Handy-
OK. Then, based on your example, I'm definitely leaving my exposed Sebenza at home from now on. I'm downright frightened.
Look, guy: It's summer in FL, CT, TX or 30 other states. I'll give you a crowd of 30, with two carrying concealed. Then I'll give you 3 minutes to identify a gun in a "non-retention" holster in that crowd. Guaranteed, you're sure to hit.
Let's not over-assume the stupidity of the "I'm looking for a gun to rip off the hip of someone so I can do a 'safe' armed robbery" crowd. Those exposed shirt tails and "concealment" photographer vests, in 90 degree temps, are hardly the shield of safety you suggest here. They're a promising sign, proved out as a dead give-away on 30 seconds observation. Think you don't "print"? Think again. In fact, we only wear those absurd vests and fannie packs to be legal or to shield ourselves from the histrionics of very "stupid people".
I go back to what I originally stated: "Degrees of Freedom".
You've countered with "Degrees of Safety".....that's where your argument falters. Protecting people from themselves is the first (and only) step toward servitude.
I cite the issue as an openly armed society. You cite it as
not getting shot with your own piece. Based on your criteria:
Retention vs Non-Retention Holster? "Safer", yes. Degrees of Safety.
Carry only pocket guns in summer? Even "safer".
Trigger Locks? Moving further in the same direction.
No Carry vs Carry? Now we're cookin' with VPC gas! Sarah would applaud us.
Stay at home and don't go out? Safer still.
Check into Solitary Confinement? Whoa, dude. it just don't get much "safer" than that.
Are you arguing that if you are carrying open, "The gun is more likely to be used against you"? Choose your poison in this match, Handy. Cuz I'll take your argument to the
logical conclusion of, "If we could just save one child" or "We
need to have
reasonable restrictions on [fill in the blanks here]".
In short, the argument, while praiseworthy in the intent, is devoid of substance.
Rich