Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[Cain_Zeros]

If the mugger has a knife, or some other sort of close-up weapon (pipe, baseball bat, etc.), then pulling out a gun could be quite effective, because holy shit this guy's got a gun. If the mugger's got a gun, then if he goes for it calmly like he's going for his wallet, then pulls it quickly, he might have a chance, but he's probably screwed.

 

[CaptainKoala]

1. You have a gun.
2. He doesn't know this
therefore you both have the element of surprise. Almost a fair fight.

 

[TechNoFear]

You cannot even read a simple post where I stated that violent acts include assaults, knifes, and the such. And I did indeed already say that the US has higher gun rates than other worlds, and his post proves that as well. By the way, he stats he links is HOMICIDE, which means murder. You should retake school to understand how to read, apparently. Until then don't bother my time unless you actually look into the facts, as it just wastes both of our time, friend.

Again, what data are you basing that on? [try actually doing some research on the issue before before posting your opinon as fact?]

All the data I can find states clearly that the US has more assults and homicides than any other 'first world' country.

Assaults / 1000 population.

US 7.56923
UK 7.45959
Canada 7.11834
Australia 7.02459
Germany 1.4183

Source:
Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention)

NOTE: Notice how assualt rates are similar in the US to the UK, Canada and Australia, but the number of assults that end up becomming a homicide is 2-5 times greater in the US.

Why do you think that is?

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

America where any twit can carry,

You do realize that in America we have to get special permits to carry, and in LA (Los Angeles, CA.) you're not even allowed to concealed carry. You have to take an 8 hour class and take a test to get a permit to buy a handgun, wait 28 days to get it, and then you have to take another 5 or 6 8 hour classes to obtain the rights to take the CCW(concealed carry) test. After passing the test which is only available in certain areas, mostly Northern California, you are then allowed to concealed carry. I wouldn't say that "any twit can carry." Most people aren't financially secure enough to take the classes, pay for the test (because you have to pay a fee for taking both of these tests) and then pay for the gun and holster.

OT: CCW's are useful because you actually do have the element of surprise. A mugger will choose you because you look like an easy target. If you're concealed carrying (the right way), he won't be able to tell that you have a gun on you and he will take more risks, thus elevating his chance of being shot and/or caught. Also, keep in mind, most police services take 4-5 minutes after hearing a 911 call to get to the area. By then you could be long dead.

Edit: You guys also seem to forget that most people that concealed carry are trained with their firearm. This makes their draw extremely quick. They would also have a considerably large amount of training time compared to the mugger who probably doesn't have a gun, or if he did, only knows how to shoot it sideways.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

You cannot even read a simple post where I stated that violent acts include assaults, knifes, and the such. And I did indeed already say that the US has higher gun rates than other worlds, and his post proves that as well. By the way, he stats he links is HOMICIDE, which means murder. You should retake school to understand how to read, apparently. Until then don't bother my time unless you actually look into the facts, as it just wastes both of our time, friend.

What did you say to me earlier? Oh yes,

Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Stick to horribly unrealistic shooters, k?

Lets just lower the little hostile acts here and move on, eh?

You are aware that homicide makes no distinction between murder weapons, yes? Or in other words, approximately 3 times more people are killed in the US than in the UK (at least in 2009). Furthermore, while the crime rate in the UK was slightly higher ([link]http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita[/link]), the higher murder rate in the US implies that more of those crimes were non-violent. Where am I going with this? Well, here in Texas, I could buy just about any weapon by just walking into a gun store, whereas it isn't quite that easy in the UK, right? In other words, having few or no limits on gun ownership does not reduce violent crime at all, and we may even have a little discussion about that murder rate thing. So I fail to see what your point is.
Yeah...facts. Gawd I love applyin' what they had been teachin' me at that there science edumacation college thing: facts 'n evidence...

 

[JWAN]

Instead of reaching for your wallet pull the gun
or drop your wallet on the ground, wait for them to pick it up

also, muggers will have to take into account that the person they are trying to rob may have the ability to end their short life of crime.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/112398279.html

The robbers already have guns, they dont care about the law, they dont care how "inaccessible" you THINK the guns are because they will ALWAYS get a hold of them. The people who care about the law dont carry concealed weapons, they are the ones who get beaten up, and killed. Id rather everyone gets an equal chance.

 

[Wharrgarble]

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.

Depends on the state. In Alaska, you don't even need a license/permit to have one. It can very, very easy to get a gun in America.

 

[Arsen]

Are you saying an individual shouldn't have the ability to use a tool to kill someone else attacking him? How is that fair to the victim? There is no such thing as a man who mugs, assaults, or robs others that truly have a legitimate, humane reason to do so. Everyone should have the reasonable ability to control any situation in which another might potentially murder them.

I don't believe in "sociological reasons" which try to make the perpertrator of the crime to be a grey-area person who fell into the wrong crowd, harsh circumstances, etc. It's just plain evil to do something which would require another to pull a weapon on you in pure self defense.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I'd rather have it and not need it over needing it and not having it.

But would you rather everyone have one just so that you can? Because if everyone can claim that line, than everyone can get a gun, meaning the reason for actually having a gun (the threat from others) increases, meaning more people get a gun, meaning the reason for actually having a gun increases, until you have a community where everyone has a gun and everyone is constantly afraid of everyone else.

 

[TechNoFear]

You do realize that in America we have to get special permits to carry, and in LA (Los Angeles, CA.) you're not even allowed to concealed carry.

In Australia you can not carry a firearm in public (unless your job requires it).

No semi autos, no high caliber, only a few firearms that are allowed to have a magazine.

You have to take an 8 hour class and take a test to get a permit to buy a handgun, wait 28 days to get it, and then you have to take another 3 8 hour classes to obtain the rights to take the CCW(concealed carry) test.

In Australia it is 28 days to get the permit to buy a handgun (and only for sporting reasons).

A 6 MONTH course at the gun club (and the handgun MUST be kept at in the clubs safe).

You have to compete (in shooting contests) each year to keep the handgun.

For the first 6 months the gun club staff will get your pistol and lock it to the bench in the range (so it can only be raised/lowered and cannot be pointed anywhere except down the range).

You are locked in the cubicle (on your own) and monitored with CCTV. The attendant will not unlock the door if you are near the firearm.

All firearms MUST be kept in a locked safe.

This means less than 0.1% of firearms are stolen each year and less than 3% of firearms stolen are found in the possession of people cahrged with a serious crime.

 

[AssButt]

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?

According to ones' need was the creed of many totalitarian nations.

And what is "far too subjective" about the pro-gun arguments? Can you find a study which proves conclusively that gun control reduces crime while dismissing all those other cases (not just American) where a passing of gun control laws was followed by an increase in crime?

And finally, considering many gun control advocates act as if a gun is some kind of magical death ray in the hands of a criminal or lunatic but become inoperable pieces of uselessness when placed in the hands of law abiding citizens - the group that makes up about 99% of gun owners - I don't think you can use the common sense argument when knowledge of the capabilities of guns or their users is not common among anti-gunners.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

You do realize that in America we have to get special permits to carry, and in LA (Los Angeles, CA.) you're not even allowed to concealed carry.

In Australia you can not carry a firearm in public (unless your job requires it).

No semi autos, no high caliber, only a few firearms that are allowed to have a magazine.

You have to take an 8 hour class and take a test to get a permit to buy a handgun, wait 28 days to get it, and then you have to take another 3 8 hour classes to obtain the rights to take the CCW(concealed carry) test.

In Australia it is 28 days to get the permit to buy a handgun (and only for sporting reasons).

A 6 MONTH course at the gun club (and the handgun MUST be kept at in the clubs safe).

You have to compete (in shooting contests) each year to keep the handgun.

For the first 6 months the gun club staff will get your pistol and lock it to the bench in the range (so it can only be raised/lowered and cannot be pointed anywhere except down the range).

You are locked in the cubicle (on your own) and monitored with CCTV. The attendant will not unlock the door if you are near the firearm.

All firearms MUST be kept in a locked safe.

This means less than 0.1% of firearms are stolen each year and less than 3% of firearms stolen are found in the possession of people cahrged with a serious crime.

I'm not saying that America is the only place where that is needed. I was merely proving a point that not "any twit" can carry a gun. There are special things they have to do in order to be able to carry.

 

[The_Chief]

You know what should be made legal? Lightsabers. Isn't there a real version that can blind an assailant instantly?

Yes. <a href=http://www.wickedlasers.com/laser-tech/blue_light_hazard.html#_blank>Yes there is.

TAKE THAT PERCEPTION OF THE COLOR GREEN!

I guess if you in a place where any idiot can carry a concealed weapon, you'd be alot more hesitant to try to mug someone. because you never know who's gunna put a hole in your tummy.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

I highly doubt that the person MUGGING YOU is going to go crying to the police all like "So I was mugging this guy, and he pulled out a GUN! I want to press charges immediately."

Also there is the deterrent factor. The mugger knows it is a possibility that he has a gun.

Some muggers the good ones use weapons, there-by posing a threat.

Bingo! I've drawn my weapon on a guy who was trying to break into my car while I was inside a gas station buying road munchies before. He wasn't trying to mug me, or posing any type of bodily threat, but he certainly didn't drive off in my car and I never got any calls from the police about impeding upon his freedoms.

 

[yundex]

I'd rather have it and not need it over needing it and not having it.

But would you rather everyone have one just so that you can? Because if everyone can claim that line, than everyone can get a gun, meaning the reason for actually having a gun (the threat from others) increases, meaning more people get a gun, meaning the reason for actually having a gun increases, until you have a community where everyone has a gun and everyone is constantly afraid of everyone else.

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. :/

 

[Pyode]

I think you are making an assumption that many anti-gun people make. I know a previous poster already mentioned it, but it's worth stating again. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are required to use it when you are mugged. It just means that the option is there. If the mugger gets the jump on you and has a gun, it probably isn't a good idea to draw your gun. However, if he/she has a knife or hasn't drawn his gun (they may try to bluff and claim to have a gun but not draw it) you then have the opportunity to use the gun to defend yourself.

It may be a slim chance that the right circumstances will arise for your gun to be useful, but a slim chance is better than no chance.

Also, a lof of anti-gun people in this thread as well as others don't understand that the second amendment isn't as much about defending yourself from other citizens, but rather defending yourself against the government.

Spoiler: Mildly relevant video.

I'd rather have it and not need it over needing it and not having it.

So very true.

LISTEN TO JOHN MCLANE GUYS XD!
[sub]No that isn't satire or sarcasm, I love Die Hard.[/sub]

Spoiler: Proof John McClane kicks ass.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

1. Not all muggers carry guns. Gun vs. not gun, gun wins.
2. How many muggers are gonna report you for breaking the law, seriously?

 

[scar_47]

An armed individual property trained should alway be able to avoid being mugged, its not just about concealed carry you also have to be aware of your surroundings a lot of it is avoiding situations that could escalate into a situation where you may need to draw your gun. Gun controll laws only affect law abiding citizens so eliminating guns all together only leaves armed criminals, statistics support this look at chicago and new york stricter gun laws and higher crime rates. As to the guy citing the US having a higher homicide rate than Australia yes we do we also have a much larger population and only a small percentage of homicides involve a firearm of those roughly 95 percent were illegally obtained weapons. An armed populace is a safe populace.

 

[BRex21]

okay, gun ownerships effectiveness on crime is usually based on fear. people don't want to risk running into a gun, therefore they don't rob you. It makes sense and it works.
Of course it only works if you are in an area particularly high in violent crime or with very strict training, and America's love of the first is all the more frightening with the lack of the second.
I would love to see an America more like Switzerland where it is mandatory to own an assault rifle at the age of 18.

 

[maturin]

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

Better 150 muggings than 100 muggings and 25 firefights.

Also, a lof of anti-gun people in this thread as well as others don't understand that the second amendment isn't as much about defending yourself from other citizens, but rather defending yourself against the government.

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.

You don't have security against your own government. You don't maintain a parity of force with body that rules you consensually. That's futile and dangerous. The state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This is practically the entire definition of a state.

Americans have never taken up arms in defense of the Constitution even when it has been fragrantly violated by the government. We have fought a civil war, which would be silly to put down to an armed populace, but how freaking naive do you have to be to believe that an armed populace is something that deters state tyranny? That's just not how states and societies work, and it's not how history has played out.

What's more common? A government spontaneously deciding to massacre its own helpless people, or governments acting ruthlessly in response to ongoing conflicts that are only serious because the people bear arms?

It's not about guns. Guns are just a tool. I don't think anyone will argue with me here. A populace that resists the abrogation of their rights is a sociopolitical phenomenon independent of firepower. Most armed populations in the world today simply wage wars and cause strife without every taking up arms for ideological purposes. Either that, or they fall in line with their oppressive state because the machinery of government is well oiled, and do harm to foreigners.

So in conclusion, your delusions of heroic defense against Washington are misguided and sad. Wanna fight the power? Tell it to Somalia.

And the armed people form a militia because at that point the United States had no standing army, and they had hostile colonial powers and a dangerous wilderness that could pose a threat to ordinary people without menacing the entire state. The militia in this case is a tool of the state, but one which relies on the armory of the people. People aren't armed to resist it. Now that we do have a standing army, people with too much testosterone can fantasize about forming militias that will defend against it.