Quick note: I never said "universal". I try not to deal in absolutes - we don't live in a digital universe we live in an analog one. There are exceptions to every rule. Carry open doesn't impart a magical shield to anyone but it does act as a deterent IMO.
Why?
In general predators minimize risk. Given the option, they attack from positions of strength. Does a pickpocket working a crowd in a mall pick the guy with a gun on his hip or the dude strolling about without a care in the world oblivious to his surroundings? Do the gang bangers cruising the streets looking to kick some butt, any butt, choose the the high schoolers walking home from band practice or the old man out walking his dog with a full size 1911 on his hip? Does the bank robber walk into a bank with armed guards or one without given the choice? Lots of ifs. Point is criminals are predators. They attack the weak and not the strong. They make the same risk/gain calculations in their heads we all do. Given the option they will avoid confrontation if at all possible. Note: IF possible.
Yet cops who radiate strength and are visibly armed are still attacked and killed every year by criminals. It would seem that the visible gun is not a deterent. It would seem.
Why is a gun less of a deterent for the police yet is a significant deterent for a citizen?
I propose that visibly armed or not the cop would still be attacked. The gun is taken out of the equation. In addition the reasons cops are attacked are very different from the reasons a citizen is attacked and the presence of a visible gun on a police officer's hip is irrelevant. For cops the gun has a deterent value but the deterent value is less than it is for a citizen.
Here's why I believe that.
Cops are not attacked because a criminal wants to rob him/her. How stupid would that be? Criminals - just like in the general population - run the gamut of not too bright thru genius. Even the not too bright if on the prowl to make a quick buck wouldn't try to take on a cop - too risky. Predators avoid risk. Is the gun the deterent or the cop?
Cops are attacked by criminals when the cops catch a criminal in a criminal act. Presence of gun irrelevant.
Criminals attack police officers because they are police officers and that makes them the enemy (think hyaenas attacking a lion). Even then they are attacked and killed only very, very rarely (even one is too many but unfortunately death in the line of duty is part of the job). When a criminal chooses to overtly attack a cop the fact that they are wearing guns and projecting strength becomes irrelevant. The attacker is trying to gain status with his criminal associates or the criminal perceives he has been wronged, embarassed, disrespected, you name it, by the cop and his pride generates the attack. The gun cannot, will not act as a deterent under those circumstances In addition cops represent authority and criminals by their very nature find authority and those who wield it abhorent. Many things can generate an attack on a police officer.
In short: a cop is a target because he is a cop whether he is visibly armed or not. Kind'a reads like I'm proving your point that the gun is not a deterent. And it isn't at least not to the same degree it is for a citizen anyway.
Read on my friend, read on. The fact that police officers are armed, visibly, and relatively few are attacked and killed each year (only 63 so far in 2013 out of all the LEO's in the US) is to me an indicator that being visibly armed is a deterent; not the deterent it is for a visibly armed citizen but still a deterent. Else if it weren't many, many more would be killed each year than are. Lacking the gun as a deterent criminals would run wild and kill 'em all. If visible doesn't deter then why carry open and poke the anti-authority button of every waking criminal? NOTE: in the UK - famous for not arming its cops the number of visibly armed police officers present and on the streets increases every year. Hmmmmmmm....
A visibly armed citizen is a very different thing, though. A citizen is not a cop. They're simply part of the scenery. They're potential targets in the herd. A citizen is a target for crime which is commited to gain wealth be it money, jewelry, cars etc. A criminal wants to get in, get out and do it with the least amount of trouble and risk. When a criminal is choosing a citizen target the openly armed citizen increases the level of risk and that is to be avoided. Thus the gun is a deterent as it is visible evidence of increased risk.
If the citizen has some how wronged the criminal and the criminal seeks to take the citizen out, so to speak, he's gonna do it whether the citizen is openly armed or not. The method for taking out the armed citizen may be more circumspect than the method chose for an unarmed citizen though, or not, either way the visible weapon gives the criminal pause.
To summarize: the visible presence of a weapon that can cause the criminal harm cannot help but act as a deterent. Maybe not every time but as the BHL's like to say, "If it saves even one life....".
NOTE: the above does not apply to crazy criminals of which just like in the general population there are some. Who knows what motivates them?
