Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[Macgyvercas]

Actually, people with criminal records are barred from owning firearms.

So how did the latest mass murderer, with two convictions for drugs and a history of mental problems, legally purchase a Glock semi auto handgun with extended mag in Nov 2010?

I never claimed the system was perfect.

I once asked Ace_of_Something about someone was 302'd by their parents (for running away) at age 15 and had not being in trouble ever since being allowed to purchase a firearm. He told me that he had heard of people with less on their record get denied and people with more get approved.

Basic point: The system is flawed, but it works a good portion of the time, and is better than nothing. I know that doesn't explain HOW incidents like in Arizona happen, but it's the best I've got.

 

[Treblaine]

Actually, people with criminal records are barred from owning firearms.

So how did the latest mass murderer, with two convictions for drugs and a history of mental problems, legally purchase a Glock semi auto handgun with extended mag in Nov 2010?

Thing is in UK Alcohol leads to more than 10x deaths per capita than per-capita firearm murders in USA.

It might be significant, if it was TRUE.

In fact in 2008 there were 9,031 deaths from alcohol in the UK, less than the number of homicides from firearms in the US.

This is 13.6 alcohol related deaths compared to 4.6 firearm homicides in the US (/ 100,000 pop). [clearly not 10x]

Hardened criminals know how to fight with knives and clubs, a peaceful citizen stands no chance defending themselves from a thug who means them harm.

Imagine that this latest shooter had arrived at the mall with only a knife and club. Do you think that he would have killed 6 and wounded 13? I don't.

Please read how this latest mass murderer in the US was stopped, it was not by a gun, and it shows clearly that 'a peaceful citizen' can defend themselves.

Why was he not stopped by a legal gun owner?

You should be uncomfortable living in the UK as regardless of the law, criminals regularly carry guns.

Statistics clearly show you are much safer living in the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany and most of the rest of the EU (with respect to violent crime).

You are 5 times more likely to be murdered in the US than the UK.

You are slightly more likely to be assaulted in the US than the UK.

Studies clearly show that when firearms are avalible then the rate at which assaults turn to homicides increases by a factor close to 5.

Well you're more likely to be killed by a car in UK or USA than North Korea... because car are only for the Communist Elite and a few other privileged people. I'm not impressed by making countries statistically safer by depriving the people of personal liberties as you can do that for anything and everything and there is no limit to it. It only ever stops when the law begins to encroach on the personal interests of those in power.

"Imagine that this latest shooter had arrived at the mall with only a knife and club. Do you think that he would have killed 6 and wounded 13? I don't."

Derrick Bird was able to kill 12 and shoot another 11. NO ONE even came close to stopping him, "Rapid Response" armed police never got close to him, his massacre didn't end till he felt like topping himself in his own sweet time. The Tucson Massacre it seems it was a good old boy, 74 years young retired army colonel, who tackled him, it's an incredibly risky 1-in-a-million chance but maybe he thought he had little to lose. Anyway, immediately behind him was Joe Zamudio who was an armed citizen, ready to kill the mad gunman had he somehow been able to reload.
http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Joe+Zamudio

"In fact in 2008 there were 9,031 deaths from alcohol in the UK, less than the number of homicides from firearms in the US."

Well the USA has over 5x the population of the UK? OK, I made a mistake with my numbers (added rather than found mean of male + female rate) but that is still a far higher rate of alcohol deaths. If statistical risk is your issue I find it hypocritical for you to target guns that so often be used to save lives and alcohol that only endangers them.
But my point is for you to see the futility of prohibition, how counter-productive it was with prohibiting alcohol and the impossibility with firearms. I think the enforceability of gun-prohibition in the UK is about as relevant as alcohol prohibition in Islamic countries; wider population always avoided it anyway.

"Studies clearly show that when firearms are available then the rate at which assaults turn to homicides increases by a factor close to 5."

What studies? How could they even prove a hypothesis like that changing the availability of guns without any other factors?
Could you explain Switzerland that is awash with guns yet such an incredibly low crime and murder rate? Almost every home has a fully automatic assault rifle and collecting active machine guns is a popular hobby. Switzerland is not an exception, Finland is much the same. What about how in the USA it is the States and jurisdictions with the tightest gun regulations that have the highest violent crime and murder rate, including with firearms.

I'm not saying tight gun-laws cause violent crime, rather that crime causes tight gun laws, that are utterly futile and only serve to disarm the law abiding public. Criminality is illegal anyway by very definition.

But consider Brazil, terrible rate of gun crime but when there was a nationwide referendum (with compulsory participation) a significant majority voted against a law that would 'ban the sale of ammunition to the general public'. It was BECAUSE OF how severe the gun crime was that the law-abiding public did not want to be left unarmed while the gangsters kept getting their military-grade smuggled weapons and munitions.

I'd have voted the same way in Brazil... but probably not in the UK. Look, if criminals ARE regularly armed and the police out of their depth then you don't want to be left defenceless.

"Statistics clearly show you are much safer living in the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany and most of the rest of the EU (with respect to violent crime)"

No one would exclude the high crime-rate districts from a USA wide survey, why would you exclude parts of the EU when people have (like USA) almost completely free travel within the EU?
Europe = 5.4 intentional Homicides per 100'000
USA = 5.0 intentional Homicides per 100'000
(by the latest statistics from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

I'll grant you that the UK does have a low crime/murder rate, but that's less down to mere laws and more our wider social history as an island with very easily enforceable borders, and an establishment that has gone to any length and compromised any liberty or ideal in the pursuit of peace and stability.

 

[TechNoFear]

Europe = 5.4 intentional Homicides per 100'000
USA = 5.0 intentional Homicides per 100'000

Can we leave 'civil war' zones like Kazakhstan, Georgia, Mongoloa, Kyrgyzstan etc out of it? Or any place that is fighting Russia for independance?

Those countires are clearly not similar to the US, UK, Canada, Australia, germany, Sitzerland etc in laws and living standards.

It is manipulative to mix data from 2 differing tables (one by region and the other by country).

Also the region data is for 2004 and you used the data from 2009 for the US (2004 is 5.5 not 5.0)

The actual data, which did not fit your argument is;

North America 7.6
Europe = 5.4

One last thing I final found the link too....

The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news/2006/Dec/061214.php

I'll grant you that the UK does have a low crime/murder rate, but that's less down to mere laws and more our wider social history as an island with very easily enforceable borders, and an establishment that has gone to any length and compromised any liberty or ideal in the pursuit of peace and stability.

Yea, right....and all Americans are more civil right conscious because their forefathers kept slaves so they know the true value of freedom....

 

[shootthebandit]

theres the moral question: if a mugger takes your wallet and phone, is it worth taking his life (or yours?)

personally id give him what i had instead of drawing a weapon, a sensible person wouldn't carry much cash and would lock their bank accounts when their card was stolen. its not worth being a hero over pocket change. however if i saw someone else get mugged or a women getting raped then i would consider "being the hero".

atleast in britian we have the good sense to outlaw guns (except one or two specific cases)

 

[AWAR]

I've been subjected to mugging attempts while carrying a concealed bladed weapon. Suffice to say that I got to keep my wallet and cellphone and the muggers ran away bleeding and injured.

Then again, if you are to carry a weapn you have to have the will to use it without hesitation. A brandished weapon is likely to get you killed if your opponent gets the slightest hint that you won't even have the guts to use it on him.

I'd prefer a gun over a bladed weapon any day of the week though. Blades demands a fair amount of skill to be able to use properly (i.e when you need to control how much damage you are to inflict on an opponent, as well as successfully emploing at all). A gun is easier to use and far more intimidating.

^I think it's better to cite first hand experience than pulling theories out of our asses.

A good idea is to walk along with friends when you have to go out at night, especially if the laws at your country don't allow you to carry weapons for self defense. The more, the merrier.

 

[macfluffers]

My roommate thinks that concealed carry is silly, since nobody can see the gun, which means that a potential mugger wouldn't know not to screw with you. He said that open carry or nothing at all is the best option. After hearing him out, I agree, but I find it strange that fewer places allow open carry than concealed carry, since the second one doesn't really help.

Of course, the best course of action is to not go out at night without friends, but that's another story.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

A good idea is to walk along with friends when you have to go out at night, especially if the laws at your country don't allow you to carry weapons for self defense. The more, the merrier.

Indeed it is.

But sometimes you have to split up. Sometimes you or your friends get lucky and spend the night with some female company, sometimes you have to get home earlier than the others etc. You can't always plan to have company when walking through town at night, but it is a good idea overall to stick together.

Anyhow, I usually opt to run away from hostile situations when im alone. Being able to run is a lifesaver after all. The only times I've pulled weapons are times when I've been backed into a corner or otherwise been prevented from running away, and it is these situations I want to be prepared for.

It's like having a condom in your wallet. You'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not having it.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

theres the moral question: if a mugger takes your wallet and phone, is it worth taking his life (or yours?)

So in your opinion it would be best to negotiate with terrorists too, right?

I mean is it worth risking the lives of the hostages or the terrorists just in order to not have to give in to their demands?

 

[shootthebandit]

theres the moral question: if a mugger takes your wallet and phone, is it worth taking his life (or yours?)

So in your opinion it would be best to negotiate with terrorists too, right?

I mean is it worth risking the lives of the hostages or the terrorists just in order to not have to give in to their demands?

this is a different example

what is considered a worse crime murder or theft? my shooting a mugger you are murdering a thief therefore you are worse than them.

you might lose 100 pounds/dollar max, personally my life is not worth risking for that denomination

however by negotiating with terrorists you might save a few hostages but they will use the money to get weapons and kill more people (worth risking a few hostages)

 

[macfluffers]

@shootthebandit: I'd kill someone for stealing $100 from me, if I couldn't go to the police. And it's not murder if it's justified. So, uh, yeah, there you go.

 

[Brnin8]

I'm now picturing someone using their concealed weapon to mug the mugger after being mugged.

I don't really see the point, just stay in groups/safe areas.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

this is a different example

what is considered a worse crime murder or theft? my shooting a mugger you are murdering a thief therefore you are worse than them.

you might lose 100 pounds/dollar max, personally my life is not worth risking for that denomination

A mugger isn't simply a thief. A mugger is someone threatening you with potentially lethal violence if you don't hand over your belongings, and even if you do there's no guarantee that the mugger will let you walk away uninjured from the encounter.

however by negotiating with terrorists you might save a few hostages but they will use the money to get weapons and kill more people (worth risking a few hostages)

And a mugger who successfully robs someone WON'T go out to rob people again?

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

Like this:
Ignore the racism. This was teh first thing I though of when I saw this thread. And if everyone carries, then muggers would be scared of mugging (for fear of getting shot.

 

[Daffy F]

To be honest, why not? It's probably good to keep a mugger away from you if they're carrying a weapon that isn't a firearm (Believe it or not, the DO exist). Plus you get to feel like a P.I. Either that or moves somewhere without legalised guns and not have that problem at all.

 

[shootthebandit]

snip

yes a mugger MAY not let you away unscathed but if you pull a gun on them they will definatly kill you.

also as i said, you should go to prison for shooting a mugger because by shooting them you are no better than they are.

typical yanks with all your john wayne, 2nd ammendment bullshit. hand over the money at the end of the day its just a worthless piece of paper

yeah sure a mugger might go on to mug someone else but he isnt going to invest in a dirty bomb and irradiate an entire city

 

[Daffy F]

@shootthebandit: I'd kill someone for stealing $100 from me, if I couldn't go to the police. And it's not murder if it's justified. So, uh, yeah, there you go.

Erm, that's still murder you know, if they're just stealing from you, it's not legal to gun them down. Unless they have a weapon of their own and are actually attacking you with it.

 

[macfluffers]

Erm, that's still murder you know, if they're just stealing from you, it's not legal to gun them down. Unless they have a weapon of their own and are actually attacking you with it.

Murder has a non-legal definition, and that's the one I care about, unless I'm in broad daylight. And since I'm being mugged, I'm guessing that it's not.

 

[Daffy F]

Erm, that's still murder you know, if they're just stealing from you, it's not legal to gun them down. Unless they have a weapon of their own and are actually attacking you with it.

Murder has a non-legal definition, and that's the one I care about, unless I'm in broad daylight. And since I'm being mugged, I'm guessing that it's not.

You'd still be prosecuted if you shot someone who wasn't threatening your life or anyone Else's.

 

[macfluffers]

You'd still be prosecuted if you shot someone who wasn't threatening your life or anyone Else's.

I'd only be prosecuted if I were caught.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

yes a mugger MAY not let you away unscathed but if you pull a gun on them they will definatly kill you.

That's not a guarantee. Muggers don't expect their victims to fight back as a rule of thumb. If they did, then they would've attacked them directly and not being so "corteous" as giving you a chance to hand over the money "freely".

also as i said, you should go to prison for shooting a mugger because by shooting them you are no better than they are.

No im not. Im not the one going up to people, coercing them into giving over their belongings to me and telling them that I'll kill them if they don't. People doing that deserve all the shit that's coming to them. Defending your own life however does not make you as bad as a mugger.

typical yanks with all your john wayne, 2nd ammendment bullshit. hand over the money at the end of the day its just a worthless piece of paper

Im not an american so you can just go fuck yourself.

yeah sure a mugger might go on to mug someone else but he isnt going to invest in a dirty bomb and irradiate an entire city

And all terrorists would? You do know that some try to extort money, political decisions or the freeing of certain prisoners. Not all terrorists are some towel-head with dreams of becoming a martyr.