Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[Daffy F]

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.

Ah. Good point

 

[Horizontalvertigo]

I'm Australian and I just wish if I ever go to America that I could carry around a massive f*** off bowie knife, so that if I ever get mugged by a bloke with a knife I can do the ol' Crocodile Dundee line ("That's not a knife... THAT'S a knife!") and convince him that that movie was actually a documentary.

 

[macfluffers]

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.

Quoted for truth, man. Killing=/=murder

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

For some reason, everyone seems to think that America is the only country that protects arm bearing rights...

For example, Canada has a constitutional right to self-defense. Although this technically is not a constitutional right to bear arms, but the courts up there have treated it the same way, since firearms are one of the only ways some people can defend themselves. Of course, the wilderness up there is also more threatening. (Not to say that some places in America, like the Southwestern desert, is very welcoming with its wildlife. My step-brother moved to New Mexico, and many of his neighbors have guns, not for crime protection, but protection from snakes and coyotes.)

 

[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.

Again, you are correct; whereas the police are usually suspended or fired, your average citizen who abuses their concealed weapons they will just be charged with the committed crime. It's also very important to note that states where guns are more widely and easily available through legal means, have lower crime rates than in states with more stringent gun laws and comparable populations. Here's a quote I just love. In a 2001 article on gun control, an inmate in a state penitentiary was talking about how he was a thief and why he stopped entering houses at night. When the author asked him why he stopped entering and robbing houses at night, he was quoted as saying,"Because that's how. you get your ass shot!". I just love that.

If you ever find that article again post it online, and send me a copy. I do enjoy reading those type of articles.

I like to read The Armed Citizen. They have many good articles on how not to be a victim.

 

[Gilhelmi]

I'm Australian and I just wish if I ever go to America that I could carry around a massive f*** off bowie knife, so that if I ever get mugged by a bloke with a knife I can do the ol' Crocodile Dundee line ("That's not a knife... THAT'S a knife!") and convince him that that movie was actually a documentary.

I loved that movie and that line.

I would pay to see that.

 

[Treblaine]

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 [You seem to have accidentally used the Data for North AFRICA here]
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

Well that Author is using some unsound statistics, mass killings of all sorts are mercifully so infrequent you cannot establish a trend, each case is an aberration. Who says that psychopaths won't just resort to using other methods to carry out mass killings (see Derrick Bird and Walter Seifert) or simply obtaining guns illegally. It seems this sickness of the mind that leads to people doing such things does not diminish their cunningness to inflict it.

And of course total firearms related deaths go down when you take most of the guns away. It's like banning cars to reduce car deaths. Interestingly road deaths (per capita) went down with the wider move from horse travel to car travel, if you doubt how dangerous horses are just consider Christopher Reeves.

Anyway, looking at total murder rate for Central and Western Europe (lets not consider the racist aspect of arbitrarily excluding Eastern European countries that you object to) has a murder rate of 1.5 per 100'000. Now lets take a look at the US states that have a murder rate of 1.5 per 100k and less:

-North Dakota
-Idaho
-Minnesota
-Utah
-Iowa
-Vermont
-New Hampshire

These places have the most liberal gun laws in the world, what is going on? So

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

Interesting you'd include Switzerland on that list of good civilised low crime rate European countries. Maybe all countries should follow their standard? Such as EXTREMELY liberal gun laws? The entire country of Switzerland has more relaxed gun laws than anywhere in the USA and it is a right that is exercised, almost every home has unrestricted access to a fully automatic assault rifle and it is very popular for the Swiss to collect and fire various machine guns.

My point is you are trying to show legal civilian gun ownership as some insidious evil of society when there that simply does not stand up to the facts.

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....

I'm not American and I don't need a 200 year old piece of paper to tell me what is a natural right as a free man, that includes the right to self defence which I believe extends to the means of that. As much as democracy extends to guaranteeing freedom of the press. You are resorting to a very poor form Ad Hominem attack, you cannot find fault in the 2nd Amendment (that I don't believe I argued to you) so instead attack those who wrote it.

I don't think my fellow Brits do enough to stand up for their rights, and they are certainly not understanding enough of others.

 

[TechNoFear]

North America 7.6 [You seem to have accidentally used the Data for North AFRICA here]
Europe = 5.4

Your right, it should be;
North America 6.5
Europe 5.4

Which still does not change that fact you manipulated that data to try and prove your point.

Well that Author is using some unsound statistics,

Right....just like your 'mix and match' statistics?

Care to elaborate how this peer reviewed, published study by multiple professors (inc. Head of the School of Public Health) used 'unsound statistics'?

mass killings of all sorts are mercifully so infrequent you cannot establish a trend, each case is an aberration.

20 per YEAR in the US is NOT infrequent...

0 in 10 years after guns are banned (in Australia) is statistically signifigant..

(lets not consider the racist aspect of arbitrarily excluding Eastern European countries that you object to)

I am 'racist' because I exclude places at civil war etc when the data was collected?

But you are not for excluding Mexico?

Please.....

 

[Treblaine]

North America 7.6 [You seem to have accidentally used the Data for North AFRICA here]
Europe = 5.4

Your right, it should be;
North America 6.5
Europe 5.4

Which still does not change that fact you manipulated that data to try and prove your point.

Well that Author is using some unsound statistics,

Right....just like your 'mix and match' statistics?

Care to elaborate how this peer reviewed, published study by multiple professors (inc. Head of the School of Public Health) used 'unsound statistics'?

mass killings of all sorts are mercifully so infrequent you cannot establish a trend, each case is an aberration.

20 per YEAR in the US is NOT infrequent...

0 in 10 years after guns are banned (in Australia) is statistically signifigant..

(lets not consider the racist aspect of arbitrarily excluding Eastern European countries that you object to)

I am 'racist' because I exclude places at civil war etc when the data was collected?

But you are not for excluding Mexico?

Please.....

You don't know what else there is to add, you are repeating the same things I've already said are not relevant. Like comparing a country with a tiny population to one with a huge population. For example it's not like there was ever a point in Australian history where there were 20 mass shootings per year. So you can't claim a before-and-after that the same legislation is guaranteed to have the same effect in USA.

I'd also like so see your source that there is that rate in the USA. I obviously wouldn't include cases where no more than 2 people were killed, as I have evidence that spree killers with the crudest weapons have been able to perpetrate crimes of the same toll. Most sources I can find are only of about 15 attacks in the past 12 years. And USA has 15 times the population as Australia.

But spree shooting by madmen are not the only criminal use of firearm but also vicious gangsters:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/police-want-more-firepower/story-e6frf8qo-1111116019976

If Australia has been "disarmed" then why do 95% of Australian Patrol Officers want to be as well armed as American police? Because Australian criminals are about as well armed as American criminals, it seems.

The proof is in the pudding, surely if gun prohibition worked in Australia then the police would be gradually disarming, but instead they are gearing up. Police in that article talk about how the wider population have a totally skewed impression of violet crime in their own country.

I don't think the legality of guns is the main dependant factor here. You can't run a country like a prison, you can't assume all the "inmates" cannot be trusted and try to just remove weapons from the equation. It is futile and it is not proportional.

 

[Alucard832]

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

So we should make guns unavailable to the public so that the only people to own guns outside of the government are criminals. Makes perfect sense to me.
/sarcasm

And that's the fear thing I was talking about. You know what giving people legal guns does? It means all those small-time criminals who go around mugging people (the ones that you are so afraid of) can get a gun, wheras if they weren't readily available you'd either need a fair amount of dedication to your 'get a gun' cause (in which case I'm sure you'd find another way to hurt people) or connections to a bigger criminal organisation. But all those non-connected criminals, the ones that probably populate most of the 'mug you in an alley' demographic, wouldn't be able to get a gun if the laws were significantly stricter.

And then of course there is Zeeky_Zantos's point. You know, the one about the safest way to deal with a mugging? About how you should give them what they want so that innocent people don't get hurt while you try to play the 2nd Amendment hero?

So letting that mugger successfully run away with all your money and no fight would effectively prevent him from doing the same to others. Right.
And you seem to have things backwards in your other point - it would take more dedication to decide to rob a person and commit a crime than it would to obtain a gun. Even if that weren't the case, for every one criminal who would be put off from obtaining a gun there would be a dozen more that would just get them illegally as well as hundreds of non-criminals that would no longer have access to guns.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The fact that the mugger knows that it is legal to have a concealed weapon deters them to mug you.

This is especially effective here in Texas where almost everyone has a gun.

 

[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.

that black guy could have fired at any point in that video

welcome to real life

*Facepalm* I know how real life works, I meant it as a joke. But in all seriousness, if you know someone might be packing, you probably dont want to threaten them. Especially if you dont have a gun. (Like an unarmed or knife mugging)

 

[WildManBill]

Take out your wallet and flip it over his shoulder. In the split second it takes for him to relize that he no longer has his eye on you, you blow his fucking head off (like I had to.) P.S. Don't forget to retrieve your wallet.

 

[ComradeJim270]

I'm Australian and I just wish if I ever go to America that I could carry around a massive f*** off bowie knife, so that if I ever get mugged by a bloke with a knife I can do the ol' Crocodile Dundee line ("That's not a knife... THAT'S a knife!") and convince him that that movie was actually a documentary.

You are awesome.