I respectfully disagree.
The gentleman in Royal Oak pulled his concealed weapon in defense of a man & woman and infant and caught the offender by surprise....
There are valid arguments to be made for both points of view.
OC has some element of deterrence and hopefully prevents some crime before it starts. How much and how effective it is as a deterrent is pretty hard to measure and calculate and confirm. But it does in fact have some at the cost of making you the #1 person to be taken out if a calculating criminal is looking over the situation and still determined to carry out his criminal act.
Concealed Carry doesn't prevent a criminal from doing what he wants but it does give you tactical advantage if you get the drop on them...as in Royal Oak
I think there are pro's and con's for both sides.
I think I will, when my CCW arrives tend to be on the concealed side most of the time but will exercise my open carry rights at times as well.
What really floors me is how fast, given this is a pro gun group, all of you are to throw one of the most outspoken, most active and most EFFECTIVE defenders of the 2nd Amendment IN OUR LIFETIME under the bus?
Why??? Just because he has a different opinion on what is the most strategic way to carry??? WTF???
Never mind all the work Ted has done for DECADES to defend OUR rights...never mind the fact that IN THAT INTERVIEW Ted stated repeatedly that he defends EVERY AMERICANS right to OPEN CARRY ANYTHING ANYWHERE....no forget that....let's just focus on the fact that he believes it is better tactically to have the element of surprise that comes with concealed carry.
Yea, let's hang him high for THAT LMAO...WTF?
Talk about cutting off your noses to spite your faces.
Maybe I see it differently than all of you but I don't think we should be turning on other 2A defenders just because they prefer CC over OC.