Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[Vryyk]

Japan never attempted an invasion of the United States because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

Uh, yeah. Guns held by army guys, not the 3rd Random Yokels Brigade.

Most of our military force was overseas at that time, it really was the civilians Japan feared. The common perception for most of the world was (and continues to be) that nearly every American owns a gun. For the rest of the world such a thing is unheard of, what Admiral wouldn't be unnerved by such an idea?

 

[The Heik]

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.

Carrying a gun doesn't prevent someone from getting mugged. The best idea when getting mugged is to accede to the mugger's demands. Your life is not worth the money in your pocket. Most people who have a gun aren't willing to fire it unless extreme situations force them to, and pulling out a weapon of one's own is definitely an "extreme situation".

And honestly, carrying a gun on you is just asking for trouble, and most people who carry one around are more likely to get into scraps, because they don't bother to look at their surroundings for possible threats, thinking that the gun will act as a repellent. It almost never does, unless the would-be muggers are dumb enough to try and taunt you first. Any half decent mugger acts before their mark has a chance to react, trusting that any aggressive action will be be cowed by the appearance of the weapon.

However, if you think you need to protect yourself, learning a martial art is the best option. Your limbs never run out of ammo, you can't forget them at home, and everyone has them, so no one considers them much of a threat when the opponent has a weapon. Hence, if you're forced to fight, you have a reliable chance of surprising the mugger and disarming them before the weapon is used. Also, unless it is an experienced mugger most, will have close up in order to get the money, rather than tell you to drop it and move away.

Most importantly though, becoming learned in martial arts teaches you to analyze your opponent, so you know when your opponent is simply desperate for money, meaning that you can walk out of the incident without either party coming to any harm, or deranged and capable of hurting whether or not you go accede to their demands, requiring you to act.

Though if you don't want to be mugged, the best tactic is to simply avoid getting into the parameters that could create a mugging situation. Don't go out late, avoid the rougher parts of your area, travel in large groups.

So yeah, your friend is being silly carrying his gun around. He's just inviting trouble.

 

[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

Your fear and paranoia are completely irrational seeing as anyone stupid enough to commit the incidents you're afraid of would only own a gun illegally anyway. In addition to the logical fallacy of banning law-abiding citizens from owning guns that I mentioned earlier, word of getting something like that passed would only force everyone who's ever thought of owning a gun to immediately go out and buy one before that right gets stripped away.

 

[acturisme]

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

Hear hear!

Personally, I would rather die rushing an armed criminal to STOP him or her than let him or her get away.
If I succeed and live then he or she can have no more victims.
If I succeed and die then I am the last victim.
If I fail and live then I probably got close enough to describe him or her to the police.
And If I fail and die then I can die knowing I tried to stop a dangerous and armed mugger.
Any way you cut it...Epic Win.

Besides if you carry in a place that looks like a wallet pocket in your coat or pants you can pretend your reaching for it and a hammer-less gun WILL fire through a jacket pocket.

But it will also ruin your jacket.

Furthermore, muggers in real life are not like muggers on TV. TV muggers are all calm cool and collected. A real mugger is going to be nervous and skittish. He or she doesn't want to call attention to him or herself by firing a very LOUD gun.

Anyone with practice can draw and evade at the same time. And that's another thing, its very hard to hit a moving target. If you are being mugged and you can,FUCKING RUN!!! And in order to hit you the mugger must put the weapon up in front of his face where its difficult to see below the weapon. It is all about the PERCEPTION of control. The mugger only has as much control over you as you give him or her.

If you won't/can't carry a gun
CARRY A KNIFE.
If you won't/can't carry a knife
CARRY PEPPER SPRAY.
If you won't/ can't carry pepper spray
LEARN TO DEFEND YOURSELF!
And if you won't do that then no one can help you....
What do you want? I just gave you four, count them, FOUR options. Bugger off.

And even though I don't think that this shows an accurate portrayal of a mugging, it is a cool clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcVDmX4ho4

 

[Something Amyss]

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

That's no good. They can still shoot blind. We need REAL lightsabers.

 

[Shycte]

The problem is that Average Joe isn't mature enough to handle a gun.

 

[Shadowtek]

Simply put, I carry a blade at all times. I depends on the outing and location as to what I carry. The problem is that most people don't know how to use a knife properly. On top of that If you happen to get disarmed you need to know how to use just your bare hands. There are far to man problems with this situation. Almost none of which will end well for either party.

Simply surrendering your money or property is normally the best route anyway. Once most muggers/robbers have that they will leave. And your safe once again. Your life is worth more than some cash and credit cards that you can cancel right away.

 

[Terramax]

He should get one of those shoot-out-of-the-sleeve things Travis Bickle had.

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

This is where giving serious punishment to caught criminals come into place.

 

[Alucard832]

He should get one of those shoot-out-of-the-sleeve things Travis Bickle had.

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

This is where giving serious punishment to caught criminals come into place.

Because that's working so well right now. It still wouldn't change the fact that criminals would be the only ones with access to guns.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

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

yes, it makes it rather easy to pick out criminals: if you find a gun at their home, you're certain he's a criminal or employed by the government. if you can't find any record of him being employed by the government, he's pretty screwed.
and it would severely reduce the number or retarded gun owner accidents.

It would also severely reduce the number of people capable of protecting themselves from violent criminals.

 

[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

yes, it makes it rather easy to pick out criminals: if you find a gun at their home, you're certain he's a criminal or employed by the government. if you can't find any record of him being employed by the government, he's pretty screwed.
and it would severely reduce the number or retarded gun owner accidents.

Why are you looking for a gun in the first place? Who's to say the owner didn't buy that gun legally before their sale was banned?

 

[Lucifron]

Japan never attempted an invasion of the United States because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

Uh, yeah. Guns held by army guys, not the 3rd Random Yokels Brigade.

Most of our military force was overseas at that time, it really was the civilians Japan feared. The common perception for most of the world was (and continues to be) that nearly every American owns a gun. For the rest of the world such a thing is unheard of, what Admiral wouldn't be unnerved by such an idea?

Well, shucks! I always thought that it was losing their entire armed forces to the US Navy that the Japanese feared, but I'm sure that it was the Redneck Defense Force that really kept the last suicidal warrior-cult in the world from invading the States.

>.>

 

[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

yes, it makes it rather easy to pick out criminals: if you find a gun at their home, you're certain he's a criminal or employed by the government. if you can't find any record of him being employed by the government, he's pretty screwed.
and it would severely reduce the number or retarded gun owner accidents.

Why are you looking for a gun in the first place? Who's to say the owner didn't buy that gun legally before their sale was banned?

erms, when the government announces all guns illegal, i think most gunowners' first reaction will be to dispose of their guns. I'm also pretty sure amnesty would be supplied for 2 to 3 years after the ban went into effect, if the owner turns it in himself.

usually criminals DO stuff with the gun, so if investigation leads you to a person's house with a warrant, and they do find a gun... it's pretty incriminating.

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

yes, it makes it rather easy to pick out criminals: if you find a gun at their home, you're certain he's a criminal or employed by the government. if you can't find any record of him being employed by the government, he's pretty screwed.
and it would severely reduce the number or retarded gun owner accidents.

Why are you looking for a gun in the first place? Who's to say the owner didn't buy that gun legally before their sale was banned?

erms, when the government announces all guns illegal, i think most gunowners' first reaction will be to dispose of their guns. I'm also pretty sure amnesty would be supplied for 2 to 3 years after the ban went into effect, if the owner turns it in himself.

usually criminals DO stuff with the gun, so if investigation leads you to a person's house with a warrant, and they do find a gun... it's pretty incriminating.

I'm not talking about if they made owning guns illegal - that's BEYOND Unconstitutional. I'm talking about preventing the sale of guns. Also, I'm not sure what you're saying to that other guy, but his bottom line is right.

 

[Raven's Nest]

The problem is, you don't know their intentions. You might give them your wallet and they turn around and immediately stab you to death. You can't know if they are going to rob you or rob you and murder you.

Erm, call me an optimist but I'd say the chances of being robbed and murdered are extremely low in my country, so much so that I don't think it is considered in any way reasonable to kill or seriously injure a mugger because they might have attempted to murder you afterwards...

You're talking about the chances of simply being murdered walking around about your business, which in any country is a very rare thing indeed. The intent to mug is pretty irrelevant at that point.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

It would also severely reduce the number of people capable of protecting themselves from violent criminals.

i live in a country where guns are outlawed, and you need a special license to have one. applying for a license means going through rigorous testing. any kind of criminal history or mental instability immediately makes you unable to get a license.
yet when i look outside, i see no smoking buildings, no roving bands of harriers on the street.
you see, not being able to buy guns doesn't mean you'll descend into anarchy.
unless you think in america, it would mean exactly that. says a lot about what you think of americans.

I said, nor implied, any such thing as anarchy. I simply said that by not having access to guns, citizens are at a disadvantage to criminals. They have no means by which they can protect themselves. You may say that police protect the citizens, but here in America we don't have a police officer following each individual citizen so what they do is, mostly, clean up work. Yes, they can take criminals off the streets after a crime has been committed, but they have very little ability to react immediately to crime, especially when that crime has not yet been reported. Having a gun, on the other hand, gives the citizen access to protection from criminals without having to carry around a police officer everywhere they go.

 

[Terramax]

Because that's working so well right now. It still wouldn't change the fact that criminals would be the only ones with access to guns.

Well, here in the UK, if you're caught with a gun you go to prison where you get a free bed, with playstation and tv, free meals, free cigarettes and all the time in the world to hang out with like minded people.

It would change if it were a bad thing to get caught with a gun.