[JohnKSa]

One instance. One. Unless you can come up with another instance involving a citizen (not LEO).

No, that's just plain silly. For years I've been pointing out that it COULD happen based on simple logic and folks have been replying that it won't happen because it hasn't happened.

Now we have a documented instance of it happening and so the song has changed from "It won't happen because it hasn't happened" to "It won't happen because it's only happened once." The fact is that CAN happen. It HAS happened and it's going to happen again sooner or later.

Because civilian OC is actually very rare, ANY type of incident involving civilian OC is similarly very rare. The fact that incidents (of ANY type) involving civilian OC don't happen often is evidence that civilian OC doesn't happen often, and not evidence of much else at all.

It's like trying to claim that flying cars are very safe because no one can come up with a documented fatality involving a flying car. The fact is that flying cars are very rare so as a consequence anything involving flying cars is also very rare. The fact that there are very few (perhaps no) fatal accidents involving flying cars doesn't prove they're safe, it just proves that flying cars are very rare.

It's like saying, "I just knew someone would get killed in these cars they're building. See? It happened."

It IS just like that. Logic said it could happen, now we have proof that logic actually makes sense. What's the point?

So let's ban open carry! Yay!

That doesn't follow. The fact that a thing has the potential to result in a negative outcome doesn't automatically mean that it should be banned, nor does the fact that someone points out that a thing can result in a negative outcome mean that they're advocating a ban of it.

I realize that automobile accidents do happen and that some accidents are fatal, but the fact that I realize that, or the fact that I point that out doesn't mean automobiles should be banned or that I think they should be banned. It just points out that I realize that there is inherent risk in riding in automobiles that should be addressed in a constructive manner.

In this particular case, I would say that a civilian carrying openly should address the inherent risk of a gun grab with a retention holster, just as LEOs who open carry do.

Ok, first of all this was in Wisconsin, and at the time they didn't have concealed carry at all and OC was his only option.

Irrelevant. The fact that he had no other option doesn't mean that what happened didn't happen nor does it imply that OC doesn't come with some level of risk. It did happen and there is obviously some risk associated with OC as the incident shows. The fact that he had no other option for legal carry is beside the point.

Saying otherwise is like saying because a person can't legally ride in an automobile or truck, a motorcycle is perfectly safe because the person has no other option. The fact that a person can't ride in a car or truck doesn't make a motorcycle any safer, it just makes it the only reasonable option for personal motorized transportation.

Does OC act as a deterrent? No doubt it does to some. But not to all as the incidents cited on this thread show. Therefore it makes sense to consider that FACT when deciding to OC and how to OC.

If widely accepted, people of all types would want to OC. Not just respectable, hard working, law abiding Americans. There would also be hoodrats and other seedy types who might qualify if they had not yet been caught doing something illegal and therefore banned from OC. How would you like to see hoodrat thugs with .45s in plain view walking around your local grocery store? I wouldn't like that at all.

I wouldn't like that any more than I like the idea of them carrying concealed. But that doesn't make it a good reason to ban or restrict OC. Restricting the rights of EVERYONE because some criminals might abuse those rights is a terrible idea. Criminals can likely find ways to abuse virtually any right you care to name. If we take away any right that a criminal might be able to abuse we'll have no rights at all in very short order.