Why are you against gun free zones then? If they "are no indicator whether or not people are armed," isn't this the ideal situation for a perp to make critical error in victim selection?
This is analogous to saying gun-free zones are effective. Deterrence is a real thing. OC doesn't mean never being the victim, but it can have a deterrence effect if done properly.
No wonder you have such insight into the criminal mind. You just confessed to fighting people for their firearms! Why not just purchase them like everyone else?
If I appear unarmed then I am unarmed in the eyes of the robber, I appear as easy a target as almost anyone else out on the street. My probability of being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, is completely unchanged by the fact that I have hidden beneath my shirt the means to defend...
This is just an argumentum ad verecundiam. It nether proves or disapproves Colion's argument. His whole argument was a strawman which is also a logical fallacy.
I don't care what you do personally. Colion's arguments against open carry just aren't convincing. If someone doesn't feel comfortable open carrying, that's fine. But that's an entirely different argument that his strawman arguments against it.
With concealed carry, if I appear unarmed then...
John Bolton and Dick Cheney thank you for your service to the regime. Interesting that you're the type of gun carrier that even Joe Biden and Hillary can love.
You're doing what Colion does which is arguing from an extreme. I've seen plenty of concealed carriers decked out in cargo pants, baggy cover garments, 5.11 gear, etc. to try to hide the obvious fact that they're carry. That doesn't make concealed carry a bad idea. It's just the difference...