TexasCHLforum.com

Felon Attacks Open Carrier for His Weapon In Washington Walmart

Mr. Walker goes on to state that the man who attacked his son for his weapon was a convicted felon with previous assaults on his record.

He also stated that he thinks that his son will now follow his advice and carry his weapon concealed from now on.

To present the full picture, let's note the OC'er was able to sidestep the blow to the head and take control of the situation, placing the felon on the ground at gunpoint until the police arrived to take the attacker into custody.

Good job.

He side stepped the blow and took the impact in the neck and shoulder he is receiving Dr.s treatment.

By sidestep, I guess that means he didn't take the blow on his head. I am surprised he didn't shoot the guy.

I think it also worth noting the same attack could have happened if the felon wanted to rob the guy of his wallet or watch. It's easy to write the article as if it would have never happened without the guy open carrying.

Good job by the victim for handling the situation well.

That is one thing to keep in mind with OC. You are essentially carrying $400 visibly on your person. At least there will be some people who will see it that way. If you are aware of your surroundings, it may not matter.

Glad everything turned out ok. I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that the OCer was targeted because of his weapon.

I agree in this case. However, people are targeted every day without open carrying.

mojo84 wrote:In agree in this case. However, people are targeted every day without open carrying.

Absolutely, and the best defense in those situations is the element of surprise. You "ask" for my wallet you get the business end of what sits right above my wallet.
I'm not opposed to OC, I just believe it may put you at a disadvantage in a self-defense situation.

Looks like open carrying removed a bad guy from the streets. It may have even saved a life.

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:In agree in this case. However, people are targeted every day without open carrying.

Absolutely, and the best defense in those situations is the element of surprise. You "ask" for my wallet you get the business end of what sits right above my wallet.
I'm not opposed to OC, I just believe it may put you at a disadvantage in a self-defense situation.

I just think it should be an individual's decision. Just as it is somone's decision about wearing their $10,000 Rolex openly.

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

mojo84 wrote:In agree in this case. However, people are targeted every day without open carrying.

Absolutely, and the best defense in those situations is the element of surprise. You "ask" for my wallet you get the business end of what sits right above my wallet.
I'm not opposed to OC, I just believe it may put you at a disadvantage in a self-defense situation.

I just think it should be an individual's decision. Just as it is somone's decision about wearing their $10,000 Rolex openly.

No argument here. I just think the guy should listen to his dad. He sounds like a pretty smart fella.

I can see both sides of this one.

• On one hand, he likely was targeted because he was open carrying.
• On the other hand, he could have been targeted for any number of other reasons.
• But, on the other hand, he might not have been able to draw as quickly as he did if the gun was concealed.
• But, on the other hand, he might not have had to, if the first hand above was not true.

(Sorry, I re-watched Fiddler on the Roof last week, and felt like channeling Tevya's logical processes here, since this is an oft-polarized issue.)

All that aside, my favorite line in the entire article was:

The victim was not injured, but he did have a concealed weapons permit, which he immediately put to use, police said.

Vol Texan wrote:I can see both sides of this one.

• On one hand, he likely was targeted because he was open carrying.
• On the other hand, he could have been targeted for any number of other reasons.

[/quote]
If your wife slaps you for answering "yes" when she asked if the dress she was wearing made her look fat, then she slapped you because you answered yes. Now there are probably many other reasons that she could have slapped you but it doesn't change the fact that she slapped you because you said she looked fat.
No matter how you slice this thing the guy was targeted because he was OCing. Suggesting that he could have been a target if he wasn't OCing doesn't change what really happened.
Now, stop calling you wife fat!