06-03-2015, 01:27 AM
(06-02-2015, 08:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It does seem the more we talk about different scenarios the more LEO's and Soldier's logic differ. For instance in a combat environment we are taught to present a "hard-target". Basically show them what you got. The enemy would much rather go after a target that appeared to be unable to put up a fight.
You scenario makes sense only if the bad guy is packing and packing something with some kick to it.
I actually never did respond to your other post and I should have because it was correct. Soldiers in a combat zone live with the concept that they are likely to get shot at that day, therefore it comes as no (much less of a) surprise. Consequently they are also shot at more often, hence they become accustomed to it. Also, as you said, they have to conserve ammo because they have to hump it and resupply is never assured. So yes, the professions are very different.
What you're not seeing in this instance is that criminals are not intimidated by open carry at all. A person open carrying in a crowd of people will not be targeted just like anyone in a crowd of people would not be targeted. A person open carrying alone, in a vulnerable position, is more likely to be targeted. A criminals number one target for theft are firearms. A person open carrying is essentially the same as a guy with a wad of $100 bills strapped to his forehead. As xxlt, sarcastically, pointed out open carrying eliminates the element of surprise. The same element of surprise that a criminal has, even against LEO's on occasion, when they pull a firearm. Your AR15 slung over your shoulder might as well be in your gun safe when I have a glock 17 pointed at your chest because you didn't know I was armed and I knew you were.
Bottom line, open carrying in no way makes you safer, it demonstrably makes you less safe in situations in which you'd think being armed would cause the opposite and it only intimidates and discomforts the standard citizenry that aren't comfortable with guns in general.
