Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[maturin]

Do you think a lack of legal guns will somehow prevent murders, riots, and gang wars in the event of a societal meltdown? I'm sorry but no, it wont.

I expect the easy availability of guns to a major factor causing it. Supply and demand, and we have plenty of supply. Armaments also create their own demand.

When you have a situation where the government is unable to keep the peace, that is when you see the gangs, mobs, and cartels use the opportunity to vastly expand their influence.

In that case a well-regulated militia would indeed be useful. Bear in mind I'm not making a blanket gun control argument here, just taking aim at the 'defense against the government' conceit.

I am simply defending my right to attempt to protect myself, should the need arise.

Same response as above. But strictly speaking, you have no right to defend yourself against the authorities.

As some other posters have pointed out, there is evidence to the contrary. Besides, as I said in my initial post, just having a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. It simply means it's there if you need it.

I haven't read the thread.
And statistically the most likely deadly use of a firearm will be suicide or the killing of a family member or acquaintance. Just having a gun is a risk/benefit analysis. For a stable, responsible person, the equation is clear. Step beyond the individual frame of reference to the collective, and the value of the risk benefit analysis is altered.

That statistic doesn't account for all of the burglaries, rapes, and murders prevented by the simple act of pointing a gun.

So let's see some.

drug cartels that would be able to acquire weapons regardless of the US's gun laws.

Other Central American gangs make their own guns out of pipes and homemade gunpowder. It's a blindingly obvious fact that the cartels wouldn't have a fraction of their current firepower if military grade firearms weren't available cheaply and legally just across the porous border.

As for why the Mexican government doesn't arm it's citizens, at this point the government officials are just as scared of the cartels as the general public and the general public is already so repressed the guns wouldn't make it to them anyway.

The point was that individual Mexicans with guns would be even more useless than a very large and well-equipped military is proving to be.

Even assuming that the political leaders of the NRA do always side with Republicans (a rather strong claim that I hope you can back up), it doesn't matter because we are talking about the general population. The only common belief amongst all NRA members is the right to bear arms. These people will act on their own individual beliefs, not those of the NRA at large.

The correlations in political ideology are too blatantly obvious to bother arguing

While I won't be so naive as to clam that the culture of the military wouldn't influence it's members, there is absolutely no evidence or precedent that it, in any way, would "end up on the side of the NRA, and of rural, white, Christian Americans." At this point you are just making stuff up.

Indeed I am making stuff up. I am indulging in the same fantasies as the people who claim that the Second Amendment provides protection from the government.

And I'm saying that given the cultural and political structure of the country, I think a U.S. military vs. armed U.S. citizenry scenario is less likely than various other scenarios which would see the most pro-Second Amendment demographics solidly on the side of the military or a part of the military.

Neither of us are psychics and your "prediction" has absolutely no basis in fact or precedent.

Uh, the Civil War? The country can't split, and no insurrection can succeed until the military splits.

In the meantime...

Hi, I'm an AC-130. If you feel like resisting my tyranny, I will just annihilate you and everyone in your zip code in the time it takes for you to load your high capacity magazine into your legally-obtained AR-15 modified by your legally-obtained Automatic Fire Mode Kit.

If you really wanted the Second Amendment to defend you against the evil government, you would have limited the government to a "well-regulated militia." It's too late!

 

[Dr Snakeman]

How does having a gun help? It's very simple. If an assailant has a bullet in his body, he will be far less motivated to continue assaulting you.

I don't see how further explanation is necessary. Yes, I read your original post. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

I'll just leave this here:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon

Holy... is this for real? If so, I need to commit it to memory. Useful to shut the hippies up XD

 

[Blindswordmaster]

snip

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.

I also heard that on the very rare occasions the CCH holder does fire. That, statistically speaking, CCH holders are less likely to be unjustified in the use of deadly force, than the police when they use deadly force. I think that stat is out of Florida.

Correct on all counts. We have learned to use guns wisely in my state.

 

[Treblaine]

I'll just leave this here:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon

Holy... is this for real? If so, I need to commit it to memory. Useful to shut the hippies up XD

Well I wasn't there to hear it myself but all the sources I can find indicated he really said it and really meant it as well.

If you think about it this is not so odd, His Holiness is a very wise man, and it's clearly very foolish to think pacifist ideals will make you bulletproof.

 

[ComradeJim270]

As far as what constitutes self-defense, it varies enough from state to state that I sometimes wonder if it's really all that meaningful to talk about it on a national level, and personally, I think gun laws in a given state are probably not as big a factor in determining gun crime as they are believed to be. Debates about gun control often seem to focus on whether laws should be more or less restrictive, while completely ignoring the things that make people want to shoot each other in the first place. If you have a place with a lot of crime, and somehow take away all the guns, I don't have the slimmest doubt that people would just stab and bludgeon each other instead.

This thread started with someone asking whether his roommates concealed carry permit was useful, yet now everyone's talking about issues beyond its usefulness... instead people are talking about whether it's good or bad for someone to even have access to such a permit, which is not what was asked. This is why I avoided politics in my post.

Oh, and the Dalai Lama thing doesn't seem so weird to me. Pacifism does not automatically mean renouncing self-defense. It necessarily means renouncing war, but renouncing violence altogether is not a requirement to be considered pacifist.

 

[nofear220]

My roommate carries everywhere he goes except class, citing the high frequency of robberies and muggings of students around our college campus (we get emails about 4-5 incidents a month). But I don't see how carrying a gun in a holster under your jacket is going to help you:

1) You can't legally draw your gun on someone first unless they pose legitimate threat to you or a third party. For example, if my roommate sees three young men walking behind him at night on his way home, and he whips out his gun, he can get arrested and lose his CC license

2) The mugger has the element of surprise. So long as he has a firearm and pulls it on you first, you're screwed. The average person cannot outdraw someone who has the jump on them, and any idiot who thinks he's John Wayne will likely end up on the pavement bleeding out.

3) Once the mugger takes your stuff and leaves the immediate area, you cannot follow him and legally shoot him. At this point, he is no longer a threat to your safety and you could be charged with second-degree murder.

So at what point in this crime is a CCW going to help you? If anything, its more likely to be taken from you along with your wallet and other valuables. CCWs are useful in that they could stop a mass shooting attempt where the shooter has many targets, but I don't see how they are useful in common street robberies or carjackings, unless someone with experience otherwise can enlighten me.

The US has retarded gun control laws, watch this series of three videos its quite interesting.

 

[ComradeJim270]

The US has retarded gun control laws, watch this series of three videos its quite interesting.

See, here's what I'm talking about. The US, as a whole, doesn't have all that much in the way of gun control laws, and the ones it does have as a whole are quite reasonable (i.e. making it hard to get grenade launchers and machine guns). Most of it comes down to the states. A statement like this is a bit silly.

 

[Pyode]

I expect the easy availability of guns to a major factor causing it. Supply and demand, and we have plenty of supply. Armaments also create their own demand.

You said it yourself, guns are just tools. They don't "cause" anything. If someone is going to riot or murder, not having a gun won't stop them.

In that case a well-regulated militia would indeed be useful. Bear in mind I'm not making a blanket gun control argument here, just taking aim at the 'defense against the government' conceit.

Then I don't understand why you are still trying to argue with me. I have already agreed that the general population wouldn't stand much of a chance against the U.S. Military and that the circumstances requiring such action are highly unlikely. As for you points about the general populations joining with the military in acts against the freedoms of others...

a) I see the idea of some sort of race war between the US Government and minorities as being incredibly far fetched based on current societal norms in America (racial an sexual equality are becoming stronger and stronger every year, not weaker).

b) By your own admission, the general public armed with legal firearms is grossly underpowered compared to the Military and would be largely irrelevant in such a situation.

Same response as above. But strictly speaking, you have no right to defend yourself against the authorities.

Legally? Probably not. Fighting the government would of course, by definition, be illegal. That's not really the point though is it? I am talking about the moral right to defend yourself against a legitimate threat from anyone, including the government.

I haven't read the thread.
And statistically the most likely deadly use of a firearm will be suicide or the killing of a family member or acquaintance. Just having a gun is a risk/benefit analysis. For a stable, responsible person, the equation is clear. Step beyond the individual frame of reference to the collective, and the value of the risk benefit analysis is altered.

That statistic doesn't account for all of the burglaries, rapes, and murders prevented by the simple act of pointing a gun.

So let's see some.

"Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired."
- Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.

Other Central American gangs make their own guns out of pipes and homemade gunpowder. It's a blindingly obvious fact that the cartels wouldn't have a fraction of their current firepower if military grade firearms weren't available cheaply and legally just across the porous border.

To me that's just an argument for doing a better job of actually securing our boarder. Also, legal military grade firearms are rarely "cheap" or even remotely easy to obtain in the mass quantities you are talking abut. Especially compared to the Soviet weapons that are not only cheaper but more reliable. Also, the statistic that 90% of the guns in Mexico are from the US has been largely refuted.

[link]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/04/barack-obama-gun.html[/link]

The point was that individual Mexicans with guns would be even more useless than a very large and well-equipped military is proving to be.

You are making a leap of logic buy comparing arming a free society to prevent oppression with arming an already oppressed society and hoping they can get out of the mess themselves.

These are two radically different scenarios.

The correlations in political ideology are too blatantly obvious to bother arguing

Fine. Far be it from me to try to change your ignorant generalizing with logic.

Indeed I am making stuff up. I am indulging in the same fantasies as the people who claim that the Second Amendment provides protection from the government.

And herein lies my main point. I don't and I haven't claimed that the Second Amendment "protects us" from the government. That's not what it is for. All it does is state our right to attempt to defend ourselves. Period. Whether we succeed, whether we survive, or whether it is even necessary falls on each individual citizen.

-snip-

As for the rest of your argument, I have already commented on those points either in this post or in previous responses.

Anyway. I'm done. This is one of those conversations that will just keep going on until one of us get's tired of it and I already am. I'm not going to change your view and you're not going to change mine and that's fine. I think we both knew that going in. I'm sure you will respond to this and I will read it, but I wont be responding.

Thanks and goodbye.

 

[Leemaster777]

This is my thought process if you live in a high-crime area:

1. Don't walk anywhere alone. If you're on foot with more than one person, you're less likely to be mugged. Also, if you're with someone else, the mugger will HAVE to take his eyes off you at some point, at which point you can mace him. Which brings me to my second rule:

2. Always carry mace. Always. Mace is probably your best defence against a mugging. FAR better than any gun. You pull a gun on someone, that's a serious crime. You mace someone, that's FAR less severe. Plus, you don't have to be accurate, mace has a very wide spray range.

Mace HURTS. No one's going to be in any shape to chase you, or even take aim and shoot you after they've been maced.

Don't bother with a stun gun. You've got to be REALLY up-close and personal for that to work, and it IS possible for them to get back up after a shot of that.

So really, all you have to do is not walk alone, and carry mace. As long as you've got common sense, that's all you really need.

 

[Gilhelmi]

snip

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.

I also heard that on the very rare occasions the CCH holder does fire. That, statistically speaking, CCH holders are less likely to be unjustified in the use of deadly force, than the police when they use deadly force. I think that stat is out of Florida.

Correct on all counts. We have learned to use guns wisely in my state.

Also the penalties for a civilian being unjustified are far greater then for police.

I'll just leave this here:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon

Holy... is this for real? If so, I need to commit it to memory. Useful to shut the hippies up XD

Well I wasn't there to hear it myself but all the sources I can find indicated he really said it and really meant it as well.

If you think about it this is not so odd, His Holiness is a very wise man, and it's clearly very foolish to think pacifist ideals will make you bulletproof.

Congratulations, you have won my "best quote of the thread" award. I liked the Dalai Lama before this quote, now I love the Dalai Lama.

 

[UberNoodle]

The gun advocates here clearly haven't paid much attention to the concept of escalation. And the typical response to anybody proposing stricter gun control, which is "if you want something you'll get it anyhow", is a cop out. If I want a Mars Bar, I go down to the store and get it. If want hard drugs, that's a heck of a lot more difficult and is usually a step in a direction that in itself, often serves as a deterrent.

So yes, the much abused Right to Bare Arms in the USA is a valid "way", but so is the strict gun control in other nations. The arguments of pro-gun voices are generally far too subjective, however, raging against research and common sense in order to swallow what is honestly, a pretty difficult pill.

Tying gun ownership so tightly and indiscriminately to the general concept of "Freedom", appears to me to be logically troubled, if not flawed. Guns are not needed to be free, and think of the other freedoms sometimes lost on its behalf?

Well, people were allowed to own gun in America even before the American Revolution. In fact, people were allowed to own guns in England at that same time. It was less a "new" right, and more of a guarantee of a continuing right.

Freedoms that are lost to the right to bear arms? Okay. I'm curious. What rights are lost due to people being allowed to have guns?

That was interesting. I wasn't quite aware of that. As for your question, this is what I think:

I would asked the same question about ... 7 or 8 years ago. Back then I considered freedom and rights purely from the point of view of myself. But an amazing thing happened that changed me drastically. I moved to a foreign land, namely Japan, and have lived there ever since and probably will not return. I'm not the kind of person that now "hates" my home country or thinks Japan is the bee's knees in everything. The reason is that here, people think about the freedom and rights of others, generally, before expressing their own. If they feel that the expression of their own rights and freedoms will be troublesome, unfair, rude, offensive, or unwanted; they will generally move on, and express their rights and freedoms elsewhere at another time to another person.

Does this mean that they are somehow "weak" or "oppressed". Sure, you can construe it that way, but then again, Japan is home to some astounding individuality. The difference is that the Japanese don't use the word "conformity" as a negative, like we do in the West. To the japanese, the word is akin to "harmony" and "fairness". It is very important for them to ensure good relationships with those around them, even strangers whome they'll not see again. In their view, it is enough to simply have a right, freedom, belief or opinion; one doesn't need to convert others or push that right, freedom, belief of opinion on others. There are better, more appropriate times to express those.

So that's what I was talking about. Carrying a gun affects others, who should have a right not be affected in such a way. The answer should not be simply, "don't look" or "don't live here" or some such retort.

 

[Saltyk]

The gun advocates here clearly haven't paid much attention to the concept of escalation. And the typical response to anybody proposing stricter gun control, which is "if you want something you'll get it anyhow", is a cop out. If I want a Mars Bar, I go down to the store and get it. If want hard drugs, that's a heck of a lot more difficult and is usually a step in a direction that in itself, often serves as a deterrent.

So yes, the much abused Right to Bare Arms in the USA is a valid "way", but so is the strict gun control in other nations. The arguments of pro-gun voices are generally far too subjective, however, raging against research and common sense in order to swallow what is honestly, a pretty difficult pill.

Tying gun ownership so tightly and indiscriminately to the general concept of "Freedom", appears to me to be logically troubled, if not flawed. Guns are not needed to be free, and think of the other freedoms sometimes lost on its behalf?

Well, people were allowed to own gun in America even before the American Revolution. In fact, people were allowed to own guns in England at that same time. It was less a "new" right, and more of a guarantee of a continuing right.

Freedoms that are lost to the right to bear arms? Okay. I'm curious. What rights are lost due to people being allowed to have guns?

That was interesting. I wasn't quite aware of that. As for your question, this is what I think:

I would asked the same question about ... 7 or 8 years ago. Back then I considered freedom and rights purely from the point of view of myself. But an amazing thing happened that changed me drastically. I moved to a foreign land, namely Japan, and have lived there ever since and probably will not return. I'm not the kind of person that now "hates" my home country or thinks Japan is the bee's knees in everything. The reason is that here, people think about the freedom and rights of others, generally, before expressing their own. If they feel that the expression of their own rights and freedoms will be troublesome, unfair, rude, offensive, or unwanted; they will generally move on, and express their rights and freedoms elsewhere at another time to another person.

Does this mean that they are somehow "weak" or "oppressed". Sure, you can construe it that way, but then again, Japan is home to some astounding individuality. The difference is that the Japanese don't use the word "conformity" as a negative, like we do in the West. To the japanese, the word is akin to "harmony" and "fairness". It is very important for them to ensure good relationships with those around them, even strangers whome they'll not see again. In their view, it is enough to simply have a right, freedom, belief or opinion; one doesn't need to convert others or push that right, freedom, belief of opinion on others. There are better, more appropriate times to express those.

So that's what I was talking about. Carrying a gun affects others, who should have a right not be affected in such a way. The answer should not be simply, "don't look" or "don't live here" or some such retort.

But living like that denies your own freedom. To say that you wouldn't own a gun because it would inconvenience someone is both wrong and completely the opposite of what it means to be free. Should I not where a hat because it might obstruct someone's view? Should I not turn left because it inconveniences oncoming traffic? Maybe I shouldn't eat at a restaurant because it interferes with the cook's smoke break? I guess it would be best if I just stayed home or didn't exist.
(Yeah, there was a bit of hyperbole in those situations, but I don't see much difference in those and implying that legally carrying a gun for defensive purposes is not being considerate of others.)

Being considerate of others' feelings is a positive attribute, and I wish more people thought like that in more places (like say the internet), but when you suggest that restricting your own freedom will guarantee others you are being intellectually dishonest. If everyone does that, then no one is truly free. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." That is a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin. I think it is relevant both to the topic and this discussion between us.

On another note, we're talking about concealed carry, not open carry. These are completely different things. For example, a police officer would be classified as open carry. His gun is on his hip in full view of everyone. In concealed carry, the gun is hidden under clothes or in a purse, what have you. No one really knows that you have a gun on your person. How does having a gun that no one knows you have, harm them? Especially, when one purpose of having that gun would be to protect them.

Also, as an anime fan, I love Japan, but that doesn't mean I agree with all it's culture. Though I think the world would be a better place if we stopped tryiong to convince everyone to think like we do, and just let them live. To an extent. That goes for the religious followers, atheists, vegans, and anyone else who thinks they know a better way.

Completely off topic, but I would love to travel to Tokyo. And I have friends that agree.

 

[TechNoFear]

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

I think I can speak for 90% of the Europeans on this website and say that under no circumstances have I ever heard or even would think that any European would say such a stupid thing. If anything Europeans are "cultured" because of the diversity of countries and people...not because they don't carry guns.

And what has world war 2 got ANYTHING to do with this topic, I mean really, come on...troll

Why direct this at me (and not at cyberjester)?

 

[TechNoFear]

Completely flawed statistics.

You are comparing a nation of just under 22 million citizens with a nation of just over 307 million (i.e. just under 14 times as many people).

Not to mention the term "mass shooting" is very unspecific.

If Australia has 14 x less people we should have 14 times less 'mass shootings' [defined as ones where more than 3 people are killed]

So Australia should have ~1.4 per year.

But Australia has had only ONE mass shooting in the last 14 YEARS.


As I have already posted the per capita rates of assaults and homicides in this thread (inc maps), I assumed that you would have read (or known) that the US has 4 times the homicide rate PER CAPITA that Australia has.

Homicides / 100,000 population 2009

US 5.0
Canada 1.81
Australia 1.2
UK 1.28
Germany 0.86

 

[Blue_vision]

EDIT: ^^ I love it when someone finally pulls out the numbers, logically putting the argument to rest (though obviously not practically.)

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.]

I did this, but it was a shoplifter and an apple. 'Twas pretty sweet, I never had any faith in my ability to aim projectiles before that.

I don't get the argument people give for carrying concealed weapons (or carrying weapons at all.) Sure, there's the odd shooting that could be prevented if a bystander happened to have a gun, know how to use it, and wasn't afraid to put themselves straight in harm's way to kill an assailant (and then there's the problem of people/police mistaking the shooter when everyone's got a gun, or idiots who may carry a gun but have no idea how to use it properly.)
And if you're getting mugged or something, is it really a good idea to pull a gun on your mugger? You can't actually do anything to them without serious legal repercussions, and if they also have a weapon, you're putting yourself in serious risk by simply drawing something, as they could escalate. I'd frankly rather be out of my ipod or $20 than my life, or even a week in the hospital recovering from a knife or stab wound, or whatever you (or recovering from the trauma of killing someone, or legal/social repercussions, whatever.)

And then you're also enabling all the possibly dangerous people to carry concealed weapons too. Because the law says nothing against them until the point they actually use the weapon illegally.

 

[ComradeJim270]

This is my thought process if you live in a high-crime area:

1. Don't walk anywhere alone. If you're on foot with more than one person, you're less likely to be mugged. Also, if you're with someone else, the mugger will HAVE to take his eyes off you at some point, at which point you can mace him. Which brings me to my second rule:

2. Always carry mace. Always. Mace is probably your best defence against a mugging. FAR better than any gun. You pull a gun on someone, that's a serious crime. You mace someone, that's FAR less severe. Plus, you don't have to be accurate, mace has a very wide spray range.

Mace HURTS. No one's going to be in any shape to chase you, or even take aim and shoot you after they've been maced.

Don't bother with a stun gun. You've got to be REALLY up-close and personal for that to work, and it IS possible for them to get back up after a shot of that.

So really, all you have to do is not walk alone, and carry mace. As long as you've got common sense, that's all you really need.

Good advice. There is safety in numbers, especially if you still keep your wits about you and don't let yourself get complacent just because there's someone with you.

As for mace, if you do use it... most people will be inclined to hold it like they would a can of spray paint. That's stupid. Make a fist around it and trigger it with your thumb. That way you can still get in a solid blow with that hand if need be. Why would you deprive yourself of that ability?

In truth, I think most people don't realize how many weapons they already carry with them, or have around them. Your keys? Stick that into someone's eye socket and twist and they're sure to rethink the whole idea of victimizing you. Are you a student? I bet your pack weighs a metric fuckton. If you're strong enough to swing it, that can hit pretty hard, possibly enough to knock someone right off their feet. Heck, you can bludgeon someone with a textbook. Got a pen? What do you think that'll do if you jam it into an artery? Oh, that spare change in your pocket? Chuck it in someone's face and when they flinch, you have time to flee, or if that's not an option, to get in a good hit. If you get knocked over, grab some dirt or gravel on the way up and it works the same way. If you're clever enough, you'll never truly be unarmed.

 

[Blue_vision]

So really, all you have to do is not walk alone, and carry mace. As long as you've got common sense, that's all you really need.

Cavalry maces will also do the trick, if you'll mind the bit of added weight.

But I agree, mace is really the most that anyone would need.

 

[maturin]

You said it yourself, guns are just tools. They don't "cause" anything. If someone is going to riot or murder, not having a gun won't stop them.

So since we are going to resist oppression by the government or threats to our family anyways, I guess we don't need guns. Since the resources one has at hand have no bearing on one's decision.

Right?

No one is going to start any organized violence if they don't have the weapons necessary for their success. The ready availability of weapons is a constant factor in the decision of whether or not to use violence. Gun culture is inherently violent, and influences decisions regarding violence in more important ways.

Then I don't understand why you are still trying to argue with me. I have already agreed that the general population wouldn't stand much of a chance against the U.S. Military and that the circumstances requiring such action are highly unlikely. As for you points about the general populations joining with the military in acts against the freedoms of others...

a) I see the idea of some sort of race war between the US Government and minorities as being incredibly far fetched based on current societal norms in America (racial an sexual equality are becoming stronger and stronger every year, not weaker).

What if the by-then overwhelmingly Latino southwest of the country pushes for autonomy? It takes very little imagination to envision that.

Legally? Probably not. Fighting the government would of course, by definition, be illegal. That's not really the point though is it? I am talking about the moral right to defend yourself against a legitimate threat from anyone, including the government.

I think you'll grant that the right of moral self defence is seldom twinned with the right to maintained parity of force. We are quite the exception, with little to show for it.

I haven't read the thread.
And statistically the most likely deadly use of a firearm will be suicide or the killing of a family member or acquaintance. Just having a gun is a risk/benefit analysis. For a stable, responsible person, the equation is clear. Step beyond the individual frame of reference to the collective, and the value of the risk benefit analysis is altered.

"Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a handgun. In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired."
- Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State Univ.

Very interesting. His findings are outnumbered in the proportion of defensive uses to offensive and self-destructive. I'm personally not sure which to believe, especially given the lack of a link and the sheer impossibility of accurately accounting for crimes that were about to happen. How often to people shout "I'm going to rape you?" To be black and and on a sidewalk at night seems to communicate something similar to a lot of people in this country.

You are making a leap of logic buy comparing arming a free society to prevent oppression with arming an already oppressed society and hoping they can get out of the mess themselves.

Mexico is oppressed? We have a lot of gangs too.

And herein lies my main point. I don't and I haven't claimed that the Second Amendment "protects us" from the government. That's not what it is for.

Well, thanks for letting me use you as a jumping board to go after whoever it was that did make that claim earlier in this thread and much earlier in the day.

 

[ComradeJim270]

But I agree, mace is really the most that anyone would need.

I disagree. But it would be preposterous for me to say that it is not effective. It has less of an intimidation factor than a gun and won't have the same efficacy as a well-placed bullet, but it's easy to use, concealable, and will stop the vast majority of assailants. The fact it's less threatening can actually be a plus since it's less likely to escalate the situation.

I wouldn't say it's a bad idea to carry it, by any means. Quite the contrary.