Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging
- Thread starter Brawndo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Perhaps you where taught a wildly different account of world history than I was, but I don't seem to recall a single nation or empire that hasn't, at some point, fallen. I'm not so naive as to think that some how the US (or any other country) has "gotten it right" this time and will never fall to corruption, disaster, war, or any of the other nation killers. The Founding Fathers knew this, and gave us the Second Amendment so that if those times come we have the means to defend ourselves.TechNoFear said:
Do I think this will happen any time soon? No.
Do I even see it as inevitable? No.
It doesn't matter though. As soon as we completely turn our ability to defend ourselves over to the government, if the shit does hit the fan, we will be completely defenseless. To me, that's just not worth it.
I fail to see how this snide comment remotely relates to the issue at hand.
To be fair, that Penn and Teller clip was slightly out of context (hence why I spoiler tagged it and said it was slightly off topic). It immediately came after a guy they where interviewing expressly stated that the 2nd Amendment was solely for arming a militia and had nothing to do with arming the general public. This is inaccurate, even by your own account, because people can't form a militia unless they are already armed.maturin said:
I admit that P&T may have gotten the "against the militia" part wrong, but I don't agree that it is "obviously" meant only to protect against outside threats. There is nothing at all in the wording to support that claim.
I'm not going to argue about the merits and consequences of revolution or the likelihood that gun ownership will even be necessary on more than an individual basis. As I said in response to the other poster, I don't know what will happen, if anything, and frankly I don't care.
All I care about is that I have the freedom and the ability to protect myself and my family against any enemy that threatens it. Whether it be a burglar breaking into my home, a mugger on the street, or a federal officer at my door.
You also have some very ignorant views about the NRA and the US Military.
You seem to believe that the NRA is synonymous with far right Republicans and that is just completely false. The NRA has no political goal beyond protecting our 2nd Amendment. It consists of members from all political backgrounds, all races, all genders, and all ages (above 18). The only belief all the members of the NRA share is the belief that gun ownership is a right. Yes, some members may hypocritically side with the government on issues that inhibit other freedoms but other members will be right there opposing them.
Same goes for the Army. The Army consists of people from all over the country who all have different backgrounds and beliefs. The idea that the "Army is drawn from the ranks of gun-toting Americans" is just silly and inaccurate.
Well, my father and the co-owner of his company went on a trip, they were walking back to their hotel rooms when they were victims of an attempted mugging. My father, having a concealed carry permit, drew his .45 Colt, aimed at the perpetrators head, and the man went white as a sheet, turned around, and ran away. No shots fired. It seems like that protected them against a mugging. The man trying to rob them certainly wasn't going to go crying to the police that some evil men pulled a gun on him. I would rather feel safe that I can protect myself and possibly get into trouble with the judicial system, which has strict processing and generally falls in favor of citizens protecting themselves, than feel unprotected against people who don't really give a damn shit about judicial process. Remember kids: When seconds matter, the police will be there in minutes.
I think you should just wear a stylish Kevlar vest on the out-side at night-time. It will make the assailant thinking you are...
Well, what would you think of such a man/woman? Armed? Trained? Experienced? Ready?
Or simply a douche, I dunno...
Also, you will have a good defense against weaponry.
In my opinion, Kevlar vests are more intimidating and will not risk you having to hurt the now-hesitating mugger with a deadly gun-shot.
But... Some people would decree guns being the absolute option for defense, as it is the best offensive if used correctly.
Well, what would you think of such a man/woman? Armed? Trained? Experienced? Ready?
Or simply a douche, I dunno...
Also, you will have a good defense against weaponry.
In my opinion, Kevlar vests are more intimidating and will not risk you having to hurt the now-hesitating mugger with a deadly gun-shot.
But... Some people would decree guns being the absolute option for defense, as it is the best offensive if used correctly.
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.Alucard832 said:
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?
FFHAuthor said:
This. Although there is a counter argument that CC actually increases the violence of the crimes since criminals assume the target is armed, any attempt made will be made on the assumption that the other person will shoot back.
Personally I like my martial arts, I can react faster and don't have to go for a gun. It's still assault with a deadly weapon if I hit anyone, but disabling grapples happen to be win. And more useful.
IMO, I consider myself a pacifist, I'd avoid a fight because I'd feel bad about hurting the poor thing. I would however waste someone I saw assaulting anyone. 'shrugs' Pacifist who thinks vigilante justice is cool and enjoys combat sports.
If one person acts outside the law, the "mugger", then the defendant is free to act outside the law. It becomes a true world where evolution rules, a shangri-la of consciousness. Since the mugger isn't going to go to the police if they get hurt. And if the person does anything then they're also acting outside the law. It's.. Win lolBad Jim said:
I'd stick to The Punisher comics, film wasn't that great compared. If you haven't heard of The Punisher, he's the guy who went and killed a super hero because they stole a wallet. Think Batman, but instead of kung fu take downs, a shotgun to the face.numbersix1979 said:
On that note, I'd almost approve of vigilante justice. For the simple reason that the police are more an investigative and preventative agency. They find criminals after the matter, and walk around the city at night. But on the whole, they're pretty useless if someone were to attack you. So in this case, being able to at least disable a criminal.
I'm still going to say that training in martial arts would help more than carrying a gun. For sure, they're "arts", not usually meant for use in actual combat. But if someone pulls a knife you could deflect the hand and hold them till the police arrived. And most robberies that I've heard of/seen occur at close range.
I pull the asshole response:
its a problem of the violent and backwater US, why should I care. *european*
...
wait no maybe thats not the best choice :/
I understand the problem, but its because you can legally own weapons so easily.
The US concept of "Freedom" is just crap sometimes, because the power given too all people is so easy to abuse against each other for more personal "benefit".
In some way, it's your own fault.
that's why I dont want to care, really.
its a problem of the violent and backwater US, why should I care. *european*
...
wait no maybe thats not the best choice :/
I understand the problem, but its because you can legally own weapons so easily.
The US concept of "Freedom" is just crap sometimes, because the power given too all people is so easy to abuse against each other for more personal "benefit".
In some way, it's your own fault.
that's why I dont want to care, really.
Actually not really. Getting a "deagle", forget real world terminology, is rather easy, and not that expensive. In Melbourne, just go to Dandenong. They also sell a nice collection of knives. And near where they sell guns you have a selection of pills and powders.Biosophilogical said:
In Aus at least, banning guns means that old antiques got crushed and farmers lost their shotguns to get rid of foxes. Illegal guns are still on the streets and easily available.
And while I'm with giving the money up so no-one gets hurt, in a lot of cases the criminal is out just for the assault, not necessarily for the financial benefits in which case USA'ian CC laws could prove useful. I'd rather have a gun vs 5 guys out for a fight than just my fists and feet.
So basically it comes down to a difference in culture between where I live and where you live? Where you live, it is far from safe to be without protection (and whether that is because of the less strict gun laws, or some historical problem, or just America's involvement in world politics or what-have-you is something I'm far from qualified to debate), whereas where I live, you are in more danger from a territorial dog getting out of its yard than from a violent street gang beating you up for the hell of it.Cyberjester said:
Now don't get me wrong here, I'd never take away America's gun laws just like that *clicks fingers*. If I was being an idealist, I'd create a progressional cultural change that creates a safer and more community-oriented place to live so that guns weren't needed, then bring in stricter gun laws, cracking down on criminal organisations to further keep people safe, and even then I wouldn't ban guns, I'd just institute strict regulations so that, legitimately, you'd need to show yourself to be psychologically stable enough to use a weapon responsibly. So I can understand how the difference in societies may give you need for protection, but I think that, given the option, I'd rather live in my community than yours (just my preference I suppose).
Third post on the same page. :S Maybe I should just stop reading lolRainforce said:
It is bad to have that many guns on the streets. Well.. Maybe not bad, but there's no good reason for it. However, and this is a big thing. The constitution was drafted around the time when having a militia was not only a good thing, but necessary for the safety of the nation. In debates about warfare, etc, the USA has always come out as the most likely to withstand a full on attack, simply because the majority of its citizens possess a gun and know how to use it.
If Australia was attacked, for example, the only people who could mount a defense is the criminal element. And I can't really see that happening. There's this sentence I saw in the quote section of a persons post.. They were USA'ian, and it went something like.. Europeans may call themselves cultured because they don't own a gun, but who rescued them in two world wars.
'shrugs'
They have a point
If there is a rebellion in the US, which side are the nukes on?Pyode said:
Ever worry that some people think it already has, because the TV keeps telling them that a Muslim, Nazi n****r is already turning the US in to a communist state?Pyode said:
On the other hand, I am prepared to (and have) relinquish my right to bear arms because I do not trust that everybody else is responsible enough to own a gun.Pyode said:
The result?
The last time someone here went on a shooting rampage was 2003 (2 killed, 7 wounded).
The one before that was 1996.
[the US averages ~20 mass shootings of 4+ killed per year.]
The best thing you can do is to do whatever the mugger says and try to remember every single detail about his appearance as you possibly can. Your money is not worth your life, especially when you can possibly find the mugger by reporting the incident to the police and suing him in civil court for damages.
Who do you think is going to attack Australia?Cyberjester said:
Do they have a massive navy to get here, becasue last time I looked Australia was an island?
If they can cross the ocean in force, beat the Australian climate, RAAF, RAN and Army, they are not going to be stopped by any 'well armed militia' of citizens with small arms.
Some 'people' say the US was late on both occassions and only arrived after the hard work had been done.Cyberjester said:
This varies tremendously depending upon the place in question and what compromises a legitimate threat. Some states are quite liberal in their interpretation (Florida and Texas for example) while others are quite strict.Brawndo said:
This is true if and only if the mugger actually has the element of surprise (which, if they're smart, ought to be most of the time).Brawndo said:
This is true, but once you have been mugged even if you could seek righteous vengeance without fear of the law the weapon wouldn't have protected you from being mugged in the first place.Brawndo said:
Having the weapon offers one the possibility of self defense. Not having the weapon removes almost any hope of self defense. A relatively slim chance to defend oneself is quite a bit better than a non-existent chance.Brawndo said: