilities focus on myself, my family and my property. Yes, my actions may well help others along the way, sometimes intentionally, but consider that a positive externality, not my personal, professional, or public responsibility.

    Oh, wait, he wasn’t serious, but just snidely busting our balls, because we accept our obligation to defend ourselves? Pure. Douche.

  18. This was supposed to be a reply to Chip Benett. Yes, OCers can be targeted. If you don’t believe so, then your Op Sec sucks. It’s rare, but it happens. Also, it wouldn’t take a genius to follow an OCer home and mark their home for a future robbery.

    I support OC, and have done so in uniform for almost 20 years. I don’t claim expertise in non-uniform OC, but if someone in uniform can still be a target, so can someone else not in uniform.

    I also believe in Murphy’s Law, which struck nicely today by eliminating this comment half a dozen times from my iPhone 6 and my laptop. Meanwhile my 2 year old was spilling food and then bonked his noggin’. Anyhow, that b!tch of a law operates on OCers and CCers in different ways. There’s no trite little [citation needed] that’ll help you in a real fight.

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/10/dean-weingarten/gun-stolen-open-carrier-wasnt-loaded-required-law/

  19. Ah, the shoot me first hat, what a great idea. Glad Im not the only one that had a “gold star, free train ride” thought.

Leave a Reply

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