TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:and one more. I know they are there because I saw them and one of the posts were done by me.

Here is there response to one of the posts.

Open Carry Texas That's a first.
Like · Reply · 20 hrs

Show me a post by OCT on the OCT website. I could post something there; I'm talking about one of the OCT administrators who post under the OCT banner.

Chas.

CoffeeNut wrote:

jmra wrote:21yo out at 2:00am open carrying a .22 gets robbed by a teenager.

This has stupid written all over it. The sad thing - all totally preventable by simply going to bed at a decent hour.

I agree that it has stupid written all over it but for those of us who work late nights, or have, it isn't abnormal to be up at hours many think we should be sleeping. I don't know what this guy was up to at that hour but being up at abnormal hours isn't a reason to be robbed.

I'm not suggesting that 2:00am in and of itself was a problem. It's the whole picture that screams stupid.

I understand. I said in my post it was a post to their page by others. I did not say their administrator posted anything about it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Some people have posted the article to their page. There response to one of them was "that is a first". No other comment or response.

The posts to the page can be found on the left hand side of the page. You may have to scroll down some. Otherwise, they are pretty much ignoring it.

It's not on the OCT or OCTC Facebook page; at least not that I can see.

Chas.

For your reference, here is my post and your response. I was clear with what I meant and said. You said it was not on there when in fact it was. That's why I posted the screen shots. You nor I ever specifically said, it was posted by OCT.


Further more, I was NOT disputing what you said nor trying to argue. I was simply pointing out that some people had posted the article to their facebook page in an effort to publicize the event to them and their fanatical members and see what kind of reaction I would get from OCT and their fanatical members. As you can see, there was very little reaction. Pretty much ignored it.

I am with you on this subject and am not trying to cross you.

This isn't new. There was an open carrier robbed of his handgun in Wisconsin roughly 3-4 years ago.

That said, hitting the blogosphere once every 3-4 years does not constitute a trend.

My son turns 21 next month and I have a second son not far behind. This strikes me more as a case of a young person's earnestness and naïveté being knocked with a life lesson.

talltex wrote:

Hindenburg wrote:All of those crimes could be prevented if the victims use some common sense but I'm not going to blame a victim just because I don't like their lifestyle choices.

NO....THEY COULD NOT
Ordinary people, leading ordinary lives, behaving in ordinary manners, get carjacked, robbed and raped every day...that's why we have a CHL. None of us would suddenly feel an overwhelming compulsion to commit those acts just because we saw someone wearing a watch, ring, or short skirt...because we are not criminals and thugs. Those things happen because there are bad people out there that do bad things. The guilt and responsibilty lies squarely on the perpetrators alone.

Yes, the legal and moral responsibility for crime falls solely on the criminal. Of course people should be able to safely go anywhere anytime they wish. However, every time someone ignores known risks, they bear some of the factual responsibility for the consequences. People are free to smoke and to be an alcoholic, but they are factually responsible for the consequences.

Rape is never legally or morally justified by a woman's clothing, location or the manner in which she conducts herself. But if she wears a bikini and walks through a high crime area at night with known criminal types watching her, she most certainly bears factual responsibility if she is attacked.

It's one thing to assign criminal or moral responsibility for criminal acts, but this is nothing more than an intellectual exercise compared to the very real physical injury or damage suffered by engaging in high risk activities. If my granddaughter is ever raped and/or murdered because she placed herself in an unreasonably dangerous situation, I'm not going to care too much about engaging in a debate about what she should or should not be able to do safely in Utopia. We live in the real world and we must act accordingly. This doesn't mean cower in fear, but it does mean that we must engage in rational risk/benefit analysis.

I do find it very interesting that folks want to debate issues other than the topic of this thread; i.e. a person openly-carrying a handgun was robbed of his firearm solely due to the fact that it was visible to a criminal.

Chas.

That's very interesting Charles. Really! The part about moral responsibility versus factual.

I've always gotten myself twisted up trying to separate the difference between a woman wearing provocative clothing or acting provocatively versus someone else throwing money around or wearing expensive jewelry in either's amount of responsibility. I've not heard the term "factual responsibility" before.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:According to the article, the only thing the hijacker took was his openly-carried handgun. He wasn't relieved of his wallet, credit cards, money clip, cell phone or his tennis shoes. This fact alone indicates that the only reason he was targeted was because his handgun was clearly visible.

A single incident doesn't prove even correlation, much less causation. However, I've never seen any evidence that open-carry prevents crime, claims by supporters of open-carry notwithstanding. I simply find this incident ironic and still unreported on Texas open-carry websites. Their philosophy: Make all manner of outlandish and overblown predictions of lower crime and no backlash by private business owners without a shred of proof, then utterly ignore events that tend to disprove those claims.

Chas.

Agreed. While one can imagine times and places where open carry might be preferred, it stands to reason that a crook that has to consider who may or may not have a weapon (unknown variable) would be more likely deterred than one that can see the weapon and avoid, elude or take out the OC. I want OC for a number of reasons and as I have mentioned elsewhere, I had a situation in Virginia recently where OC was the most convenient means to arm myself and, while my head was on a swivel, no one acted untoward or even as if they noticed. This was Manassas, I could see D.C. from the highway.

If open carry in Texas ever passes I will still prefer
To carry concealed.

Living up to my screen name is the way to go in my book.

SIA

Well, just to add my 2 cents worth...this is why I say that it would be situational for me if OC were to ever pass and become law. Walking around in an urban environment late at night with a firearm hanging out just doesn't seem like a tactically sound decision. OCing while walking around an urban environment at any time of day doesn't seem tactically sound, come to think of it. I'd save it for very rural areas or long trips in the truck; in an urban or semi-urban environment, concealed would be the way to go.

So one open carry person hi wasn't practicing SA gets his firearm taken and now that is somehow proof that open carrying is bad? We don't know how many robberies were deterred by open carriers because the criminals decided to move on to easier prey! I think this is more of an example of a criminal assessing an individual who was still an easy target because he was not paying attention to his surroundings. It would be just as easy for a prepared criminal to take a CHLers firearm if they were prepared and assumed every victim was armed. When and not if it happens, are we going to bash the carry method when a CHLer has his or her firearm taken?

Some people just scream easy target for criminals even when armed. Something about this guys demeanor let the criminal know he was easy prey even with a sidearm on his hip. IMHO the taking of this guys gun is not the rule but the exception!

I am not an OCT supporter and probably wouldn't open carry but I see this as a very rare occurance.

Right2Carry wrote:So one open carry person hi wasn't practicing SA gets his firearm taken and now that is somehow proof that open carrying is bad? We don't know how many robberies were deterred by open carriers because the criminals decided to move on to easier prey! I think this is more of an example of a criminal assessing an individual who was still an easy target because he was not paying attention to his surroundings. It would be just as easy for a prepared criminal to take a CHLers firearm if they were prepared and assumed every victim was armed. When and not if it happens, are we going to bash the carry method when a CHLer has his or her firearm taken?

Some people just scream easy target for criminals even when armed. Something about this guys demeanor let the criminal know he was easy prey even with a sidearm on his hip. IMHO the taking of this guys gun is not the rule but the exception!

I am not an OCT supporter and probably wouldn't open carry but I see this as a very rare occurance.

It is just one example. That I can think of, I've only heard about one example where a BG said they skipped holding up a place because when they cased the place, a Waffle House IIRC, there was someone OCing in there and they decided to go elsewhere. I think that is what I remember them saying after they were caught for holding up the other place. Anyway, that is also just one example. If there are others I don't recall them.

Right2Carry wrote:So one open carry person hi wasn't practicing SA gets his firearm taken and now that is somehow proof that open carrying is bad? We don't know how many robberies were deterred by open carriers because the criminals decided to move on to easier prey! I think this is more of an example of a criminal assessing an individual who was still an easy target because he was not paying attention to his surroundings. It would be just as easy for a prepared criminal to take a CHLers firearm if they were prepared and assumed every victim was armed. When and not if it happens, are we going to bash the carry method when a CHLer has his or her firearm taken?

Some people just scream easy target for criminals even when armed. Something about this guys demeanor let the criminal know he was easy prey even with a sidearm on his hip. IMHO the taking of this guys gun is not the rule but the exception!

I am not an OCT supporter and probably wouldn't open carry but I see this as a very rare occurance.

Anecdotal evidence is only anecdotal.

It really just underscores the responsibility when OCing to keep up with your surroundings. This guy didn't and got robbed.

The problem here is that even if you are suspicous, the crook did not fully reveal his intent until he was right there. Unless the guy could have been clued in on his intent, he would have been drawing into a bad situation regardless. The same thing could have happened to a concealed carrier except the crook would hopefully not know the person was armed. It would be a bad sitation regardless.

Right2Carry wrote:So one open carry person hi wasn't practicing SA gets his firearm taken and now that is somehow proof that open carrying is bad?

I doubt people are going to base their opinion on the wisdom of carrying openly on this one incident. I've stayed out of the open-carry discussion when tactics are the topic, because I focus on the political/legislative effort. I do have opinions about open-carry as a tactical choice, but they are not relevant to passing a bill.

Right2Carry wrote:We don't know how many robberies were deterred by open carriers because the criminals decided to move on to easier prey!

I believe the answer is none, but one cannot prove a negative. This is the real issue I have with any person or organization that embellishes the benefits of any proposed legislation. When one makes outlandish claims the first thing that comes to my mind is "snake oil salesman" and I believe this holds true for much of the general public. There's absolutely no evidence that open-carry reduces crime, while there is ample evidence that concealed-carry has reduced crime in every state that has enacted a "shall issue" statute. It's natural for people who have seen the favorable crime statistics related to concealed-carry to expect the same from open-carry supporters. When no such evidence exists, people assume open-carry supporters are lying. This doesn't help us to pass open-carry.

Right2Carry wrote:I think this is more of an example of a criminal assessing an individual who was still an easy target because he was not paying attention to his surroundings.

I agree. Walking around with your handgun clearly visible to people who value it as proceeds from a hijacking is much like walking around with cash money in your hand. If I were not an avid shooter, I'd hate to have to draw from concealment against someone drawing from an unconcealed holster, if he were facing me and knew what was coming. However, if I were going to hijack people, I'd much prefer that those who are armed be carrying openly so I could narrow my threat. The victim in this incident proved the old adage that one should not draw against someone with a gun in their hand.

Right2Carry wrote:It would be just as easy for a prepared criminal to take a CHLers firearm if they were prepared and assumed every victim was armed. When and not if it happens, are we going to bash the carry method when a CHLer has his or her firearm taken?

I have to disagree with you on this point. There's nothing easy or safe about frisking then disarming someone by yourself. It's quite easy to get killed doing so, especially if the concealed carrier knows what they are doing. Somewhere in Texas during the last 18 years, there could well have been a Texas CHL who had his/her handgun taken from them during a robbery. I've never heard of it, but it could have happened and it could happen in the future. If it were to happen, then I would not "bash the carry method" because the CHL would have taken reasonable steps to prevent their handgun from being stolen.

Right2Carry wrote:Some people just scream easy target for criminals even when armed. Something about this guys demeanor let the criminal know he was easy prey even with a sidearm on his hip. IMHO the taking of this guys gun is not the rule but the exception!

I agree on both points. He was an easy target because he was wearing his handgun in a holster and talking with his cousin. I don't know if he was not paying attention to his surroundings or not, however he would not have been justified in pulling his gun on a man simply because he was walking up to him with his hand in his pocket. (Apparently, there was nothing threatening about the hijacker, because the victim(s) let him walk up and ask for a cigarette.) I too think this is the exception, rather than the rule.

Again, my point is there is no evidence that open-carry reduces crime (and I don't believe it does), so supporters should quit making claims they cannot prove.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:So one open carry person hi wasn't practicing SA gets his firearm taken and now that is somehow proof that open carrying is bad?

I doubt people are going to base their opinion on the wisdom of carrying openly on this one incident. I've stayed out of the open-carry discussion when tactics are the topic, because I focus on the political/legislative effort. I do have opinions about open-carry as a tactical choice, but they are not relevant to passing a bill.

Right2Carry wrote:We don't know how many robberies were deterred by open carriers because the criminals decided to move on to easier prey!

I believe the answer is none, but one cannot prove a negative. This is the real issue I have with any person or organization that embellishes the benefits of any proposed legislation. When one makes outlandish claims the first thing that comes to my mind is "snake oil salesman" and I believe this holds true for much of the general public. There's absolutely no evidence that open-carry reduces crime, while there is ample evidence that concealed-carry has reduced crime in every state that has enacted a "shall issue" statute. It's natural for people who have seen the favorable crime statistics related to concealed-carry to expect the same from open-carry supporters. When no such evidence exists, people assume open-carry supporters are lying. This doesn't help us to pass open-carry.

Right2Carry wrote:I think this is more of an example of a criminal assessing an individual who was still an easy target because he was not paying attention to his surroundings.

I agree. Walking around with your handgun clearly visible to people who value it as proceeds from a hijacking is much like walking around with cash money in your hand. If I were not an avid shooter, I'd hate to have to draw from concealment against someone drawing from an unconcealed holster, if he were facing me and knew what was coming. However, if I were going to hijack people, I'd much prefer that those who are armed be carrying openly so I could narrow my threat. The victim in this incident proved the old adage that one should not draw against someone with a gun in their hand.

Right2Carry wrote:It would be just as easy for a prepared criminal to take a CHLers firearm if they were prepared and assumed every victim was armed. When and not if it happens, are we going to bash the carry method when a CHLer has his or her firearm taken?

I have to disagree with you on this point. There's nothing easy or safe about frisking then disarming someone by yourself. It's quite easy to get killed doing so, especially if the concealed carrier knows what they are doing. Somewhere in Texas during the last 18 years, there could well have been a Texas CHL who had his/her handgun taken from them during a robbery. I've never heard of it, but it could have happened and it could happen in the future. If it were to happen, then I would not "bash the carry method" because the CHL would have taken reasonable steps to prevent their handgun from being stolen.

Right2Carry wrote:Some people just scream easy target for criminals even when armed. Something about this guys demeanor let the criminal know he was easy prey even with a sidearm on his hip. IMHO the taking of this guys gun is not the rule but the exception!

I agree on both points. He was an easy target because he was wearing his handgun in a holster and talking with his cousin. I don't know if he was not paying attention to his surroundings or not, however he would not have been justified in pulling his gun on a man simply because he was walking up to him with his hand in his pocket. (Apparently, there was nothing threatening about the hijacker, because the victim(s) let him walk up and ask for a cigarette.) I too think this is the exception, rather than the rule.

Again, my point is there is no evidence that open-carry reduces crime (and I don't believe it does), so supporters should quit making claims they cannot prove.

Chas.

I would just like the option although I am not sure I would exercise it except in certain situations. I do think some criminals have and would bypass a person openly carrying for easier prey, but that is just my opinion and it's one of those things that is almost impossible to prove.