The anti's are a spunky bunch aren't they? 

Im so confused as to what youre trying to use that dtic paper for. Did you actually read it? What is your argument? That in a ground to ground encounter the enemy will try to go for the weapon? If thats the case youre trying to prove then yes, it is true.
If youre trying to prove theyre being disarmed at a frequently. Youre absolutely wrong. 7.9% of those surveyed had faced hand to hand combat, of those who encountered it, the study never states how many were disarmed. Even assuming 100% were disarmed (highly unlikely as most were checkpoints) thats only 7.9%disarmed. A bit far for "frequent" basis
Just that attempted disarms in that particular context occur relatively frequently irrelevant of whether it was successful or not. Open carry in any context carries with it a higher risk that someone will try to take that weapon from you. That's been my point all along, maybe I didn't make that clear. For me, the risk is simply too high and why I would advise against open carry. If someone comes to a different conclusion, that's their choice and they are free to do so.
Well he had a good point as poorly as he initially framed it. If someone knows you have an item which can kill you faster than bare hands, of course theyll go for it. The possibility if that happening much less being successful? No studies on that which have been shown.You're trying to compare military operations in a hostile environment to a civilian with a barbecue rig?
I'm not sure you read the story but the guy was open carrying an unloaded gun.
Think stupidity might have played a part in this incident?
Surely if this is a common occurrence you can find numerous other verifiable examples right?
We'll wait
So how would you spin the concealed carriers whose guns get taken? Oh wait, everyone who isn't showing a gun openly is a potential concealed carrier, and they get robbed on a daily basis.You can spin this any way you like but you can not deny the fact that a person who was open carrying had his weapon taken.
It matters not if the fellow was stupid, many stupid people open carry and that is what's troubling, and it matters not if his gun was not loaded, his open carry made him a target of opportunity.
You can spin this any way you like but you can not deny the fact that a person who was open carrying had his weapon taken.
So how would you spin the concealed carriers whose guns get taken? Oh wait, everyone who isn't showing a gun openly is a potential concealed carrier, and they get robbed on a daily basis.
So if open carry makes you a target, and concealed carry makes you a target, and no carry makes you a target; do you ever leave your basement?
EDIT to add: By the time you finish reading this post, another person not carrying openly will be the victim of a violent crime. Maybe it's no so black-&white.
It matters not if the fellow was stupid, many stupid people open carry and that is what's troubling, and it matters not if his gun was not loaded, his open carry made him a target of opportunity.
Edit to add: By the time you finish reading this another selfish person open carrying wil make a spectacle of themselves and continue to give all gun owners a bad name.
To the contrary, stupidity matters.
Standing on a street corner at 2AM smoking cigs and chatting with armed street thugs is stupid. It's begging for trouble and making yourself a target. Doesn't matter if you're carrying a gun or not.
Anyone not understating this reality, there's not enough bandwidth to explain it.
Be sure to provide us with pictures.![]()