2nd Amendment Hysteria

[xxlt]

(10-10-2015, 11:26 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not really that complicated when you think about it.  For a criminal, it is an easy assumption to make that your chosen target is unarmed given that most citizens are.  If you are open carrying this assumption, obviously, goes right out the window.  If you assume your victim is unarmed you will not be prepared for them to be armed.  Based on the common sense assumption that it is quicker to act than to react the person who is armed, but is not known to be armed, has the advantage.

Lest's take your scenario as an example.  I have a handgun in my waistband and a criminal points a gun at me and demands my wallet.  While I hand him my wallet with one hand I draw my handgun with the other.  Given that the criminal will be focused on my wallet, as it is the whole point of the encounter for him, I now have the element of surprise and can, very likely, discharge my weapon before he knows it even exists.  Contrast that with open carry, in which this element of surprise is entirely lost.  Now the focus is not on the wallet or other form of monetary gain, but on the victim's firearm.  Once a victim is known to be armed you, as the victim, place yourself on the disadvantageous side of the, "act vs, react", equation.  When you consider how crucial the element of surprise is in any such encounter you bring yourself to a point in which you don't even ask your question.

I'm honestly surprised someone often governed by logic believes this. I think you've created a false idol here. I don't expect you to change your mind and don't want to argue about it, but your line of reasoning does not convince me.