I could argue tactics, but learned long ago that arguments over tactics never end. However, I would disagree with some of his points.
1) I am indifferent to deterrence. Deterrence only works with individuals who are mentally sound, not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and whose aggression is based on an unemotional motive. I would never assume such professionalism among armed robbers or other violent criminals.
2) I accept that it is not my choice whether to kill or not. It is based in need, not choice. If you don’t have to kill, and don’t want to kill, don’t kill. But you always must take responsibility for whatever decision you take. Not killing a violent criminal may very well mean that you are responsible for the next person *they* brutalize or kill.
3) He infers too much about criminal motives and means. Often their choice to attack is just impulse based. You were there then, so they attack you. No consideration at all to consequences. These are people who when they are caught *in the act* of committing a crime, by the police, they insist, “It wasn’t me!” This is just plain stupidity, that rates right up there with insanity, drugs and alcohol.
4) Finally, CC gives enormous tactical advantages, even if the aggressor’s gun is brandished and cocked. All told, several seconds, divided into fractions of a second. With that much adrenaline, you feel huge gaps of time in which you can act.
This is my greatest criticism of open carry. To a great extent, it seems to be based on the idea of “fairness”, such as having “a fair fight”. The heck with that.
Deterrence does not always work, but nor does anything else. If certain criminals enter the room, one may be better off carrying openly. If certain other criminals enter, one may be better off carrying concealed. A variety of factors may influence the likelihood of each type of criminal entry at any given place and time, but probably the safest scenario in most cases would be to have some people carrying openly while others are carrying concealed. That would provide protection against both types of criminals.