Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[Danzaivar]

All of your assumptions are on the basis that you're gonna get mugged. Concealed Carry makes them less likely to try because if anyone could have a gun, mugging becomes that much more risky. People like your friend carrying a gun actually make it safer for people like yourself by proxy.

It's kinda like countries having nukes.

I'm afraid that I do have to point out that ones analogy is somewhat inaccurate considering that while these countries are aware of the fact that they yield a nuclear arsenal, these muggers aren't capable of knowing if their target is carrying a firearm. But while you'd think this lack of certainty would discourage criminals from making the attempt, more often than not it tends not to.

Well, based on how the crime rates seem to go down with the more Concealed Carry permits in a state, I respectfully disagree.

 

[SmokingMirrors]

Well, based on how the crime rates seem to go down with the more Concealed Carry permits in a state, I respectfully disagree.

Unless I get tangible evidence of this i'm scarce to believe that claim, but I will not deny the possibility of this either. However, regardless I still do not understand the neccesity of firearms for civilian use when nations like europe have proven that it is capable of maintaining the lowest crime rates on the globe with little to none of the populace carrying a weapon.

 

[Danzaivar]

Well, based on how the crime rates seem to go down with the more Concealed Carry permits in a state, I respectfully disagree.

Unless I get tangible evidence of this i'm scarce to believe that claim, but I will not deny the possibility of this either. However, regardless I still do not understand the neccesity of firearms for civilian use when nations like europe have proven that it is capable of maintaining the lowest crime rates on the globe with little to none of the populace carrying a weapon.

Europe is NOT a nation. And for Yankistan it's not a case of protection, it's about freedom. Second Amendment and all that.

But ah, I can tell you first-hand that banning handguns doesn't stop muggings. You're just more likely to get stabbed (And you can't carry a knife for self defence) so it's the same kettle of fish, just scaled down. They (in the UK) was on about banning sharp knives over 5" long at some point, until someone pointed out that would make cooking a *****. Eventually we're just gonna get kicked/punched half to death during muggings until they try to amputate everyones limbs for our own safety...

 

[fix-the-spade]

So at what point in this crime is a CCW going to help you?

You forgot point 4 and 5)
4) In an area where CC is allowed the mugger/s will likely take steps to incapacitate you before stealing from you.

5) If CC is legal, there's a significant chance the mugger/s will also be armed.

Carrying weapons in public places is born more out of fear than actual safety, it makes people feel good aobut themselves. Most street crime is a symptom of poverty, desperation or just plain old nasty people. Non of the groups affected by that are going to stop because you might be armed, they're going to take precautions against you first.

 

[MattRooney06]

Well it is possible to reach for a gun while in a struggle, being the first to hit someone doesn't mean you're going to knock them out.

WHat i dont get about carried conceled weapons is that its also highley likley that the attacker could get it from you

Plus your average mugger isnt looking for a real fight and even those that are armed rarely want to inflict a fatality, so buy pulling a gun out they act in self defence

 

[SmokingMirrors]

Europe is NOT a nation. And for Yankistan it's not a case of protection, it's about freedom. Second Amendment and all that.

But ah, I can tell you first-hand that banning handguns doesn't stop muggings. You're just more likely to get stabbed (And you can't carry a knife for self defence) so it's the same kettle of fish, just scaled down. They (in the UK) was on about banning sharp knives over 5" long at some point, until someone pointed out that would make cooking a *****. Eventually we're just gonna get kicked/punched half to death during muggings until they try to amputate everyones limbs for our own safety...

Quite right, my apologies. But I never did say that the banning of firearms would put a stop to muggings, as even I am not as deluded to think that. But ask yourself; If it doesn't prevent it, then why allow it? after all, these criminals can just as easily get their hands on the same firearms meant to supposedly protect the general populace and crime involving these tend to get a far higher body count than with... say, a knife.

Can't rob a bank with one, and you'd pretty much have to be at the cashier's throat with it already in order to even come close to successfully robbing a convenience store with one.

 

[fix-the-spade]

They (in the UK) was on about banning sharp knives over 5" long at some point, until someone pointed out that would make cooking a *****.

In the UK, carrying any knife with a locking blade or blade over 4inches on your person is illegal. Proper knives (as in kitchen knives, Stanley knives etc) should be carried in an appropriate container. The law is fairly open to interpretation, but the gist is that if you're carrying any knife without good reason you can and probably will be arrested for it.
The Police aren't stupid, they can tell the difference between someone carrying a knife for a useful purpose and someone carrying it to extend their peen.

 

[-Samurai-]

I never claimed that everybody in America is a gun crazy loon, but any twit CAN in fact buy a gun, here in England it takes a special kind of criminal to have one (one that pl;ans to use it), in America anyone can own a gun, anyone, here you might get mugged at knife point or even bare hands, wheras in america any low class filth can pull a gun on you if they want your money.

I don't know where you get your information, but America has very strict laws in terms of buying a gun.

We sell them where I work, and if you even so much as make an unnecessary mark on the paperwork, or incorrectly make a letter, you're not getting a damn thing.

You have to be a legal citizen, be background checked, your photo ID has to have information that's 100% correct. Your forms have to be absolutely perfect, along with a number of other things to be able to buy one. If you mess up your paperwork once, you can't even attempt to get one for months without being instantly turned down.

It isn't as easy as walking into a store and taking one through a self checkout.

Then would you kindly explain how every Tom, Dick and Harry seem to have guns when commiting crimes?
And don't use the old standby of "black market" not everybody that has ever used a gun illegally would even know who to ask about getting a gun illeagally, and if they did your country has far bigger problems than I thought.

It really isn't that hard to get a gun you can (of course) buy it legally if you don't mind the wait, buy it off someone that just wants to sell their old gun (don't kid yourself in to thinking every gun owner is resposible), buy it off of those that got their illegally anyway, or you can even steal it.

Also why is everybody having a go at me?
I never once said I was against guns, I merely stated that I'd carry in a country where they were legal.

The Black Market is no longer the super secret criminal store. It now also refers to illegally selling things online or out of your home.

It's the people that acquire them legally, then illegally sell them that allow criminals to get their hands on them.

And not every crime involves a gun. Just the ones you see in the news because they're more interesting than a bar room fist fight.

I really don't know why people think that like 4 out of 5 Americans own a gun. It's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Hell, I only know 2 people that own guns. Both are hunters, and one is a handgun collector.

 

[logiman]

Just get a poket knife that fits you jacket poket and which you can pull out really fast. Also keep your hand on it at all time when you`re walking the dark streets alone..and also learn how to use it so you don`t stab yourself..

Or learn some Krav Maga

 

[Danzaivar]

They (in the UK) was on about banning sharp knives over 5" long at some point, until someone pointed out that would make cooking a *****.

In the UK, carrying any knife with a locking blade or blade over 4inches on your person is illegal. Proper knives (as in kitchen knives, Stanley knives etc) should be carried in an appropriate container. The law is fairly open to interpretation, but the gist is that if you're carrying any knife without good reason you can and probably will be arrested for it.
The Police aren't stupid, they can tell the difference between someone carrying a knife for a useful purpose and someone carrying it to extend their peen.

Yeah but they was on about extending that to make ANY knife over 4" illegal. As in, keeping one in a locked box in your house would still be illegal (Kitchen knives would have blunt tips so you couldn't stab with them).

Thankfully some MP's realised how stupid that would have been, but it shows the way this controlled weapon society thinks...

 

[Danzaivar]

Europe is NOT a nation. And for Yankistan it's not a case of protection, it's about freedom. Second Amendment and all that.

But ah, I can tell you first-hand that banning handguns doesn't stop muggings. You're just more likely to get stabbed (And you can't carry a knife for self defence) so it's the same kettle of fish, just scaled down. They (in the UK) was on about banning sharp knives over 5" long at some point, until someone pointed out that would make cooking a *****. Eventually we're just gonna get kicked/punched half to death during muggings until they try to amputate everyones limbs for our own safety...

Quite right, my apologies. But I never did say that the banning of firearms would put a stop to muggings, as even I am not as deluded to think that. But ask yourself; If it doesn't prevent it, then why allow it? after all, these criminals can just as easily get their hands on the same firearms meant to supposedly protect the general populace and crime involving these tend to get a far higher body count than with... say, a knife.

Can't rob a bank with one, and you'd pretty much have to be at the cashier's throat with it already in order to even come close to successfully robbing a convenience store with one.

It happens in the UK. You have to remember that here, even the police don't carry guns (Theres a special armed response squad, about one squad per city), so shops get robbed all the times by people who only have a knife.

It's kinda quaint, in a way.

 

[Cyberjester]

Third post on the same page. :S Maybe I should just stop reading lol

It is bad to have that many guns on the streets. Well.. Maybe not bad, but there's no good reason for it. However, and this is a big thing. The constitution was drafted around the time when having a militia was not only a good thing, but necessary for the safety of the nation. In debates about warfare, etc, the USA has always come out as the most likely to withstand a full on attack, simply because the majority of its citizens possess a gun and know how to use it.

If Australia was attacked, for example, the only people who could mount a defense is the criminal element. And I can't really see that happening. There's this sentence I saw in the quote section of a persons post.. They were USA'ian, and it went something like.. Europeans may call themselves cultured because they don't own a gun, but who rescued them in two world wars.

'shrugs'
They have a point

you shouldn't say stuff like the US rescued europe in 2 world wars, its like saying 360>PS3 or Linux/Win/Mac>Mac/Win/Linux.
nothing good can come from that D :
(not that Im someone to talk, still)

It was a quote I'd seen, and it has the benefit of being at least partly true in the second. It really was the U.S.A.'s full military involvement which swung the balance to the side of the allies. Germany could have taken Britain if the U.S.A. hadn't supplied them, and no way Britain could have taken Germany by themselves. Russia was so close that it could have went either way. When the U.S.A. got involved, and admittedly they focused on Japan, then the amount of fronts Germany was fighting on became impossible to maintain. And the material production and shipping to Britain and the rest became enormous.

In WWI, the war went from 1914-1918, yea? Funnily enough, the USA joined the war April 1, 1917 according to Wikipedia, began sending men across in 1918.

The year the war ended.

Again, it was simply a quote I'd seen which happened to work with my argument, and it also fits facts close enough to be annoying. Even if it is uncomfortable to Europeans and any of us non-gun peoples

 

[SmokingMirrors]

It happens in the UK. You have to remember that here, even the police don't carry guns (Theres a special armed response squad, about one squad per city), so shops get robbed all the times by people who only have a knife.

It's kinda quaint, in a way.

Not sure where you got that from but its quite wrong, i'm afraid. The London Metropolitan Police Service alone are permitted to wield a; Glock 17, Glock 26, P226, P99. Not to mention a handful of semi-automatic carbines in more dire situations.

But yes, stores do get held up by knife-wielding criminals. Never did say that it was impossible, just far more difficult than with a firearm. Though I believe I shall back out of this discussion as it seems to me that there might be no end to it if we were to continue.

Thank you, and do take care.

 

[yundex]

I support the second amendment, yes. I am not afraid of a stranger with a gun any more than I am afraid of them with any other weapon. Why are you afraid of guns? Are you afraid of me because I have one? I really don't get your last sentance. :/

1. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of unworthy people having them.
2. Well you live on another continent, so no, I don't fear you (though I have a completely reasonable fear of anyone who is carrying a gun (less for a knife, but still a reasonable amount, more like caution really, but you said fear so I'll stick with that word).
3. Okay, I'll try and re-phrase it better. If everyone can aquire a gun on the grounds tht "I need it for my own protection", then everyone can get a gun (though not everyone will get one). With more people owning guns, the threat to your own life from other people with guns increases because more people have guns. Because more people have guns, the threat is higher, so the chances of needing to protect yourself increase, so more people are willing to get a gun, which further increases the risk from guns to your life. So what happens? More people get guns. Eventually you reach a state where most people have the power to kill someone else in a second (whether because of anger, depression, fear, paranoia, accidental firing, etc), which means that the level of 'semi-reasonable' fear everyone has towrds everyone else increases because everybody else are much bigger threats. So you've basically got a situation where people are more likely to be jumpy (due to the increase in 'default fear'), and all those jumpy people have an unreversible means by which to kill those around them. And it isn't necessarily a planned homocide, the speed at which someone can now kill someone else is so quick that there is rarely enough time to stop yourself. There isn't a long pause between pulling out your gun from fear and killing someone, all there is is 'aim and shoot'. That doesn't leave a whole lot of tiem for someone to get voer their initial shock, realise what they are impulsively doing and then prevent themselves from doing it.

TL;DR: More guns means a higher risk from guns.

Except this situation has existed in a lot of places in the US for centuries, everyone CAN have guns in that regard. :/ It sounds like you think the worst case scenario is the norm here but it's not. I have nothing against backround checks and safety courses, and am against violent criminals owning guns. I guess were both against EVERYONE having guns,(lunatics ect.) but I know plenty of people with weapons and we aren't going rambo every time we get angry. I don't want to drag this out any longer because the topic has already been derailed to the moon, so I will agree to disagree.

 

[Cyberjester]

If Australia was attacked, for example, the only people who could mount a defense is the criminal element.

Who do you think is going to attack Australia?

Do they have a massive navy to get here, becasue last time I looked Australia was an island?

If they can cross the ocean in force, beat the Australian climate, RAAF, RAN and Army, they are not going to be stopped by any 'well armed militia' of citizens with small arms.

There's this sentence I saw in the quote section of a persons post.. They were USA'ian, and it went something like.. Europeans may call themselves cultured because they don't own a gun, but who rescued them in two world wars.

'shrugs'
They have a point

Some 'people' say the US was late on both occassions and only arrived after the hard work had been done.

Some say, but their involvement was always the turning point in the war. From what I can see, I could be wrong.


There's a few warlike, expansionist nations around the Australasian area. And Aus's navy/airforce/army isn't that good.

Aus spends billions buying second hand junk no-one wants and calls it our latest and greatest. We take awesome rifles, rechamber them for a lower caliber bullet, lower the barrel length, change the loading system and call it our main sniper rifle. -.-

Aus. Sucks. Simple fact. Any nation with a decent airforce could take us out. Any nation with a decent navy could take us out.

An island that buys a bunch of second hand battle tanks.. They might prove useful in an invasion. Although the majority of the populace is concentrated on the lower right to top right coastal areas. Air force bombs that area, the country would be gone.

Any country that wants massive amounts of resources for little effort would take Aus.

Think NZ would kick our butt. -.-

 

[maturin]

Most of our military force was overseas at that time, it really was the civilians Japan feared.

Says you. Do you really think Yamoto thought he could launch an invasion of the continental U.S. while our armies were overseas? That makes no bloody sense.

He feared invading the U.S. for the same reason we feared invading Japan. Fanatic resistance.

Plenty of countries have populations that are more heavily armed than ours. And a lot of guns do you no good if every adult male is conscripted into the regular army and then killed. We would have responded to a Japanese invasion with massive mobilization. The government had a lot of guns, the people had a lot of guns. The people would have been conscripted by the government, so their personal gun supply wasn't terribly relevant.

A population that can shoot and that hides guns in every house lends itself well to guerrilla warfare. But if you're saying 'The second amendment is good because it allows mostly futile resistance to an occupying force after our male population has mostly been slaughtered and our cities all flattened,' I think you're sorta grasping.

 

[no oneder]

I was mugged once, but as soon as the robber turned around and and away I threw an empty beer bottle and dropped him unconscious, then I recovered my valuables. [Lie.]

So much win!....is what i was going to say before I saw IT. sneaky little.....

Har har. Pretty clever, isn't it?

 

[Blindswordmaster]

You need to remember that there aren't police everywhere, if you pull a gun on some who is about to mug you, or in the process of doing so, who's he going to tell to get you arrested? "Hello, 911? Listen, some guy just pulled a gun on me as I tried to rob him."

I heard of that happening actually. The cch person (good guy) had to draw on a mugger who had a knife. The mugger ran (and wet himself, lol) and called the cops mistakingly believing that carrying concealed guns was less legal then mugging someone. Anyway while the mugger was calling the cops so was the good guy. Anyway long story short the cops believed the good guy, mugger got lawyers involved, courts sided with the good guy (an example of still having to go to court even if you did nothing wrong), and mugger still went to jail.

snip
And, this may come as no surprise, but I support Castle Doctrines. Why should I have to run in my own home?

snip

I too support Castle Doctrines. I say this because some may not know what that means.

"To a Man/Woman, his house is a Castle. He/she rules all he/she surveys in their Castle."

In short, I heard of a story out of Britain where a burglar was tripped by a home owner IN HIS OWN HOME and the robber sued and won. If you can escape YOUR OWN HOME THAT IS BEING ROBBED you legally have to. In most parts of America (with sensible (meaning follows the constitution) gun laws) , I can legally shoot a person breaking into my home, even if later they find out the robber was unarmed I still would not be in trouble for defending my Castle. In Kansas, I believe (need to look it up again), I can shoot trespassers under certain circumstances (not just for trespassing but like if they do have a weapon or make threats, again I have not looked up the statute since I moved home).

I quite agree, I'm a huge supporter of Castle Doctrines. Also, here in the U.S. (namely in Red states), we have Stand Your Ground Laws. These allow you to use lethal force if you're threatened in any place where you are legally allowed to be, such as public areas and businesses. Also consider that the vast majority of altercations involving a concealed weapon, they only have to brandish a gun to stop the attack or mugging, very rarely does anyone with a concealed carry permit actually have to fire their gun.

 

[maturin]

It doesn't matter though. As soon as we completely turn our ability to defend ourselves over to the government, if the shit does hit the fan, we will be completely defenseless. To me, that's just not worth it.

In my view, societies fall apart before states do. People with guns will be spilling each other's blood long before the government is so totally feeble that Canada decides to annex New York. I don't want to be caught in that crossfire.

Penn and Teller may be magic, but they're wrong. The people don't bear arms to defend against the militia, they bear arms so that they may form a militia. In order to provide "security" for "a free state." Obviously, against outside threats. The British weren't a militia when fighting broke out in Boston; they were an occupying force of reprisal. Tibet has it better than Yemen.

All I care about is that I have the freedom and the ability to protect myself and my family against any enemy that threatens it. Whether it be a burglar breaking into my home, a mugger on the street, or a federal officer at my door.[/quote]
A federal officer? If you keep a parity of force with the people who are supposed to keep you safe, they can't do they're job. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The mugger and the burglar have the drop on you. They're going to win. So are the feds. In the meantime, your gun is statistically more likely to shoot yourself and your family than an aggressor. And Mexico is being unraveled by American AR-15. I don't know why those wimps don't just arm their citizens so they can stand up the drug cartels. /not

You seem to believe that the NRA is synonymous with far right Republicans and that is just completely false. The NRA has no political goal beyond protecting our 2nd Amendment. It consists of members from all political backgrounds, all races, all genders, and all ages (above 18). The only belief all the members of the NRA share is the belief that gun ownership is a right. Yes, some members may hypocritically side with the government on issues that inhibit other freedoms but other members will be right there opposing them.

It has no political alignments, besides the fact that it always sides with Republicans. That's not its own fault or design, just how it works out. And that creates political and cultural cleavages that are still important despite their rather nebulous nature.

Same goes for the Army. The Army consists of people from all over the country who all have different backgrounds and beliefs. The idea that the "Army is drawn from the ranks of gun-toting Americans" is just silly and inaccurate.

The military is a gigantic institution, and it has its own culture and political beliefs. There is a powerful cultural and political element within the armed forces that would end up on the side of the NRA, and of rural, white, Christian Americans if shit were to hit the fan. All I'm saying. Almost any nightmare scenario you could name, and I'd predict the NRA demographic, which is strikingly similar to the NRA demographic falling into step behind the most militarized, jingoistic response, which would of course be championed by the military or a part of it.

That's all I'm saying. Our armed populace would be shooting at Mexicans before the state National Guard. Although the Westboro Baptist Church types would be doing that latter, but most of the country would be on the government's side.

 

[Mcface]

It's not really to protect against muggers.
Although its one of the situations.

It's all about being prepared for whatever. You dont really understand it until you've been in a situation where you were helpless to do anything.