🚀 go-pugleaf

"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.

Why hasn't that been happening then?

>  At least if you're
> carrying your firearms openly *you* can be the one shot at. The reason
> concealed carry works well right now has to do with the element of
> surprise. If *everyone* (or even a majority of the populace) carried a
> concealed weapon then it would limit the effectiveness of carrying a
> weapon. This is why gun owners need peaceniks like myself. It's also
> why gun owners oppose carrying their weapons visibly.

No they don't.

"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
            what ships are built for."

   "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"