Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Which state do you live in? Because in Victoria you don't have to store your handgun at the club or have it locked in while shooting. Also in WA farmers can get revolvers now, for putting down stock and killing pest animals.TechNoFear said:
I wish the US would get past September 25, 1789.Pyode said:
So democracy in the US is so fragile in the 21st century that an armed rebellion could be required at any moment?
Is that the democracy the US is spreading (by armed force) in the Middle East?
1 & 2 - this is why you observe your surroundings and prepare to react.
3 - You could put him in your sights once he lowers your guard. He's going to be as willing to run away from a gun pointed at him as you were when he was mugging you. If you shoot him just as he runs away, you could still claim it as self-defense. Witness accounts are extremely unreliable and few would testify in favor of a mugger. Likewise, a jury would hardly be sympathetic towards a robber.
Also,
There's a good chance the mugger would have an inferior weapon, or no weapon at all.
If a mugger is trying to pull a Mad Max on you, he's gonna shit himself if someone draws a real weapon.
If they're white (these are criminals we're talking about - I'm just calling it like it is), they've probably weighed the risks and decided they don't want a murder charge and simply expected people to go along.
I usually carry the largest legal knife without requiring a license with me. I'm fucked in any sort of long-medium range situation, but actually have the upper hand in a short distance. All I'd have to do is change the barrel's trajectory slightly. In most cases, the attacker would then be focused on trying to regain control of their weapon and I'd be home free to stab the shit out of them. Additionally, knives and other bladed weapons have no safeties, never need to be reloaded, and cannot jam.
3 - You could put him in your sights once he lowers your guard. He's going to be as willing to run away from a gun pointed at him as you were when he was mugging you. If you shoot him just as he runs away, you could still claim it as self-defense. Witness accounts are extremely unreliable and few would testify in favor of a mugger. Likewise, a jury would hardly be sympathetic towards a robber.
Also,
There's a good chance the mugger would have an inferior weapon, or no weapon at all.
If a mugger is trying to pull a Mad Max on you, he's gonna shit himself if someone draws a real weapon.
If they're white (these are criminals we're talking about - I'm just calling it like it is), they've probably weighed the risks and decided they don't want a murder charge and simply expected people to go along.
I usually carry the largest legal knife without requiring a license with me. I'm fucked in any sort of long-medium range situation, but actually have the upper hand in a short distance. All I'd have to do is change the barrel's trajectory slightly. In most cases, the attacker would then be focused on trying to regain control of their weapon and I'd be home free to stab the shit out of them. Additionally, knives and other bladed weapons have no safeties, never need to be reloaded, and cannot jam.
Sorry if I was not clear...WolfThomas said:
You have to be registered at a sporting pistol shooting club for 6 months before you can purchase a handgun (category H firearm).
During that 6 months you must use the clubs hire handguns.
The 2 gun clubs I used to attend (before I bought a rural property) require the firearm to be locked (this is to stop suicides, which were occuring once per week).
Not true IME.WolfThomas said:
current WA police web site said:
When you're held at gunpoint, you could whip out your gun too I guess? I supposed it would be more useful in situations that aren't as fast paced and random as a mugging.
The problem is the mugger's probably willing to shoot a man since he's gone this far, while your fiend (the concealed gun carrier) would not actually want to shoot anyone. So a stand off wouldn't be favorable.
The problem is the mugger's probably willing to shoot a man since he's gone this far, while your fiend (the concealed gun carrier) would not actually want to shoot anyone. So a stand off wouldn't be favorable.
I thought it has all been overhauled overthere?TechNoFear said:
http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2011/2011-02_ssaa-wa-wins-handgun-amendments.html
It mentions pastoralists can now apply for handguns, though yeah I can't find any other sources.
Japan never attempted an invasion of the United States because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass". And the fact that we're too stupid to protest violation of our rights doesn't mean we never will. At one point, if the government takes a policy too far, the people will snap. With millions being poured into law enforcement, they still cannot take out a bunch of idiots with pants around their knees. If it ever gets to the point in which armed rebellion is a possibility, guns will be used.maturin said:
So. You're right in that we use them as a militia tool, but wrong that we don't/won't use them to defend our rights.
Main thing is, if you have a concealed gun, you have to train with it (especially drawing it fast and flawlessly). Now i think most of you will say "meh", but when your muscle memory is trained then you are much more confident and you dont pose threat to YOURSELF.
Uh, yeah. Guns held by army guys, not the 3rd Random Yokels Brigade.Ftaghn To You Too said:
I'm sure if the Senate declared for Stalinism tomorrow, there would be an insurrection. I'm not holding my breath.
But before the government every goes all totalitarian and we need some principled, armed resistors, things are going to be bad. Democracy will already be over, and guns will simply be used to fight over resources. The 'defence against the government' is the primary irrational conceit of the pro-gun position, in an issue fraught with silly notions on both sides. It's about the frontier identity and shooting deer and beer cans at the end of the world, not libertine bullshit. It's Revolutionary War nostalgia and self-defense fantasy.
By the time political tensions are high enough and the economy is bad enough that warfare between the people and the government breaks outs, the NRA will have staunchly stood behind the government's adoption of apartheid measures for Mexicans and Muslims.
This is what makes this idea so silly. The Army isn't going to attack loyal gun-toting Americans. The Army is drawn from the ranks of gun-toting Americans and to those ranks service-members return. They are socially and politically twinned.
In a scenario where the federal government uses the military as a tool of wrongful repression, it will be in response to a foreign threat, and the NRA will be right there with the most jingoistic policy going. And if the country does fracture and people start rising up against the government, it would go the way of the civil war anyway, with a split in the military. Anything smaller would be just another insurgency to be brutally put down, and like 99% of insurgencies, it's not going to be fought over constitutional interpretation.
The dream of sitting on your porch picking off SWAT as they come up the driveway of your ranch just isn't in the cards. If it ever happens, the country will be gone anyway and you'll have bigger problems, or a bunch of gun-toting extremists will be the cause of it.
Government buildings all have cameras, moving to gun-free zones would be pretty damn stupid. Also, they tend to be full of people, making mugging pretty difficult.2fish said:
And shooting first? That draws attention (guns are very loud) and could put you in jail for life instead of the 5-10 you'd get you armed robbery.
1. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of unworthy people having them.yundex said:
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.
Explain. At no point in the OP did I say people should not be allowed to conceal carry, nor did I go against private gun ownership. In fact, I am not anti-gun; I go trap shooting on a regular basis and have been going to the range with my friend for over 3 years. When I get my own place I plan on purchasing a shotgun, because my current lease does not allow firearm storage.godofallu said:
I just lots of holes in the argument that CCWs can stop muggings. We receive emails from university police every time a student is mugged within a mile from campus, and in each they describe the details. Usually it goes like this: 2-3 males approach the target at night and surprise the victim at close range with a weapon, which is almost always a handgun. The student gives over their backpack or purse and then the muggers run or drive off before 911 is called. I don't see a CCW doing anything in this situation except possibly getting the student killed or injured.