🚀 go-pugleaf

On 26 Aug 1999 20:29:20 GMT, dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D.
Gerasimatos) wrote:

>In article <sehix-2608990905190001@192.168.1.5>,
>Steve Hix <sehix@macol.net> wrote:
>>In article <7q22ns$lfi$1@agate-ether.berkeley.edu>,
>>dim@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (D. Gerasimatos) wrote:
>>
>>> My question is...
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Why are concealed weapons necessary? Why not just carry your firearms
>>> visibly on your person?
>>
>>Done in some states (with no apparent problems).
>>
>>> That's probably a more effective deterrent,
>>> don't you think? 
>>
>>Not at all:
>>
>> - A would-be assailant is able to determine who is armed,
>>   thus who would be a threat to him.
>>
>> - Concealed carry means that he has no way to know who
>>   *might* be armed, affecting his calculus of personal
>>   risk. (He *might* choose to shoot everyone in sight
>>   in a pre-emptive strike...but this does not seem to
>>   actually happen, well, unless he's pretty sure that
>>   nobody is going to be armed, at schools and similar
>>   venues.)
>
>
>
>If I have good reason to believe that a person *might* be armed, then I'm
>going to assault him as if he was armed. It's that simple. As someone else
>alluded to, this leads to a "shoot first" mentality. 

This scenario does not wash in real life, because the logic is that of
a military tactician, not a criminal. Criminals are generally of
sub-standard intelligence, and, more importantly, are by definition
lazy and cowardly. The only thing an armed person is going to inspire
a criminal (at least a common street criminal, which is generally what
we are talking about here) to do is to look for easier prey elsewhere.

-Matt