SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint

This is a big dick fight. They are trying to prove who has a bigger dick by asserting their dominance over each other. To be fair, while the police officers were dicks, why the hell would you open-carry a gun in a public place?!
 
cdc482 said:
To be fair, while the police officers were dicks, why the hell would you open-carry a gun in a public place?!
Click to expand...

Not this shit again....


Carrying a concealed firearm presents to a criminal that I am unarmed. Every study I’ve ever read, not most but every study, says that criminals will avoid an armed person or home when selecting a victim. That only makes sense, right? Robbers, rapists, or carjackers might be dumb and opportunistic, but they have the same instinctual sense of self preservation we all have. Hyenas don’t attack lions to steal the gazelle the lions have just killed. It’s all about risk management; are the potential gains (a tasty gazelle dinner) worth the risks (pain and damage the lion’s teeth will cause), and does the hyena really need to test the lion to figure out the answer? No, the hyena can see the lion’s teeth and knows to stay well clear.
Deterrent Value:

When I’m carrying concealed I feel like my ‘teeth’ are hidden, and thus of no real deterrent value. If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend myself. My goal, however, is not to be a victim in the first place, remember? I don’t want to be a victim that fought back successfully and triumphed; I prefer to not be victimized at all. I recognize that there are some people who (think they) want to be victimized so they can whip out their concealed firearm and ‘surprise’ the mugger; that is, in my opinion, foolish immaturity. Concealed carry is good; it throws a wrench in the works for criminals who might see the teeming masses as a smorgasbord of financial gain. This deterrent effect is, nonetheless, indirect and often nil. At some point the thug will weigh the risks vs. the gains; is his current desperation for money/drugs/booze/gold grille greater than the gamble that one of those people might be carrying a gun? If he decides to play the odds, which helped along with surprise tip the scale in his favor, he will attack. Will his attack allow enough time for me to draw my concealed firearm to affect a defense? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

Remember, I don’t want to be a victim and I don’t want to shoot anyone. So how do I realize both goals; or how do I make them inclusive? I can do that through open carry. By making it clear and obvious that I am armed, that I have teeth, I tip the risk scale to the point that the criminal’s gains are far outweighed by the risk. There is no ambiguity when the thug is doing his risk assessment, there’s something right there in plain sight that can quickly and painfully change or terminate his life. You may not think his life has much value, but as I mentioned before, he has the same sense of self preservation as any other living creature and to him it’s every bit as valuable as yours is to you. It would be foolish to ignore this indisputable fact when you develop your overall tactical strategy.
The Five Stages of Violent Crime

I am a firm believer in this defense theology and urge anyone who carries a firearm for protection (and even those who do not) to follow the link and read it carefully. Please, for your and your family’s sake, read that. Drill down into the hyperlinks for better explanations; absorb as much information as you can. A violent crime does not begin at the point where one person with ill intent draws a weapon or attacks another.

Crime and violence are processes that take time to develop. The attack is not the first step, the preliminary triangle must be built. There are five distinct stages that are easily identified:
1) Intent
2) Interview
3) Positioning
4) Attack
5) Reaction
First One To Be Shot:

There are some who criticize open carry and claim it will make you more of a target or ‘the first one shot’ when a robber walks into the 7-11, despite the absolute lack of credible evidence that this has ever happened. If the robber walks in and sees that you’re armed, his whole plan has encountered an unexpected variable. In bank robberies where he might expect to see an armed guard he will have already factored that possibility into his plan, but only for the armed guard, not for open or concealed carry citizens. No robber robs a bank without at least a rudimentary plan. Nevertheless, being present for a bank robbery is an extremely remote possibility for most of us regardless of our preferred method of handgun carry, so let’s go back in the 7-11. If the robber sees someone is armed he is forced to either significantly alter the plan or abort it outright. Robbing is an inherently apprehensive occupation, and one that doesn’t respond well to instant modifications. He is not prepared to commit murder when he only planned for larceny. He knows that a petty robbery will not garner the intense police manhunt a murder would. He doesn’t know if you’re an armed citizen or a police officer and isn’t going to take the time to figure it out. Either way, if someone in the 7-11 is unexpectedly armed, how many others might be similarly adorned and where might they be? Does this unexpectedly armed individual have a partner who is likewise armed nearby, someone who is watching right now? Self preservation compels him to abort the plan for one that is less risky. So we see that the logic matches the history; open carriers are not the first ones shot because it doesn’t make sense in any common street crime scenario that they would be. If your personal self protection plan emphasizes “Hollywood” style crimes over the more realistic street mugging, it might be best to stay home.
Surprise:

Probably the most common condemnation of open carry comes from the armchair tacticians who believe it’s better to have the element of surprise in a criminal encounter. Although this was touched on in the previous paragraph about deterrence, I’ll expand on it specifically here because there are some important truths you need to consider before you lean too heavily on this false support. Surprise as a defensive tactic is often based on unrealistic or ill-thought out scenarios, and seems to exist only in the minds of concealed carry firearms proponents. The circumstance where several street toughs surround and taunt you for a while before robbing you, like in some Charles Bronson movie, is not realistic; the mugger wants to get in and out as fast as possible. In most cases you will have only seconds to realize what’s happening, make a decision, and react. Imagine you’re walking along the sidewalk when two gangsta looking teenagers suddenly appear at the corner coming in the opposite direction. You have only seconds to react if their intent was to victimize you. Do you draw your concealed firearm now or wait until there’s an actual visible threat? If they are just on their way to church and you pull a gun on them, you are the criminal and you will likely forever lose your firearms rights for such a foolish action. If you don’t draw and they pull a knife or pistol when they’re just a couple steps away, your only options are draw (if you think you can) or comply. Imagine staring at the shiny blade of a knife being held by a very nervous and violent mugger, three inches from your or your wife’s throat and having to decide whether or not you have time to draw from concealment. The element of surprise may not do you any good; in fact the only surprising thing that might happen is that your concealed carry pistol gets taken along with your wallet. The thug will later get a good chuckle with his buddies about how you brought a gun to a knife fight. The simple truth is that while surprise is a monumentally superior tactical maneuver, it is exclusively an offensive action, not a defensive one. What many internet commandos call ‘defensive surprise’ is nothing more than damage control, a last ditch effort to fight your way back out of a dangerous situation. I am not aware of any army that teaches using surprise as a defense against attack. No squad of soldiers goes on patrol with their weapons hidden so that they can ‘surprise’ the enemy should they walk into an ambush.
It Will Get Stolen:

Another common criticism of open carry is that the firearm itself will be the target of theft, prompting a criminal to attack simply to get the gun from you. Like the previous example of being the first one shot in a robbery, above, this is despite the fact that there is no credible evidence it happens. It also blindly ignores the more obvious fact that anything you possess can make you the target of a crime, be it a car, a watch, or even a female companion (girlfriend, wife, or daughter). Crooks commonly steal for only one of two reasons; to get something you have that they want, or to get something that you have so they can sell it and buy something they want. I don’t claim it could never happen; just that it’s so remote a possibility that it doesn’t warrant drastic alterations to our self defense strategies. If you believe otherwise, leave your wife, children, watch, sunglasses, jewelry, and cell phone at home, hop into your Pinto wagon, and head out to do your thing. Very often, someone critical of open carry will cite some example of a uniformed police officer whose gun was taken by a violent criminal, and yes, this does indeed happen. The argument, however, breaks down when they assume the officer was targeted solely to steal his firearm. What is more likely is that the officer was targeted merely for being a police officer and the gun was stolen as a byproduct of the attack. More often, the officer’s gun is taken during the struggle to get the suspect into custody due to an entirely unrelated matter. However, let’s suppose, for argument, that a police officer really was attacked just to get his firearm. What actions did the police department take to prevent it from reoccurring? Did they demand that their officers carry concealed? No, of course not. You should, like the police, prioritize your defense strategy for the most likely threat first, and the least likely last.
It Scares People:

One other statement against open carry I hear is that it damages public perception of firearms owners, or that by carrying openly we are not being good ambassadors to the public. While there are some people who have a genuine fear of firearms, due either to some horrible past experience or anti-gun indoctrination, the majority of people are either indifferent to them or quite fascinated by them. I’ve never kept track of the dozens of fellow citizens I’ve encountered who have marveled at the idea of open carry, but I do know exactly how many have expressed displeasure at it; one. People are scared of many things for many reasons; however, pretending those things do not exist only perpetuates the fear. Someone who is disturbed by open carry is going to be every bit as disturbed by concealed carry. The only effective way to overcome a fear is to come to the intellectual realization that the phobia is based on emotion and not on fact. By being a firsthand witness that a firearm was carried responsibly and peaceably, and wasn’t being carried in the commission of a crime, one who was apprehensive about firearms discovers their fear is not fact based, but emotional. Thus, open carry can be a very effectual way of helping to overcome the emotionally based fear of the firearm. After all, you’d be much more likely to believe in ghosts if you saw one rather than if you listened to a ghost story around a campfire. In other words, we give significantly more credibility to the things we experience than we do to the things we hear. The bottom line is that this argument is made by people who don’t, cant, or haven’t carried openly; those of us who do so on a regular basis have an entirely different experience.
I'm Not Comfortable Carrying Openly:

This is really the only reasonable argument against open carry for an individual. We all have a comfort zone for any aspect of our lives and we prefer to stay within that comfort zone. We all agree that it’s better to be armed and never need the firearm than it is to need it and not have it. There is a point where concealing your firearm becomes so problematic, due to conditions like temperature or comfort, that some choose to either leave it behind or carry in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to draw it quickly. If it takes me five or six seconds to draw my firearm from deep concealment and I had sufficient time before hand to actually do so, I would prefer to use that five or six seconds to avoid the entire encounter. I’m glad we have concealed carry laws in most of the states; it empowers and protects not only us but the general public through the offset deterrent effect. Some of us, however, choose the more direct deterrent effect of open carry.
Conclusion

No, open carry is not the be-all-end-all of self defense any more than concealed carry is. The purpose of this essay is not to convince you to carry a firearm openly, but to merely point out the reasoning I used to determine that it is often the best option for me. If you think otherwise, please feel free to write an essay of your own outlining the reasoning you used. I would suggest that you avoid the intellectual mistake of emphasizing rare or unlikely defense scenarios that many of us will never experience. I believe one should prioritize for the most likely threat, not the least likely threat. I don’t put Hollywood style bank robberies high on my threat list because I rarely go into a bank and those types of robberies are very rare themselves. I live in the most crime riddled city in the northwest; the most likely threat here is some young male with a knife or gun trying to carjack me or mug me on the street, in the park, or in a parking lot. With this knowledge I build my personal self protection plan based on that manner of attack. This may not suit you, especially if you live in Hollywood.
 
Last edited:
cdc482 said:
This is a big dick fight. They are trying to prove who has a bigger dick by asserting their dominance over each other. To be fair, while the police officers were dicks, why the hell would you open-carry a gun in a public place?!
Click to expand...

So the bad guys will know who to shoot first.
 
cdc482 said:
This is a big dick fight. They are trying to prove who has a bigger dick by asserting their dominance over each other. To be fair, while the police officers were dicks, why the hell would you open-carry a gun in a public place?!
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you? Why should you have to conceal a right?
Why should a useful tool be made less accessible?

Why don't ALL Police officers conceal theirs?

Why should people be concerned with armed neighbors or offended with that reality?

Why shouldn't the general public be educated as to a common right?

It is my personal belief that Open Carry is just more honest. as well as more comfortable and utilitarian.
 
cdc482 said:
This is a big dick fight. They are trying to prove who has a bigger dick by asserting their dominance over each other. To be fair, while the police officers were dicks, why the hell would you open-carry a gun in a public place?!
Click to expand...

To me that's like asking: "why do you type on the internet?"
 
Dr.3D said:
So the bad guys will know who to shoot first.
Click to expand...

Well, I have been a cop for a few years and know that criminals do not want to risk being shot unless they are tweeked. Most criminals (even when they are armed and outnumber the good guys) will avoid a shoot out simply because they will likely be shot as well. I don't care if you pack a .22 or a .50 AE, no one wants to be shot!

If criminals can visibly see a weapon, it acts as a deterrent. Now if the criminal's are tweeked, then you want as many people with weapons putting lead down range into the CNS.
 
AFPVet said:
Well, I have been a cop for a few years and know that criminals do not want to risk being shot unless they are tweeked. Most criminals (even when they are armed and outnumber the good guys) will avoid a shoot out simply because they will likely be shot as well. I don't care if you pack a .22 or a .50 AE, no one wants to be shot!

If criminals can visibly see a weapon, it acts as a deterrent. Now if the criminal's are tweeked, then you want as many people with weapons putting lead down range into the CNS.
Click to expand...
Well, I would rather they not know I am packing. The element of surprise would be on my side.
 
AFPVet said:
Well, I have been a cop for a few years and know that criminals do not want to risk being shot unless they are tweeked. Most criminals (even when they are armed and outnumber the good guys) will avoid a shoot out simply because they will likely be shot as well. I don't care if you pack a .22 or a .50 AE, no one wants to be shot!
.
Click to expand...
I can corroborate that statement from the other side. As an ex-con, and having lived in an unpleasant place with those of criminal intent.

Open Carry is a visible deterrent.
 
Whoa guys. I totally agree that you have every right to carry a gun, but let's be logical.
You also have the right to use heroine. But you don't. There are good reasons not to. There are also good reasons to not open carry:

1- Which society would you rather live in: A-- everyone has a gun B--no one has a gun C-- some people have guns and carry them around others don't
2- It makes you stand out and freaks other people out. Seriously, imagine walking around anywhere you go regularly: a shopping mall, school, the gym, whatever and you see a guy with a gun. It's not a pleasant thing to see in public, even if you are a sportsman or whatever.
3- It just makes you look like a dick. Be realistic for Pete's sake. Do you really expect that you are going to need to use a gun to defend yourself while shopping?!?!?!

I don't know how to make it more clear. It's just a dick move. There's no reason for it. Just like IMO there's no good reason for suicide. Although, yes you have the right to do it.

That's my worry with libertarianism: people like you--who take it to heart to the point where it becomes your personal philosophy. You believe so strongly that people should be able to carry a gun that you do it yourself, when it's just dick. I believe lying, the West Boro Baptist Church, and Scientology should all have the right to exist for those who want to participate, but I'm not stupid enough to blur the difference between right as in I have the right to do this and right as in correct.
 
Last edited:
cdc482 said:
Whoa guys.

Do you really expect that you are going to need to use a gun to defend yourself while shopping?!?!?!
.
Click to expand...
So are you opposed to Concealed Carry as well?

I can not believe that you would equate the HONEST exercise of a right with doing Heroin.
:(
 
pcosmar said:
So are you opposed to Concealed Carry as well?

I can not believe that you would equate the HONEST exercise of a right with doing Heroin.
:(
Click to expand...

Again I am not opposed to either. I am just setting aside politics and talking as a person. Conceal carry and open carry are both things you have a right to do. Just like you have the right to not let the guy with one item cut in front of you in line at the grocery store even though you just bought groceries for a month. But just like the previous senario: it's dick.

Conceal carrying is not as dick obv.

I can not understand peoples' fascinations with guns for "self-defense" in this day and age.
 
Last edited:
cdc482 said:
Whoa guys. I totally agree that you have every right to carry a gun, but let's be logical.
You also have the right to use heroine. But you don't. There are good reasons not to. There are also good reasons to not open carry:

1- Which society would you rather live in: A-- everyone has a gun B--no one has a gun C-- some people have guns and carry them around others don't
Click to expand...
A. B can't exist and C is what we have now.
2- It makes you stand out and freaks other people out. Seriously, imagine walking around anywhere you go regularly: a shopping mall, school, the gym, whatever and you see a guy with a gun. It's not a pleasant thing to see in public, even if you are a sportsman or whatever.
Click to expand...
Didn't bother people back in the day when they were used to seeing nearly everybody carrying a gun.
3- It just makes you look like a dick. Be realistic for Pete's sake. Do you really expect that you are going to need to use a gun to defend yourself while shopping?!?!?!
Click to expand...
Have there ever been shopping mall massacres? If everybody had a gun, the person doing the killing wouldn't last very long.
I don't know how to make it more clear. It's just a dick move. There's no reason for it. Just like IMO there's no good reason for suicide. Although, yes you have the right to do it.

That's my worry with libertarianism: people like you--who take it to heart to the point where it becomes your personal philosophy. You believe so strongly that people should be able to carry a gun that you do it yourself, when it's just dick. I believe lying, the West Boro Baptist Church, and Scientology should all have the right to exist for those who want to participate, but I'm not stupid enough to blur the difference between right as in I have the right to do this and right as in correct.
Click to expand...
 
I didn't say which can exist. I said which do you prefer. I am aware that--of what is possible--C is the best solution.
Times have changed. Carrying a gun does freak people out nowadays.
And as for shopping mall massacres--would it be too much trouble to conceal it, if you really believe you are fit to play Batman?
You have to realize that most people see those with a gun as creepy, not as an ethical hero out to save them from the truly crazy people.

You can't win this argument. The truth is both parties were dicks. Even though he had a right to carry a gun.
 
Last edited:
cdc482 said:
Again I am not opposed to either. I am just setting aside politics and talking as a person. Conceal carry and open carry are both things you have a right to do. Just like you have the right to not let the guy with one item cut in front of you in line at the grocery store even though you just bought groceries for a month. But just like the previous senario: it's dick.

Conceal carrying is not as dick obv.
Click to expand...

No it is not. It is not being a Dick to hang a "Leatherman" on my belt. It is convenience. It is handy.
It is a tool. A gun is absolutely NO DIFFERENT.
Why should I have to carry a gun in an inconvenient manner or wear unneeded clothing to cover it?

My preferred Carry(when I owned one) is on my leg. there is no way to cover that.
Why is it being a dick?
I see police carry guns all the time. They are usually dicks, but not because of the gun. It is more their manners.
 
pcosmar said:
No it is not. It is not being a Dick to hang a "Leatherman" on my belt. It is convenience. It is handy.
It is a tool. A gun is absolutely NO DIFFERENT.
Why should I have to carry a gun in an inconvenient manner or wear unneeded clothing to cover it?

My preferred Carry(when I owned one) is on my leg. there is no way to cover that.
Why is it being a dick?
I see police carry guns all the time. They are usually dicks, but not because of the gun. It is more their manners.
Click to expand...

Or lack thereof.
 
Lol. I agree pcosmar. You have a right to carry one. And if you live like avatar, then I don't want to inconvenience your method of carrying your tools. POLITICALLY

PERSONALLY: you must realize that to go into a public place carrying a gun WILL cause a panic. It's like wearing a Jason mask into a movie theater. I don't know how to explain myself better.

In today's day and age, in that location and setting, the guy is a MAJOR DICK. How you fail to see that scares me.

There's a time and a place. You must realize that a public place is not the place to carry your gun openly without freaking most people out. Again this is a PERSONAL POV not a political one.
 
Last edited:
cdc482 said:
Times have changed. Carrying a gun does freak people out nowadays.
Click to expand...
And that social conditioning is what many Open Carry activists are trying to correct.
People have been conditioned to be freaked out. 30 years ago people were NOT freaked out by it.
There were gun racks in truck as a rule. Guns were common and accepted as common.

Anti-gun propaganda has conditioned people to believe otherwise.
A visible firearm should be as common as a hat. But it will not be till the conditioning is reversed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Police Have the Right to Lie and Slander
Replies
6
Views
812
PAF
PAF
Anti Federalist
PA Senate Race shenanigans
Replies
8
Views
1K
spudea
S
jmdrake
The shooting of Davis Moturi
Replies
5
Views
748
TheTexan
TheTexan
Anti Federalist
PA - 5 killed, 2 injured, by black transqueeer mass shooter in Philadelphia
Replies
8
Views
616
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
jmdrake
Philadelphia Police Officers Involved In 8-Year-Old Fanta Bility’s Death Get Probation
Replies
2
Views
268
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Back
Top