Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[GrizzlerBorno]

I was mugged once, but as soon as the robber turned around and and away I threw an empty beer bottle and dropped him unconscious, then I recovered my valuables. [Lie.]

So much win!....is what i was going to say before I saw IT. sneaky little.....

Har har. Pretty clever, isn't it?

Yes it is. Maybe I'll use it on some unsuspecting n00b sometime. Really? Dude? Don't insult my intelligence

 

[Kukakkau]

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

Sounds exactly like the quote from AvP

But OP does have a fair point - if someone comes from behind, puts a gun to your back and starts taking your stuff you don't really have a chance to draw your weapon.

The only situation it would maybe work is if they tell you to hand over what you have and you reach for it then. But even still not a good idea to risk it

 

[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.

 

[mjc0961]

Well first off, if everyone on campus is aware that your roommate carries a gun, word can get around to the robbers and they decide "Hmm, let's not rob that guy, we might get shot."

Also suppose the mugger just has a knife, then a gun would be quite useful assuming the mugger has no combat training.

And if the mugger has no weapon and just wants a wallet, your roommate reaches into his jacket for his "wallet" and then whips out a gun, that mugger is either going to run away or follow orders like a good boy and wait on the ground until the police show up (again assuming he has no combat training and is just a punk).

 

[Burningsok]

Concealed weapons won't keep criminals hesitant from mugging you right away. A trend needs to begin where more people start using this method of protection. Once the word goes around to others, civilians and criminals will then be aware of this and then the concealed weapon idea will start making a difference.

 

[Gilhelmi]

If Australia was attacked, for example, the only people who could mount a defense is the criminal element.

Who do you think is going to attack Australia?

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.

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

Some 'people' say the US was late on both occassions and only arrived after the hard work had been done.

Some say, but their involvement was always the turning point in the war. From what I can see, I could be wrong.


There's a few warlike, expansionist nations around the Australasian area. And Aus's navy/airforce/army isn't that good.

Aus spends billions buying second hand junk no-one wants and calls it our latest and greatest. We take awesome rifles, rechamber them for a lower caliber bullet, lower the barrel length, change the loading system and call it our main sniper rifle. -.-

Aus. Sucks. Simple fact. Any nation with a decent airforce could take us out. Any nation with a decent navy could take us out.

An island that buys a bunch of second hand battle tanks.. They might prove useful in an invasion. Although the majority of the populace is concentrated on the lower right to top right coastal areas. Air force bombs that area, the country would be gone.

Any country that wants massive amounts of resources for little effort would take Aus.

Think NZ would kick our butt. -.-

I don't see how this remotely relates to the topic at hand, but whatever.

Also, lol, a bunch of well armed civilians isn't going to stop an invasion. This is the type of John Wayne attitude that is just hilarious. As if a bunch of civilians with their handguns and rifles could stop a serious invading force that has tanks, air support and naval units.

Absolutely ridiculous romanticism made popular by... hell I don't even know how this view came about.

Spoken from someone who has obviously never meet a full Militia Club in the Southern part of the USA. The tactics they train are very much counter-invasion tactics, they know how to build stuff (out of politeness, I will not say the 4-letter b-word). I do think that a counter-invasion group might not win but could weaken the enemy enough to make them leave or be beaten by the regular military forces.

Tank are only effective if you know where the enemy is and are expensive to deploy. Simiar for air support but from the air it is hard to tell friend/foe/civilian and even the evil empires try not to kill civvies because that is just bad PR (easier to take over if the people are neutral to you). All of these units can be blown-up by well place and trained 'insurgents'.

Last point, the US has been fighting insurgents for 10+ years. We know their strength and weaknesses, and many veterans would join a Militia if the US was invaded (If for whatever reason they were unable to join the regular military forces).

We might not stop them but we can slow them down and take a pound of flesh.

 

[moretimethansense]

The Black Market is no longer the super secret criminal store. It now also refers to illegally selling things online or out of your home.

It's the people that acquire them legally, then illegally sell them that allow criminals to get their hands on them.

Okay fine, the meaning of the term has changed but my point remains, Gun laws wont help you if they are planning to shoot you anyway.

And not every crime involves a gun. Just the ones you see in the news because they're more interesting than a bar room fist fight.

I never claimed they did, if you'd acually read what I said you'd know I was refering specificaly to crimes involving guns, is that really so hard to understand?

I really don't know why people think that like 4 out of 5 Americans own a gun. It's possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Hell, I only know 2 people that own guns. Both are hunters, and one is a handgun collector.

Agaim I nmever claimed they did, but the fact is 4 out of 5 (adult) Americans, CAN own a gun, legally, and those that can't can easily aquirre them.

 

[Jedoro]

You know what's better than Castle Doctrine states? Stand Your Ground states, because it's the same rules, only anywhere you're threatened. ANYWHERE. Frankly, I can't wait til I'm 21 so I can get my concealed carry permit. I'm actually going to see if I can open carry, cause some states allow that. Granted, I'd have at least one concealed as well, along with a bulletproof vest.

The general idea is to just make it look like I'm not someone to be fucked with.

 

[No_Remainders]

Here's how it goes:

-Mugger jumps out with knife and points it at your chest saying "gimme your money!".
-You pretend to comply, slowly reaching into your jacket.
-You pull out gun and tell them to fuck off or die.
-They run.

 

[No_Remainders]

Unless I get tangible evidence of this i'm scarce to believe that claim, but I will not deny the possibility of this either. However, regardless I still do not understand the neccesity of firearms for civilian use when nations like europe have proven that it is capable of maintaining the lowest crime rates on the globe with little to none of the populace carrying a weapon.

Wow...

Europe isn't a Nation. I'd just love to point that out right about now.

 

[Jesus Phish]

I've been mugged before, kicked to the ground and beat. I never carried a weapon before (guns are illegal here) but I'll never carry one anyway. Suppose I carry a baton around, one of those ones you can extend. That's great and all until it's out of my hand and in theirs.

The most I'd ever consider would be some form of pepper spray (also illegal I believe). The best case is to keep your smarts about you and know when to run. I messed up on that night and I've learnt from it.

 

[Treblaine]

Hmm, this thread seems awfully familiar.

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

I think the word you are looking for is more than "legitimate threat" but "perceived threat" and those are obvious enough. I think you've been watching too many movies where muggers act like fucking ninja assassins.

Also by your logic wouldn't cops not even need guns? Because they could only draw their weapons once shot?

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.

Concealed carry laws are not to protect your wallet, they are there to protect your PERSON from death and severe injury which are practically synonymous with armed robberies. It's not like in the movies where a "gangsta" will point a $500 Glock pistol in someone's face for a wallet with likely only $50.

Most muggings are with cheap and crude weapons or exploit strength of numbers, and then do they stop once they get your wallet and phone? You better hope they do, all too many are mad enough to demand your pin-code and paranoid enough that they won't believe our answer till they have inflicted enough pain and damage to persuade the most honest response.

THAT is when you wish you had a gun and a gun would have saved you.

Are you really naive enough to think all it takes to defuse any armed robbery it to throw your valuables at them? Really? DO you really think that?

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.

WHOA WHOA WHOA! Who said CCW was for chasing them down and executing them? Yes, you can shoot at armed robbers THAT IS HOW YOU MAKE THEM "immediately leave the area". They're not going to leave till they are done with you, for guys that is usually a crippling beating, for females usually sexual assault.

Armed civilians producing pistols are not only most likely to make muggers turn tail and run but discourage them from trying mugging in the first place as they have no idea who is carrying. No sane person will risk their life for a wallet, but if they are insane enough to still go for you then you'll be glad your gun in loaded.

 

[Treblaine]

I'll just leave this here:

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
-- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon

 

[demoman_chaos]

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.

If everyone is armed, no one will want to risk commiting a crime. Muggers pick their targets carefully. They look for weakness, like all other predators who hunt pack animals. A tiger won't attack a lion because it poses a threat, but it will attack young zerbas who are easy pickings.
If more peopel are armed, the muggers will be more reluctant to strike because of fear. Deterance is what kept the US and Russia from fighting after WWII. Deterance is proven to work.

 

[ComradeJim270]

Ok, I'm not going to wade through 7 pages of replies, I'm just going to respond to the first post. I apologize that it's going to be so obscenely verbose, but I take self-defense rather seriously. I'll start by addressing the three points in that post.

1. This depends on where you are. Different places have different laws governing when you can use a firearm. I will assume you know what you're talking about in regards to the laws where you are, and base the rest of what I say on that assumption.

Now, another thing you need to consider is that even the possibility of having a gun drawn will make most people want to get away. If you even act like you may do so, most people will want to avoid you. You also need to consider that if someone is in fact a violent criminal, they're unlikely to go to the police if you do pull a weapon on them. They hate cops. They fear them.

You mention possible criminal charges for doing this, though, and that is worth discussing. I'll just ask you this: would you rather be judged by twelve or carried by six? I'd rather be prosecuted for drawing a gun in a situation where it is not legal than killed because I didn't.

2. If you're like me, you make a big deal out of situational awareness. You look around every corner. You take any opportunity to glance over your shoulder. You keep an eye on the shadows of people behind you. You watch people for any sign they might be up to something that could potentially threaten you. When strange people approach you, you think about the best way to take them down if they try anything. Basically, you NEVER let your guard down and you NEVER assume you are safe until you're home, the door is locked, and you have established that nobody else is there with you unless you want them to be. Paranoid? Sure. But it also means I'm very, very hard to get the jump on. Even if I don't see someone trying, this appearance of alertness is discouraging for muggers and the like when they could go for someone who looks like an easier target.

But let's say someone does manage to sneak up on me with a gun. If that person intends to kill me (which is possible when the local gangs are doing initiations) I'm fucked. It doesn't matter whether I have a gun or not. But if they want something else, they'll wish to avoid actually killing me because doing so means more police attention, and a longer sentence (or execution) if that police attention lands them in court. In this case, I have a chance to do something, if I feel it is necessary to protect my life. I am quite capable of fighting back if someone has a gun to my head, though I hope I'll never have to. Which leads us to that third point...

3. Your stuff is replaceable, but being a gamer is the closest you'll get to having a replaceable life. You don't get to hit the quickload key if someone blows your head off in real life (I HAD to make this game-related somehow). You can get a new phone, you can get more money, you can get a new credit card, you can get a new ID. You cannot get a new life. If someone wants to mug me, violence is a last resort. If the guy takes everything I have, I don't WANT to chase him. I want to get in contact with the police ASAP, and let THEM handle it. If they don't get the guy, that sucks, but I'm still breathing.

Now, I've got some points of my own:

1. Having a gun gives you an advantage in some very dangerous situations. It does not make you safe. It does not necessarily even make you less unsafe. But it might, and that counts for something.

2. Despite what all those cop shows and law dramas would have you believe, police don't try to go after every criminal act to the fullest extent possible. They don't have the time, money, or manpower to do so. Of course if someone draws a gun on some potential bad guys and they report it, the cops have to do something, but they may very well decide it's not worth a great deal of their time and effort when they have a bunch of other crimes to investigate. If some shady looking guy says you pulled a gun on him in a manner that wasn't legally permissible (assuming he even knows whether it was or not) and they go to you, and you say that you felt threatened (or even lie and say nothing happened at all), it wouldn't be surprising if they just wrote it off after a brief investigation.

3. If your roommate carries a gun because he's worried about muggings, he's being foolish. You don't carry a lethal weapon to protect yourself from muggings, you carry it to protect yourself from battery, rape, or murder. You carry a gun to shoot people who want to kill you, not to shoot people who want you to hand over your stuff.

Hope that's insightful.

EDIT: Forgot a really important fourth point: There's no reason you can't tell someone you're carrying a gun. If some guy wants to do terrible things to you and you say "Stop! I have a weapon!" While reaching for your holster, he's going to think twice about doing anything that might upset you further. Plus, giving a warning makes you look more like the good guy in a police report.

 

[SmokingMirrors]

Wow...

Europe isn't a Nation. I'd just love to point that out right about now.

You appear to have overlooked the post wherein I distinctly apologized for that particular error.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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.

More of the physcological motive then anything else.

Say your a professional mugger (with business cards and everything) and you want to choose a place to start mugging people. Do you choose the city that lets anybody carry a gun in there pocket or the city that demands all guns be in a safe twelve miles away? The more guns people have, the more the general community is safe. I will agree that you have a point while in an area that has very low gun ownership, it most likely better to have an open carry instead of concealed for individual safety since a mugger is going to choose the guy that can't instantly end his life.

 

[Pyode]

In my view, societies fall apart before states do. People with guns will be spilling each other's blood long before the government is so totally feeble that Canada decides to annex New York. I don't want to be caught in that crossfire.

Do you think a lack of legal guns will somehow prevent murders, riots, and gang wars in the event of a societal meltdown? I'm sorry but no, it wont.

If you think the people that will be causing that bloodshed will be the guys who are sick and tired of their neighbor's dog shitting on his yard, you have a very warped sense of what people really are. When you have a situation where the government is unable to keep the peace, that is when you see the gangs, mobs, and cartels use the opportunity to vastly expand their influence. It will be the criminals who already have the guns illegally that will be terrorizing everyone.

A federal officer? If you keep a parity of force with the people who are supposed to keep you safe, they can't do they're job. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I will say it again. I don't keep a gun because I expect the government to knock on my door any moment and whisk my family away. I fully trust and respect most police officers and federal agents. I acknowledge that they are human and make mistakes, but for the most part I think they do a good job. I am simply defending my right to attempt to protect myself, should the need arise.

The mugger and the burglar have the drop on you. They're going to win.

As some other posters have pointed out, there is evidence to the contrary. Besides, as I said in my initial post, just having a gun doesn't mean you have to use it. It simply means it's there if you need it.

So are the feds.

I already talked about this in response to the other poster

In the meantime, your gun is statistically more likely to shoot yourself and your family than an aggressor.

That statistic doesn't account for all of the burglaries, rapes, and murders prevented by the simple act of pointing a gun.

And Mexico is being unraveled by American AR-15. I don't know why those wimps don't just arm their citizens so they can stand up the drug cartels. /not

Mexico is being unraveled by a corrupt and inefficient government, an immensely poor and trodden on lower class, as well as drug cartels that would be able to acquire weapons regardless of the US's gun laws.

As for why the Mexican government doesn't arm it's citizens, at this point the government officials are just as scared of the cartels as the general public and the general public is already so repressed the guns wouldn't make it to them anyway.

It has no political alignments, besides the fact that it always sides with Republicans. That's not its own fault or design, just how it works out. And that creates political and cultural cleavages that are still important despite their rather nebulous nature.

Even assuming that the political leaders of the NRA do always side with Republicans (a rather strong claim that I hope you can back up), it doesn't matter because we are talking about the general population. The only common belief amongst all NRA members is the right to bear arms. These people will act on their own individual beliefs, not those of the NRA at large.

The military is a gigantic institution, and it has its own culture and political beliefs. There is a powerful cultural and political element within the armed forces that would end up on the side of the NRA, and of rural, white, Christian Americans if shit were to hit the fan.

While I won't be so naive as to clam that the culture of the military wouldn't influence it's members, there is absolutely no evidence or precedent that it, in any way, would "end up on the side of the NRA, and of rural, white, Christian Americans." At this point you are just making stuff up.

All I'm saying. Almost any nightmare scenario you could name, and I'd predict the NRA demographic, which is strikingly similar to the NRA demographic falling into step behind the most militarized, jingoistic response, which would of course be championed by the military or a part of it.

That's all I'm saying. Our armed populace would be shooting at Mexicans before the state National Guard. Although the Westboro Baptist Church types would be doing that latter, but most of the country would be on the government's side.

Neither of us are psychics and your "prediction" has absolutely no basis in fact or precedent.