“The victim was near Henry Clay and Coliseum around 9 p.m. when he was approached by two attackers who hit him with a gun,” uptownmessenger.com reports. “They then put him face down on the ground, frisked him, and stole the victim’s concealed weapon.” It’s a rare but not unknown event: bad guys robbing a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit holder of his or her defensive firearm. In this case, the vic’s inability to bring his gun to bear on the bad guys had a little something to do with the fact that he was pistol whipped in the head before he could draw. But what if the victim had been openly carrying his firearm . . .
would the robbers have chosen less dangerous prey?
Some would say that openly carrying would have been more dangerous; the criminals would shot him sooner rather than take their chances with “simple” physical violence. Over at free republic commentator Jack Hammer holds that view:
Any sane person would not want to open-carry just asa black-belt would not walk around with his belt on and his hands in the air. The surprise element makes a big difference. Why would anyone want the bad guy to shoot him first?
Yes, concealed carriers have surprise on their side. But that doesn’t give them much of an advantage if their attacker(s) carry out their own surprise attack first. In fact, my reading tells me that crooks target concealed carriers (albeit unknowingly) more often than open carriers.
That said, what concealed carriers lose in tactical deterrence, society gains strategic deterrence. Robbers have more uncertainty about who may be armed. On the opposite of that coin, what the open carrier loses in surprise, he gains in tactical deterrence. Most criminals do not want to attack an armed victim.
In short, both methods of carry have advantages and disadvantages. Law abiding people should be able to chose which works for them in whatever circumstances they find themselves.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch