PDA

View Full Version : Being robbed - safer to pull a gun or not?


runcible spoon
09-21-2011, 04:37 PM
I know it's a complicated question, which is why I'm really interested in cites here - if I'm being robbed, does it make it more ore less dangerous for me to have a gun? My thinking here is that on the one hand, if I have a gun and the person robbing me doesn't, okay, I may not get robbed. But if we both have guns (or if the person robbing me is just crazy), I've just escalated the situation, which may make it more likely to end in violence. But I realize I have no idea what the actual statistics are one way or the other.

Please note, I'm talking about one person, not about gun control - I'd prefer to keep this in GQ.

crowmanyclouds
09-21-2011, 04:48 PM
Well, Sgt. Tueller (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm) says if your mugger doesn't let you know you're about to be mugged when he's ~21 feet away . . . you're probably not going to get to use your gun.

CMC fnord!

Boyo Jim
09-21-2011, 04:52 PM
I know it's a complicated question, which is why I'm really interested in cites here - if I'm being robbed, does it make it more ore less dangerous for me to have a gun? My thinking here is that on the one hand, if I have a gun and the person robbing me doesn't, okay, I may not get robbed. But if we both have guns (or if the person robbing me is just crazy), I've just escalated the situation, which may make it more likely to end in violence. But I realize I have no idea what the actual statistics are one way or the other.

Please note, I'm talking about one person, not about gun control - I'd prefer to keep this in GQ.

I started a similar thread a few weeks ago (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=621181). It was more about legal issues than physical risk issues, but some of it may be relevant.

In most jurisdictions, you can't legally pull out a gun and threaten someone who hasn't put you in a life threatening situation, and if they haven't displayed a weapon they haven't done that.

If the the robber HAS drawn a weapon, well, it depends. I personally wouldn't draw a gun on someone who already has one pointed at me. That seems too high a risk to me. If the robber has a knife? Maybe, if they're far enough away.

This seem more of an opinion question than a factual one, though.

Richard Pearse
09-21-2011, 05:47 PM
Something to consider is that you probably shouldn't pull a gun unless you are absolutely prepared to pull the trigger, cause if you hesitate or it's only for show then it might not be your gun for long.

RearEchelon
09-21-2011, 05:57 PM
Depends on the gun. You can get ultra-compact pistols that fit into a holster the size and shape of a billfold. Keep it in your usual wallet pocket, and when the useless waste of life demands your wallet, you give him a belly full of hot lead instead and he doesn't even know it's a gun until he's bleeding out on the concrete. If it's a monstrosity the size of a Desert Eagle, leave it in your pants - at least until after the sorry bastard has your wallet, then you blow him away and get your money back.

'Course, I live in Georgia. That's probably not sound advice for those of you living in more liberal-minded states where the convicts have more rights than the citizens!

isaiahrobinson
09-21-2011, 06:11 PM
It's clearly much more "dangerous" to pull a gun. There's not even a question about that. If a robber pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, and you respond by putting your hands up and complying, it's not likely he's going to shoot you anyway - it's happened, but it's not likely. If you're assessing the situation purely from the perspective of "danger", the best response in a genuine robbery situation is to comply fully (if it's a different type of situation things might be different, for instance if you're dealing with someone acting irrationally, and it can be hard to tell in the heat of the moment what's happening, but I think everyone should be able to agree that this is the case for genuine, straightforward robberies).

The trade-off is that while complying probably reduces the potential "danger" of the situation for you, it also guarantees you get robbed. So you have to weigh up your priorities.

carnivorousplant
09-21-2011, 07:04 PM
You can get ultra-compact pistols that fit into a holster the size and shape of a billfold. Keep it in your usual wallet pocket, and when the useless waste of life demands your wallet, you give him a belly full

I've thought that would be the way to due it if you are in fear of your life.

Martin Hyde
09-21-2011, 07:33 PM
Not strictly related but I'm reminded of how a lot of self defense courses involving defense against knives or self defense using a knife almost teach it like you're going to end up in a duel.

In the real world someone comes at you with a knife he's going to blindside you with everything he's got and he's going to have a knife in you before you even know what happens. A lot of people get stabbed in prison and it isn't like in the movies where someone pulls a shank out and says "I'm gonna stick you suckah!" instead the first thing the victim knows about the attack is when it's already started.

So the reality is if you're in the sort of situation where you need to defend your life, you probably will not have the ability to coolly decide it may be time to exercise your right to self defense, instead you'll probably be getting viciously attacked and in desperation you can hope if you're carrying concealed you have a chance during the attack to pull your weapon and discharge it into your assailant until you are out of rounds. The whole thing will last no more than 10 seconds.

Bosstrain
09-21-2011, 08:26 PM
Something to consider is that you probably shouldn't pull a gun unless you are absolutely prepared to pull the trigger, cause if you hesitate or it's only for show then it might not be your gun for long.

I love this, one of the best answers, but I'm no expert.

Martin Hyde is very correct, when it's all said and done, you'll be checking yourself to see if you're hurt.......if you're still alive that is.

Something I would like to ask: how many times do you get mugged in, say, one year? The thing about guns is, if a noob is planning on mugging you, he may get close, position himself behind you, then think: "What if he's got a gun?". Then the would-be perp runs off with his tail between his legs and you had no idea that that dude was thinking about mugging you. If he's done this before, which means he's probably done it many many times, then whether you have a gun or not has very little effect on the situation. However, if you do have a gun, and the perp finds out midway in the mugging, then you've either forfeited your life, or at least you'll be handing it over along with everything else.

It's the fear of guns, not the guns themselves, that protect you half the time, the other half cares not one way or the other. I'm totally against gun control, because like Chris Rock said: "Don't go to parties with metal detectors, you might be safe inside, but when you leave, everyone outside knows you don't got one". I don't own any firearms, but anyone trying to rob me will have to ask themselves whether or not I do.....

Borzo
09-21-2011, 08:42 PM
I agree with isaiahrobinson.

If the person robbing you has a gun or a knife, how does you having a gun reduce the chances of you getting shot or stabbed? The best way to avoid harm is to comply fully with the criminal.

carnivorousplant
09-21-2011, 09:53 PM
I am reminded of one of the NRA armed citizen stories.
An elderly couple is broken in on. The Bad Guy holds a knife to the wife's throat and says, "Gimme your dough."
"Sure," says the husband, "Let me get my wallet."
He gets a pistol out of his sock drawer and shoots BG in the head.

kenobi 65
09-21-2011, 09:56 PM
I am reminded of one of the NRA armed citizen stories.
An elderly couple is broken in on. The Bad Guy holds a knife to the wife's throat and says, "Gimme your dough."
"Sure," says the husband, "Let me get my wallet."
He gets a pistol out of his sock drawer and shoots BG in the head.

If that's a true story (would love to see a cite), that Bad Guy had some seriously slow reflexes, if an old man was able to pull a pistol out of a drawer and shoot him in the head before he could react.

Freudian Slit
09-21-2011, 10:07 PM
And good aim.

Mosier
09-21-2011, 10:21 PM
The best way to avoid harm is to comply fully with the criminal.

Maybe that's true when considering crimes individually, but that's missing the big picture. If literally everyone violently resisted robbery attempts every time they occurred, I'd bet robbery incidents would disappear.

Der Trihs
09-21-2011, 10:44 PM
In the real world unlike in Wild West movies, the guy who already has his gun out and pointed is pretty much guaranteed to win a gunfight. Trying to pull one in the middle of a mugging will almost certainly just get you hurt or killed for no return. Your hand and arm aren't as fast as his trigger finger.

Maybe that's true when considering crimes individually, but that's missing the big picture. If literally everyone violently resisted robbery attempts every time they occurred, I'd bet robbery incidents would disappear.Or more likely robbery would always begin with the death or disabling of the victim. No "give me your money or else"; they'd just shoot or stab you right off and loot you once you were on the ground.

Richard Pearse
09-21-2011, 10:46 PM
Maybe that's true when considering crimes individually, but that's missing the big picture. If literally everyone violently resisted robbery attempts every time they occurred, I'd bet robbery incidents would disappear.
Na they'd just kill you first without giving the normal "money or your life" warning.

Mosier
09-21-2011, 10:58 PM
Or more likely robbery would always begin with the death or disabling of the victim. No "give me your money or else"; they'd just shoot or stab you right off and loot you once you were on the ground.

It's much easier for a person to overcome their reluctance to commit theft than it is to overcome reluctance to commit murder. The people that are capable of casual murder already skip the "give me your money or else" phase. Honestly, that's not too many of them.

Richard Pearse
09-21-2011, 11:05 PM
It's much easier for a person to overcome their reluctance to commit theft than it is to overcome reluctance to commit murder. The people that are capable of casual murder already skip the "give me your money or else" phase. Honestly, that's not too many of them.

I suspect that in a society where all robbery is violently resisted the general population would be much less reluctant to commit murder.

There would be fewer robberies sure, but there would be more murder.

Chronos
09-21-2011, 11:11 PM
Quoth RearEchelon:
Depends on the gun. You can get ultra-compact pistols that fit into a holster the size and shape of a billfold. Keep it in your usual wallet pocket, and when the useless waste of life demands your wallet, you give him a belly full of hot lead instead and he doesn't even know it's a gun until he's bleeding out on the concrete.OK, the bleeding out part is simple enough, but how do you get him to fall to the concrete before he shoots you, too? Just because you've shot the dude doesn't mean he's no threat any more, and there's no reason the fight can't end with both of you bleeding to death.

Princhester
09-21-2011, 11:18 PM
It's much easier for a person to overcome their reluctance to commit theft than it is to overcome reluctance to commit murder. The people that are capable of casual murder already skip the "give me your money or else" phase. Honestly, that's not too many of them.

But they need - in cold blood - only overcome their reluctance to commit theft. When you fight back you put them in a hot blooded situation in which they will overcome any reluctance to commit murder very quickly.

Askance
09-21-2011, 11:27 PM
... more liberal-minded states where the convicts have more rights than the citizens!
Given that this is the factual forum, cite?

Argent Towers
09-21-2011, 11:44 PM
If that's a true story (would love to see a cite), that Bad Guy had some seriously slow reflexes, if an old man was able to pull a pistol out of a drawer and shoot him in the head before he could react.

Bad guy was probably under the influence of drugs. I'm under the impression that a lot of burglars/robbers are under the influence of drugs. This has been known to slow reflexes.

Koxinga
09-21-2011, 11:49 PM
I remember reading in Chuck Norris's autobiography that an interviewer asked what Chuck (with hands registered as deadly weapons) would do if he were confronted with mugger demanding his wallet. He surprised the interviewer by responding simply, "I'd give it to him." And he went on to explain that no amount of money is worth the risk of ending a person's life, either your own or the purported Bad Guy's.

handsomeharry
09-22-2011, 12:21 AM
If that's a true story (would love to see a cite), that Bad Guy had some seriously slow reflexes, if an old man was able to pull a pistol out of a drawer and shoot him in the head before he could react.

Or, he only brought a knife to a gun fight...

hh

handsomeharry
09-22-2011, 12:25 AM
I agree with isaiahrobinson.

If the person robbing you has a gun or a knife, how does you having a gun reduce the chances of you getting shot or stabbed? The best way to avoid harm is to comply fully with the criminal.

Not necessarily.
A robber with a weapon, and you with none, leaves your life fully at the good mercies of a felon.
A robber with a weapon and you with one can help equalize the situation.

Full compliance with the demands of a malefactor led to the WTC coming down.

hh

Chronos
09-22-2011, 12:38 AM
Except I don't want the situation equalized; I want the situation where I don't get shot.

Borzo
09-22-2011, 12:46 AM
Not necessarily.
A robber with a weapon, and you with none, leaves your life fully at the good mercies of a felon.
A robber with a weapon and you with one can help equalize the situation.


Most people would avoid murdering someone if they are given what they want, and they are not threatened in the process. The odds of surviving a mugging are pretty high if you give no reason for the criminal to murder you.

I fail to see how having a gun while being mugged, however, would increase my chances of survival. It may "equalize" the situation in that my chances of being mugged might significantly decrease, but if there's a gun-fight with 50-50 odds then:

1) I've reduced my chances of being mugged from 100% down to 50%
2) But I've increased my chances of being murdered from ~0% up to 50%

That kinda "equalization' is not something I'd really want.

I'd rather get mugged a dozen times than be murdered once.

Der Trihs
09-22-2011, 04:11 AM
I suspect that in a society where all robbery is violently resisted the general population would be much less reluctant to commit murder.

There would be fewer robberies sure, but there would be more murder.I agree. If the general population has much less of an inhibition against violence, then it's reasonable that criminals will be at least as uninhibited. For that matter, I expect that there would be a lot more murder that has nothing to do with robbery.

Raguleader
09-22-2011, 05:11 AM
Not necessarily.
A robber with a weapon, and you with none, leaves your life fully at the good mercies of a felon.
A robber with a weapon and you with one can help equalize the situation.

Full compliance with the demands of a malefactor led to the WTC coming down.

hh

And it has also caused the vast majority of hijackings to end with minimal loss of life, which is why it was the advised course of action in hijackings.

The analogy is flawed anyways for the 9/11 attacks because it's not the same thing. The OP isn't asking if it's safer to pull a gun or not when caught in a terrorist attack, they're talking about getting robbed.

Der Trihs
09-22-2011, 05:33 AM
The analogy is flawed anyways for the 9/11 attacks because it's not the same thing. The OP isn't asking if it's safer to pull a gun or not when caught in a terrorist attack, they're talking about getting robbed.And the passengers in the 9-11 attacks also massively outnumbered their enemies, who only had box cutters. I'm not aware of many mugging scenarios where a man with a small blade tries to mug a hundred plus people at once.

Raguleader
09-22-2011, 05:44 AM
And the passengers in the 9-11 attacks also massively outnumbered their enemies, who only had box cutters. I'm not aware of many mugging scenarios where a man with a small blade tries to mug a hundred plus people at once.

In a small enclosed space, with no useable exits (those doors on the plane require an incredible amount of force to open when the plane is at altitude. Superman could do it, but he'd have to make sure he wasn't lifting with his back.)

FasterThanMeerkats
09-22-2011, 07:32 AM
If that's a true story (would love to see a cite), that Bad Guy had some seriously slow reflexes, if an old man was able to pull a pistol out of a drawer and shoot him in the head before he could react.

Not necessarily. We're talking about a Bad Guy who is very distracted trying to simultaneously hold a woman hostage, keep an eye on the man, keep an eye out for anyone else who may enter the house, not worry about anything else that might go wrong, and still get as much loot as possible, and has a lot of adrenaline running through his body that makes complex tasks like all of the above more difficult.

It's a lot going on in a very short time period and it doesn't take much time a gun instead of wallet out of a sock drawer, and the Bad Guy clearly thought there was no danger since he had the wife as a hostage.

Once the gun is visible, there's the "oh shit" moment followed by the flight or fight response.

Bad Guys aren't always professionals or rational, and sometimes if things happen fast enough, it doesn't even matter if they are.

That said, in response the OP, pulling a gun on a mugger is likely to disrupt the immediate mugging process, but skip directly to the flight/fight response, which you hope is flight.

I'd say having a gun at minimum gives you options, which is good. If you think your life is in danger, go for the gun or find some other way to resist or run, otherwise give him your wallet. You don't have to choose the same course of action for each mugging.

Der Trihs
09-22-2011, 07:44 AM
The "old guy shooting a robber in the head" story doesn't sound very believable, and even if its true was incredibly stupid - or psychopathic. After all, what the old man in that scenario is actually doing is seriously risking shooting his wife in order to save some property. Kind of shows his priorities.

Zoe
09-22-2011, 07:59 AM
When I was robbed, I asked the man if I could have my purse back before I gave it to him. He seemed surprised. I told him that it was my favorite and he said, "okay." And he did give it back. He kept the wallet but pitched it out not far from where we were. I had it back the same day.

Why escalate something that may be minor? (Yes, he had a gun. I couldn't tell that it was a BB gun that he had bought earlier after he had robbed someone else.)

I think my teaching experiences helped me to remain reasonably unshaken.

According to my doctor, the gun you own is more likely to kill you or someone in your family than it is an intruder.

willthekittensurvive?
09-22-2011, 08:00 AM
slight non GQ hijack...

what if you are a woman, and being robbed is only the first thing the mugger want to do to you......

saying losing your money is okay, but what will the mugger take aswell,

GaryM
09-22-2011, 08:06 AM
This is one of the websites (http://thearmedcitizen.com/) displaying stories of armed citizens successfully ending robberies and other crimes. There are links to the original story that allw you to click through to the original newspaper or TV report.

Borzo
09-22-2011, 08:17 AM
slight non GQ hijack...

what if you are a woman, and being robbed is only the first thing the mugger want to do to you......

saying losing your money is okay, but what will the mugger take aswell,

I can't see how decreasing your chances of getting raped is worth an increase in your chances of being murdered.

I would only pull out a gun if it decreased my chances of death, not increased it. Those situations are pretty rare outside of warzones.

muldoonthief
09-22-2011, 08:53 AM
The "old guy shooting a robber in the head" story doesn't sound very believable, and even if its true was incredibly stupid - or psychopathic. After all, what the old man in that scenario is actually doing is seriously risking shooting his wife in order to save some property. Kind of shows his priorities.

Well, there's an argument to be made that a person who will break into your house while you're home and hold a knife to your wife's throat isn't acting rationally, and may be planning your injury or death. Not that spinning around and shooting him in the head is a good idea, but acting as if all you need to do is follow his instructions to the letter and everything will definitely turn out OK isn't a great idea either.

md2000
09-22-2011, 09:41 AM
Or more likely robbery would always begin with the death or disabling of the victim. No "give me your money or else"; they'd just shoot or stab you right off and loot you once you were on the ground.

This reminds me of the story about the under-car flamethrowers in South Africa. You stop at a light, someone with a gun comes up to the car and says "get out and give me the keys". Some fellow invented a flame-thrower that would flame-broil anyone standing next to the car doors. IIRC the response was an increase in car thefts where the driver was shot from twenty feet away.

Raguleader
09-22-2011, 09:46 AM
This reminds me of the story about the under-car flamethrowers in South Africa. You stop at a light, someone with a gun comes up to the car and says "get out and give me the keys". Some fellow invented a flame-thrower that would flame-broil anyone standing next to the car doors. IIRC the response was an increase in car thefts where the driver was shot from twenty feet away.

Note to self: Make sure theft-deterrent flamethrower is effective up to 30 feet away.:D

Buck Godot
09-22-2011, 10:10 AM
The "old guy shooting a robber in the head" story doesn't sound very believable, and even if its true was incredibly stupid - or psychopathic. After all, what the old man in that scenario is actually doing is seriously risking shooting his wife in order to save some property. Kind of shows his priorities.

Maybe he just didn't like his wife very much and he actually missed.

carnivorousplant
09-22-2011, 10:18 AM
Maybe he just didn't like his wife very much and he actually missed.

Could be.
And then she wants to reward him for saving her life, probably during his favorite TV show.
:)

drachillix
09-22-2011, 10:47 AM
It's much easier for a person to overcome their reluctance to commit theft than it is to overcome reluctance to commit murder. The people that are capable of casual murder already skip the "give me your money or else" phase. Honestly, that's not too many of them.

As well as the knowledge that a straightforward street mugging in which nobody is hurt will draw little if any real attention from law enforcement, even if caught they will probably at most spend a 6 mo or so in county lockup. The same bad guy knows even if only academically, that if someone ends up seriously hurt or dead the police will throw serious effort into finding the perpetrator who will go to prison for a very long time if caught.

Reyemile
09-22-2011, 12:13 PM
This seems related to a thread I posted here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=624741) about the rate at which mugging turn to shootings. Even if we know the odds of getting ourselves shot by pulling a gun, we can't actually make a useful cost-benefit analysis unless we know the odds of getting shot without pulling the gun (although, of course, even that is of limited utility since statistics and averages have little bearing when your mugger might be on seven different narcotics).

Zeriel
09-22-2011, 12:50 PM
My understanding is A) there are no serious, useful statistics on how gun brandishing without gunfire involved affects mugging scenarios, and that B) trying to draw on someone who's closer than twenty or so feet is a fool's game even for a trained pistol shooter who practices quick draw-aim-fire scenarios.

So for one mugger, one victim? Gun is no help in any reasonably common scenario.

And I say this as a "gun nut" and tactical pistol shooter. I'm with Chuck--giving the guy my wallet is the easiest and safest solution.

Der Trihs
09-22-2011, 03:29 PM
The "old guy shooting a robber in the head" story doesn't sound very believable, and even if its true was incredibly stupid - or psychopathic. After all, what the old man in that scenario is actually doing is seriously risking shooting his wife in order to save some property. Kind of shows his priorities.Well, there's an argument to be made that a person who will break into your house while you're home and hold a knife to your wife's throat isn't acting rationally, and may be planning your injury or death. Not that spinning around and shooting him in the head is a good idea, but acting as if all you need to do is follow his instructions to the letter and everything will definitely turn out OK isn't a great idea either.Given that the guy is going for things to steal, it seems pretty clear his motive is profit not killing. And trying to shoot someone in this scenario with a pistol like that is very dangerous to the hostage. It's the sort of thing that a trained sniper with a rifle and time to prepare pulls off safely; not some old guy hopped up on adrenaline with a (by nature less accurate) pistol.

gonzomax
09-22-2011, 03:50 PM
I worked with a guy who lived in a very tough neighborhood. He was short money one day and asked to borrow 5 bucks. When I gave it to him, he put it in his wallet with a 50. I asked what was that about.? He said if you were robbed you better have money. They would get mad and shoot you if they took the risk for nothing. He called it his" walking around money'.

carnivorousplant
09-22-2011, 03:51 PM
Given that the guy is going for things to steal, it seems pretty clear his motive is profit not killing. And trying to shoot someone in this scenario with a pistol like that is very dangerous to the hostage. It's the sort of thing that a trained sniper with a rifle and time to prepare pulls off safely; not some old guy hopped up on adrenaline with a (by nature less accurate) pistol.

Spoilsport.

Fotheringay-Phipps
09-22-2011, 03:53 PM
When I was mugged, the guy didn't leave me the option of pulling a gun out of my pocket instead of my wallet. He insisted that he put his hands through my pockets and help himself to the contents.

If I had had a gun on me I might have pulled it out anyway, because he didn't show me the gun he claimed he had, and I was skeptical as to whether he actually had one. But as it happened I didn't have a gun, or a lot of money either - only some loose change.

But my point with all this is that if the guy actually had a gun, I would not have had the opportunity to get hold of it.

I don't know if this is SOP for muggers, but this was my experience. It would make sense if other muggers worked the same way, but I don't know. (This guy seemed like a bit of a pro - he also insisted that I walk away from him rather than the other way around, no doubt for similar reasons.)

Re the old guy, I don't know why everyone just assumes that he was some goofy old guy with a gun. He could well have been a guy with extensive experience. Practiced shooters get old too.

isaiahrobinson
09-22-2011, 05:01 PM
Re the old guy, I don't know why everyone just assumes that he was some goofy old guy with a gun. He could well have been a guy with extensive experience. Practiced shooters get old too.

Practised or not, it's probably not a great idea to wheel round at high speed to fire a gun at a guy's head when his head is pressed up against your wife. Unless you're Jack Bauer.

kenobi 65
09-22-2011, 05:08 PM
Practised or not, it's probably not a great idea to wheel round at high speed to fire a gun at a guy's head when his head is pressed up against your wife. Unless you're Jack Bauer.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make: if Bad Guy has a knife against your wife's throat, you're taking a big chance in assuming you're going to be able to pull a pistol out of a dresser drawer, point it at him, and shoot him, all before he can do something with the knife -- even if you are a "practiced shooter".

Chronos
09-22-2011, 07:16 PM
Is there any cite from this story other than compilations of "see how good guns are"? Because those always struck me as being somewhat similar to Penthouse Letters.

Boyo Jim
09-22-2011, 07:20 PM
Is there any cite from this story other than compilations of "see how good guns are"? Because those always struck me as being somewhat similar to Penthouse Letters.

It doesn't matter if it's true, and it probably happened sometime in history. But any cite supporting it would be unlike to contain info about how many other times a husband tried such a thing and ended up shooting his wife, Even if it worked once or twice doesn't mean it's a good idea, as I'm sure you know.

ducati
09-22-2011, 08:00 PM
I turned 48 last week. I can see the finish line from here.
I practice with something like this (http://www.ericstone.com/uploaded_images/Tactical%20target-701328.jpg)often.

I always ingore/deny it, because I don't like to re-live it, but the fact is I did drop a guy with a head shot when he grabbed my wife and held a knife to her side. A guy had hit our car and took off, but I caught him and stopped him. His passenger jumped out and grabbed my then girlfriend and pulled out a knife and told me to take off. I pulled my pistol and put two shots in his face while he was still talking. Driver took off.

I don't get upset because of the shooting. I get upset for putting my wife in danger when I didn't have to. Been 25 years. We don't mention it much.

Anyway, the future may change things, but right now I can shoot as well as I did that day.
Don't want to, but I won't hesitate one moment if it's called for.
If someone's pointing a weapon at me or mine, it's called for. Mozambique time.

Muggings should be dangerous for the mugger. Maybe they'll stop.

gonzomax
09-22-2011, 08:11 PM
Muggings are always dangerous. You never know if your jumping a Bruce Lee or a pro boxer. There are no safety guarantees. They always have to anticipate the worst. It is just business.

handsomeharry
09-22-2011, 09:23 PM
And it has also caused the vast majority of hijackings to end with minimal loss of life, which is why it was the advised course of action in hijackings.

The analogy is flawed anyways for the 9/11 attacks because it's not the same thing. The OP isn't asking if it's safer to pull a gun or not when caught in a terrorist attack, they're talking about getting robbed.

So, you don't find an armed robbery a terrorist attack?

hh

handsomeharry
09-22-2011, 09:26 PM
I fail to see how having a gun while being mugged, however, would increase my chances of survival.

If you cannot think of how it would, then, please, do not carry, or even touch a gun.


hh

Lamia
09-22-2011, 09:31 PM
So, you don't find an armed robbery a terrorist attack?The English language doesn't find an armed robbery to be a terrorist attack.

carnivorousplant
09-23-2011, 01:39 AM
The English language doesn't find an armed robbery to be a terrorist attack.

Please elaborate.
You seem to be using Mr. Webster or the OED to ridicule someone's opinion.
:)

Princhester
09-23-2011, 02:32 AM
Lamia's point is that the standard definition of terrorism broadly involves (or used to involve) the concept of causing severe mayhem (usually death and injury to relatively random sections of the public or the threat thereof) for an indirect political purpose. Armed robbery does not fit that definition in any real way. Firstly the goal is simply direct material gain, and secondly the threats or violence are precisely targetted at the persons who have or are defending the material in order for the robbers to obtain it.

Since 9/11 "terrorism" and "terrorist" have been thrown around by some as broad perjoratives applied to anyone committing signficantly violent acts. I'm no language prescriptivist and if the current loose usage of "terrorism" is now widely understood then so be it but I don't think it has reached that point, and certainly I don't think it serves any purpose to start using what used to be a precisely defined term in a manner so broad as to make the term lose its usefulness.

Raguleader
09-23-2011, 03:20 AM
So, you don't find an armed robbery a terrorist attack?

hh

Not by any real definition of the word, no. Others have explained it sufficiently.

Der Trihs
09-23-2011, 05:44 AM
So, you don't find an armed robbery a terrorist attack?Not unless while they rob you they yell "In the name of the Profit!"

Chronos
09-23-2011, 02:01 PM
Quoth handsomeharry:
If you cannot think of how it would, then, please, do not carry, or even touch a gun.Perhaps you'd like to educate the rest of the class, then? How would being armed preserve your own life? I can see plenty of ways it might shorten the attacker's life, and several ways it might shorten your own, but neither of those is the goal.

Mosier
09-23-2011, 02:23 PM
Perhaps you'd like to educate the rest of the class, then? How would being armed preserve your own life? I can see plenty of ways it might shorten the attacker's life, and several ways it might shorten your own, but neither of those is the goal.

Surely you are not referring to people who carry openly, but only concealed right? Open carrying makes you easily identifiable as a more dangerous target to criminals, some of which might have killed you otherwise.

The cases in which carrying concealed could save your life involve struggling with someone determined to kill you. I know of at least one anecdote from a member of this message board who's life was saved by killing an intruder with his shotgun. He was not carrying concealed at the time, but extrapolating that into a hypothetical scenario involving a concealed weapon is not difficult.

Zeriel
09-23-2011, 02:36 PM
If you cannot think of how it would, then, please, do not carry, or even touch a gun.

Okay, I'm a gun nut. I think full-auto battle rifles should be legal, and ditto with unrestricted national concealed-carry. I say that so you aren't tempted to throw off a glib snarky answer when I say that I cannot see how being armed increases your chances of survival in a real-world mugging situation except in the aggregate, which we are expressly not talking about.

So come back and explain it to me. How does having a concealed weapon enable me to draw, aim, and fire faster than a criminal who is within a few feet of me can stab my balls off or shoot me first.

ETA:

Surely you are not referring to people who carry openly, but only concealed right? Open carrying makes you easily identifiable as a more dangerous target to criminals, some of which might have killed you otherwise.

The cases in which carrying concealed could save your life involve struggling with someone determined to kill you. I know of at least one anecdote from a member of this message board who's life was saved by killing an intruder with his shotgun. He was not carrying concealed at the time, but extrapolating that into a hypothetical scenario involving a concealed weapon is not difficult.

We're not talking about that. We're expressly and only talking about the (far, far more common) situation in which you are currently being mugged, with all the typical attendants--surprise on the part of the mugger, a demand for your cash, and likely a weapon in evidence in the criminal's possession.

Fotheringay-Phipps
09-23-2011, 03:06 PM
About 15 or so years ago, I strongly considered getting a gun. Not for the mugging scenarios being discussed here - I wasn't going to be walking about town with a gun anyway. I was thinking of the situation when it's late at night and you hear some strange noises from some other part of the house, and you go there to investigate. You feel a lot safer going there to investigate with a gun in hand than you would without one.

It's not foolproof either, because if it is a robber and he has a gun and hears you coming, he would possibly whip out his own gun while waiting for you (if he chooses to wait) and as soon as he sees your gun in hand, there's a good chance he would shoot. That said, my guess is that the odds are tilted in your favor in that situation. (Although you also need to be sure that you don't mistake some family member or visitor for a robber and start shooting.)

But at the time, I spoke to a guy I knew who was from Texas and was familiar with guns. His basic point was that unless you practiced shooting a lot, you would have very little chance of hitting anything at the distance you'd be likely to encounter someone. Apparently it looks a lot easier than it is.

And that killed it for me. I wasn't interested enough to spend the time and money in practicing shooting, and when you add that to the need to keep the gun in a place that would be readily accessible to you when you suddenly needed it, but yet not accessible to the kids, plus the need to keep the gun cleaned or oiled or whatever, it just wasn't worth the hassle.

Fortunately I'm still alive, despite any number of strange noises since then. :)

BTW, I do know that they advise kids (& presumably adults as well) that if someone comes up to them in the street and shows them a gun and says to get into their vehicle, to not comply, but rather to run for it. The thinking is that there's a good chance the guy won't shoot (especially in a public place) and even if he does, there's a good chance he'll miss or hit in some non-life threatening area. Whereas if you get into the guy's car your chances are a lot worse.

Borzo
09-23-2011, 03:10 PM
The cases in which carrying concealed could save your life involve struggling with someone determined to kill you.

Muggers, by definition, probably just want your money or your stuff. Their goal isn't to kill you. By drawing your weapon, however, you probably increase your own chances of being killed or injured.

There are plenty of cases where a firearm might save your life, sure. Mugging isn't really one of those situations though. I have yet to see a single person suggest a realistic scenario where having a firearm would increase your chances of surviving a mugging. In general, your chances of surviving are pretty high to start off with, and I can't see how a firearm would do anything but reduce your survival chances.

Blaster Master
09-23-2011, 03:33 PM
I think there's a lot of assumptions in this thread about the motivations of the criminal, but it's all about the motivations of the criminal that determines whether or not using a gun will make a difference. Sure, it's safer not to pull a gun IF you're sure that your attacker is acting rationally, but that isn't guaranteed. But at the same time, a rational attacker, when faced with potential injury or death, wouldn't proceed with the attack or would retreat at the first sign of a threat. But if your attacker isn't acting rationally, one has no reason to believe that it's "just a business transaction" and one has to attempt to determine his intentions.

To that end, I think if one were randomly mugged while out at night, it's probably safest to just comply. His motivations are clear, avenues of escape are available, and it's a very quick interaction. However, if someone enter's your home, he may be there to burglarize or he may be there for some other reason, and avenues of escape of greatly reduced, and it involves more effort to initiate and sustain the intereaction. In the latter case, I wouldn't hesitate for a second to shoot an invader in my home.


As for actual statistics for a factual answer, I'm not sure what you'll find. As mentioned upthread, there are several pro-gun rights groups that track gun usage to protect victims and I imagine there's anti-gun groups that track gun crimes and such, so I'm unsure if you'll be able to find any meaningful unbiased cites.

constanze
09-24-2011, 11:56 AM
About 15 or so years ago, I strongly considered getting a gun. Not for the mugging scenarios being discussed here - I wasn't going to be walking about town with a gun anyway. I was thinking of the situation when it's late at night and you hear some strange noises from some other part of the house, and you go there to investigate. You feel a lot safer going there to investigate with a gun in hand than you would without one.

I still haven't got a satisfactory answer to this typical scenario of home-invasion by criminals that pro-gun-advocates always keep bringing up: why in the heck is the natural impluse against fear of criminals breaking in to get a gun instead of getting an alarm system?

Do you sleep so lightly that you will wake up when somebody enters? Are the criminals all so incompetent that they break in with a lot of noise instead of just cracking the lock or silently breaking a window?
Have you never heard that houses "settle" and make noises all by themselves?
Why would you want to investigate noises outside the bedroom if you think criminals are around, instead of defending your bedroom? By moving away from one room, you open the possibility of being attacked from behind, when all the guns in the world won't help you.
Why would criminals break into a house with people sleeping inside vs. breaking in when people are absent on work or vacation?

Is this scenario really common, or just used a lot? The other side to this that the pro-gun-control people bring out is that most of the people shot sneaking around the house at night are teenagers coming home after curfew and therefore sneaking.

Chronos
09-24-2011, 12:13 PM
Quoth Zeriel:
So come back and explain it to me. How does having a concealed weapon enable me to draw, aim, and fire faster than a criminal who is within a few feet of me can stab my balls off or shoot me first.It's worse than that, since he doesn't even have to shoot or stab you first. He can still do that after you shoot him, too. Guns are good for killing, but they're not good for killing instantly, or even incapacitating instantly. Even if you get off a good center-of-cross-section shot on your assailant, he's still got several seconds or minutes in which to continue to fight. He'll probably bleed to death shortly thereafter, but him bleeding to death in a few minutes isn't going to do anything to help you.

pkbites
09-24-2011, 12:32 PM
I've gone over many scenarios of robbery in my head and there are many different responses. Each situation is different and requires a different response.

First of all, while I always carry the same pistol (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-91155.html) I don't always carry it in the same manner. What I am doing and, more importantly, what I am wearing dictate how I carry. In a perfect life I would carry in the same manner at all times. That's not possible. But I would rather be carrying in a manner less tactical than others than to not be carrying at all.

Walking my dog: Open (http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2010/04/17/mn-opencarry18_P_0501451128.jpg) carry on my hip.

Hot summer day wearing just shorts and a tee shirt: front pocket (http://www.pocketholsters.com/Glock_Pocket-Wallet_Holster/a_glock26.jpg) carry in a pocket holster.

Wearing long pants and a shirt, but no over shirt or jacket: Ankel (http://masterofconcealment.com/images/magick_cache/pgroup_6944_image_115x115____shadow.jpg) holster.

Blue jeans and a shirt but no jacket: I have a pouch (http://i.ebayimg.com/t/New-GunMate-handgun-pouch-holster-concealed-carry-/10/!CBQEgUQ!Wk~$%28KGrHqUOKjUE0Qzk!5PBBNG3lvtpCQ~~_35.JPG) that looks like a camera bag that goes on a pants belt. I sewed a patch from a popular camera maker on it to make it seem more like a camera bag.

Suit w/jacket: Carry on hip concealing with the jacket, or in the inside side pocket of the suit coat using Clip Draw (http://www.safehomeconsulting.com/images/clipdraw.jpg)

Winter coat: carry inside the pocket of the coat. Sometimes freely, sometimes in a pocket holster.

Some of these are more tactical than others. Getting a pistol out of an ankle holster with a gun pointed at me while I was standing would not work out well. Getting it out while sitting (such as during an attempted car-jacking) works very well and I've practiced it.

A robber turns around at the gas station he's robbing, points his gun at me and says "give me your money too" is going to get it. If he has a knife I'm going to retreat and draw if possible. If I can't, he's going to get the money. If I'm wearing a winter coat I'm going to shoot through the pocket. If it seems like the robber is going to hurt me whether he get's the money or not, I'm going to take whatever measure I can to fight back. Every scenario has a different response. It's impossible to address them all here.

A person pointing a weapon at you has exhibited the 3 required justifications for using lethal force: Weapon, intent, delivery system. Having a someone point a weapon at you without your consent is enough to articulate that you feared for your life. You do not need the robber to verbalize they intend to harm you to use force against them. If they didn't intend to harm you they shouldn't be pointing a gun/knife at you. It's insincere.

Fotheringay-Phipps
09-26-2011, 11:59 AM
I still haven't got a satisfactory answer to this typical scenario of home-invasion by criminals that pro-gun-advocates always keep bringing up: why in the heck is the natural impluse against fear of criminals breaking in to get a gun instead of getting an alarm system?Many people do get alarm systems. Alarm systems have their own issues, including cost, false alarms, and that they can apparently be defeated by criminals.

Do you sleep so lightly that you will wake up when somebody enters? Are the criminals all so incompetent that they break in with a lot of noise instead of just cracking the lock or silently breaking a window?It's common for people to wake up in such circumstances.Why would you want to investigate noises outside the bedroom if you think criminals are around, instead of defending your bedroom?Because you have kids and/or stuff in other rooms.Why would criminals break into a house with people sleeping inside vs. breaking in when people are absent on work or vacation?You've got to ask criminals that. I can think of a lot of reasons, but it's irrelevant for this discussion, because the fact is that they do all the time, which is enough for our purposes.

Chronos
09-26-2011, 01:57 PM
A person pointing a weapon at you has exhibited the 3 required justifications for using lethal force: Weapon, intent, delivery system.No doubt, but by that point, it's too late for you pulling a gun to do any good. Do you really think you can draw, aim, and hit his heart or central nervous system before he can fire his already drawn and aimed gun and hit you anywhere on your head or torso?

Frylock
09-26-2011, 02:50 PM
I hope the OP didn't need his answer on the spot.

Fotheringay-Phipps
09-26-2011, 02:54 PM
Well you notice he hasn't returned to this thread. dum dudumdum ...

isaiahrobinson
09-26-2011, 03:00 PM
But at the time, I spoke to a guy I knew who was from Texas and was familiar with guns. His basic point was that unless you practiced shooting a lot, you would have very little chance of hitting anything at the distance you'd be likely to encounter someone. Apparently it looks a lot easier than it is.

I remember reading about why soldiers and policemen are taught to always aim for the center of body mass when shooting at a target - despite the fact that shooting someone in the leg might produce a result they'd prefer, especially for police - which was that "miss" rates are surprisingly high even amongst professional policemen and soldiers who've had training and spent years on the shooting range. Telling them to aim for legs or arms would make them miss even more often. God knows what the hit rates would be for amateur shooters who might not have even had training or all that much practice. It's just a very difficult skill to hit a moving target in a high-adrenaline situation.

ralph124c
09-26-2011, 03:06 PM
In Massachusetts, should you wound or kill a robber, you will be sued by his family-and probably made to pay an enormous fine (plus your legal bills).
And if your weapon is unregistered, you will face heavy penalties.
So do the safe thing-allow yorself to be robbed, and pray that the perp won't kill you!

kenobi 65
09-26-2011, 04:31 PM
In Massachusetts, should you wound or kill a robber, you will be sued by his family-and probably made to pay an enormous fine (plus your legal bills).

As this is the GQ forum, ralph...cite? Even an example of where this has actually happened once in Massachusetts would be good.

ralph124c
09-26-2011, 05:02 PM
Here ya go:http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1096730

kenobi 65
09-26-2011, 05:22 PM
Here ya go:http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1096730

OK, a few things:
1) The original story in that thread is in Wisconsin, not Massachusetts. And, in that story, the bad guy is, indeed filing suit, but frivolous or spurious lawsuits get filed all the time. Whether or not he'll actually win is another story.

2) So, I'm guessing you're referring to the reply in post #34, on page 2 of that thread:
"In my MA CCW class the instructor who is a police detective retired _strongly_ advised us all to not shoot anyone in the back on the street or at home while in the state of MA. He repeated this multiple times as it being a recipe for a nearly guaranteed lose in criminal and/or civil court."

Even if you set aside that this is second-hand information (i.e., "a police detective told me this..."), there are three important words in there: "in the back". If a mugger is threatening you, and you shoot at him, you are not shooting him "in the back", you are shooting him "in the front". This has nothing to do with a guy being able to sue you for shooting him while he is trying to mug you -- it has everything to do with a guy being able to sue you for shooting him while he is running away from you.

I'd still like to see an actual cite of a case in which a mugger was shot by the muggee, and successfully sued.

Bryan Ekers
09-26-2011, 05:36 PM
So to summarize the thread, the answer to the OP's general question is "maybe."

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 05:44 PM
Well, Sgt. Tueller (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm) says if your mugger doesn't let you know you're about to be mugged when he's ~21 feet away . . . you're probably not going to get to use your gun.

CMC fnord!

Been mugged 3 times in my life. Everytime it happened, I knew for about 45 seconds that it was coming, only an oblivious idiot in a bad neighborhood can't tell who is eyeing him up. I made it out 3 times alive with no gun, but one time I got roughed up, and since there were 5 of them (or more I'm not sure) I could've easily been killed...

But no matter what any experts say, I will say "OF COURSE" a gun makes you safer in a mugging, unless it's some stupid hypothetical where they already have a gun aimed at you and you then pull one...of course they will shoot. If you have a gun pulled first to show them you're not the mark and tell them "Get away from me", you will be fine.

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 05:50 PM
It's clearly much more "dangerous" to pull a gun. There's not even a question about that. If a robber pulls a gun on you and demands your wallet, and you respond by putting your hands up and complying, it's not likely he's going to shoot you anyway - it's happened, but it's not likely.

I would agree with you but I don't believe that it's typical for a mugger to actually pull the gun first. In my multiple times of being mugged, they just claim they have one and you should give them the money...not even hands in their pocket ready to go. Then they let YOU go in YOUR own pocket to give them money, which is a perfect opportunity to shoot them.

The only way you can stack the deck against it being safer to carry a gun is if their gun is already trained on you...which in my experience is uncommon (as in hasn't happened). The reason they don't pull the gun is so that when they are inevitably caught, they will try to claim they never had a gun during the robbery.

Once on the Redline train in Chicago at 3am going home to the southside, 3 guys came on the train, 2 watchmen and the guy who approached me and demanded money. Having been robbed multiple times I demanded to see his gun before I would give him any money. Even if I had been carrying in this situation I would've given him the money because I could tell he wasn't an evil wild person like some of the other thugs running around, and that the money would satisfy him and let me be. But some muggers truly get a kick out of the power, and with three of them and one of me, if they weren't satisfied with my meagre money, it would've been safer for me to be able to fight back...

It is always safer to carry. Now, SOCIETY wise it is safer for all if there are no guns, I will agree. But putting yourself at disadvantage tactically requires some voodoo to be more safe imo. :dubious:

Chronos
09-26-2011, 05:56 PM
But no matter what any experts say, I will say "OF COURSE" a gun makes you safer in a mugging, unless it's some stupid hypothetical where they already have a gun aimed at you and you then pull one...of course they will shoot. If you have a gun pulled first to show them you're not the mark and tell them "Get away from me", you will be fine. So you're advocating shooting the muggers before they actually do anything to you? There's a legal term for that.

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 06:09 PM
So you're advocating shooting the muggers before they actually do anything to you? There's a legal term for that.

What do you think a mugging is? It is a threat on your life, if you do not give them money. Suppose you don't have any money on you?

And in the specific paragraph you quoted I went OUT OF MY WAY to say that you pull a gun and say "Get away from me", do you process?

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 06:18 PM
I worked with a guy who lived in a very tough neighborhood. He was short money one day and asked to borrow 5 bucks. When I gave it to him, he put it in his wallet with a 50. I asked what was that about.? He said if you were robbed you better have money. They would get mad and shoot you if they took the risk for nothing. He called it his" walking around money'.

I was robbed once when I had 7 dollars on me, and the mugger was FURIOUS and kept screaming that I was holding out on him. The only thing that saved me was that I was wearing my Subway sandwiches apron and hat where I had just got off of work...I convinced him I wasn't holding out because I was poor and worked at Subway.

After that I started keeping "walk around money" on me in case I got robbed. But any person who sits at their computer claiming all muggers are always rational will get a big :rolleyes: from me. Some of them want money, some of them want money AND to hurt you for fun. I fully complied with a group of muggers by emptying my pockets and they got my wallet with money AND an ipod, and for no reason one of them started punching me in the face for fun.

It's hard to believe, but there really are people who enjoy hurting others the same way some of us play video games.

Raguleader
09-26-2011, 06:29 PM
I remember reading about why soldiers and policemen are taught to always aim for the center of body mass when shooting at a target - despite the fact that shooting someone in the leg might produce a result they'd prefer, especially for police - which was that "miss" rates are surprisingly high even amongst professional policemen and soldiers who've had training and spent years on the shooting range. Telling them to aim for legs or arms would make them miss even more often. God knows what the hit rates would be for amateur shooters who might not have even had training or all that much practice. It's just a very difficult skill to hit a moving target in a high-adrenaline situation.

Also, because a gun is a deadly weapon. There's no "stun" setting on it. If you are shooting someone, you are shooting them with the intent and goal of ending their lives because you deem it necessary. Leg and arm shots can still be lethal, so at worst, all you will do is give them an injury that will kill them but take much longer to do it than a center-of-mass shot.

Zeriel
09-26-2011, 06:33 PM
So to summarize the thread, the answer to the OP's general question is "maybe."

I would call it "absolutely not, except in the most contrived circumstances".

I would agree with you but I don't believe that it's typical for a mugger to actually pull the gun first. In my multiple times of being mugged, they just claim they have one and you should give them the money...not even hands in their pocket ready to go. Then they let YOU go in YOUR own pocket to give them money, which is a perfect opportunity to shoot them.

Do you honestly think you can accomplish this? Do you train a draw from your pocket? Do you carry unholstered in a normal pocket?

If you live anywhere near central PA, I will bet you $500 that I can take your gun or stab you with a rubber knife before you put a hole in me 7 of 10 times or better in the situation you describe, using an Airsoft pistol and not assaulting you until I can clearly see it's a gun in the semi-dark of a streetlight.

In Massachusetts, should you wound or kill a robber, you will be sued by his family-and probably made to pay an enormous fine (plus your legal bills).

You are wrong. You cannot cite a single court case where this has happened in which the robber was not fleeing. If you are pro-gun, stop it, I don't want you on my side.

Chronos
09-26-2011, 06:36 PM
And in the specific paragraph you quoted I went OUT OF MY WAY to say that you pull a gun and say "Get away from me", do you process? I was assuming that when you said you would pull a gun, you intended to shoot the person you were pulling it on. Who, apparently, has done nothing more at this point than just being too close to you.

Bryan Ekers
09-26-2011, 06:40 PM
I would call it "absolutely not, except in the most contrived circumstances".

I wouldn't have thought an "absolute" answer would have exceptions, but okay....

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 10:35 PM
I would call it "absolutely not, except in the most contrived circumstances".



Do you honestly think you can accomplish this? Do you train a draw from your pocket? Do you carry unholstered in a normal pocket?

I don't have a CCW, but I have plenty of experience shooting. Yes, I do think I can do this because the guy I am thinking of was dividing his attention 50% between me and watching around to see if anyone was coming by.

You are vastly over estimating the abilities of gang members, they can't actually fight one on one very well.

If you live anywhere near central PA, I will bet you $500 that I can take your gun or stab you with a rubber knife before you put a hole in me 7 of 10 times or better in the situation you describe, using an Airsoft pistol and not assaulting you until I can clearly see it's a gun in the semi-dark of a streetlight.

I have seen these exact demos and I don't really care WTF you can do, I don't believe a gang member who doesn't even have a knife visible can react to me pulling out a gun as opposed to a wallet fast enough to stab me in the dark, while he is watching for cops. Gang members are not martial artists and the type of reaction you are talking about has nothing to do with mugging someone.


You are wrong. You cannot cite a single court case where this has happened in which the robber was not fleeing. If you are pro-gun, stop it, I don't want you on my side.

edit: didn't realize you weren't talking to me here, sorry.

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 10:39 PM
I was assuming that when you said you would pull a gun, you intended to shoot the person you were pulling it on.

Are you being intentionally dense? When I said "I pull a gun and say 'Get away from me!'" you thought I was intending to shoot no matter what?

Who, apparently, has done nothing more at this point than just being too close to you.

You haven't been mugged before. Someone who says "Give me all your money or I'll kill you" is doing far more to you than being too close. You're lucky if you can keep your naivety your whole life, buddy. :rolleyes:

Princhester
09-26-2011, 10:41 PM
Nevermind, post I was responding to was edited to remove comment I was going to comment on.

rogerbox
09-26-2011, 10:47 PM
BTW I agree there are situations you cannot draw fast enough, but in EVERY case of me being mugged I was in a bad neighborhood and if I had had a weapon, I would've had it in a position I could grab it very quickly (and in fact on the southside at 3am coming home on the El, I would've walked with it openly, it isn't like there's police around).

In all 3 instances I was mugged I had at least 30 seconds of EXTREME awareness something bad was going to happen with which I could've armed myself and made enough threat for the muggers that they would've moved on to look for someone else, had I a weapon. But someone stepping 3 feet from you with their hands in their pocket, yeah it's better to just pay. But you guys who think a weapon can NEVER help you...

Borzo
09-26-2011, 11:01 PM
If someone tries to mug you and says "Gimme all your money, or I'll kill you!" -- is it morally okay to shoot and kill them to avoid giving up your wallet?

What if you draw a gun and say "Get away from me!", but instead, they lunge towards you or pull a weapon of their own?

Is it morally okay to escalate a situation to a point where you'll be - more or less - forced to shoot them?

Zeriel
09-26-2011, 11:30 PM
You are vastly over estimating the abilities of gang members, they can't actually fight one on one very well.

I don't believe this is relevant at all. Also, when exactly was the last time you conducted a study of gang member's fighting abilities?

I have seen these exact demos and I don't really care WTF you can do, I don't believe a gang member who doesn't even have a knife visible can react to me pulling out a gun as opposed to a wallet fast enough to stab me in the dark, while he is watching for cops. Gang members are not martial artists and the type of reaction you are talking about has nothing to do with mugging someone.

Neither am I, so what? I'm a pudgy guy in my thirties, are you asserting I'm somehow going to be vastly more capable than a gangbanger at a fistfight?

I stand by it--if you try this in real life, you're going to get your ass beaten down and your gun taken from you. And that's nothing personal--I wouldn't bet on me in that situation, and I DO practice quickdraws and tactical shooting.

The bottom line is this--I don't believe you can have your gun in a place that's simultaneously

Completely concealed
Easy to quickdraw and bring to bear
A plausible location for you to pull a wallet from

unless you're in a winter coat or something.

In all 3 instances I was mugged I had at least 30 seconds of EXTREME awareness something bad was going to happen with which I could've armed myself and made enough threat for the muggers that they would've moved on to look for someone else, had I a weapon. But someone stepping 3 feet from you with their hands in their pocket, yeah it's better to just pay. But you guys who think a weapon can NEVER help you...

This does not match my experiences with being mugged, nor the experiences of anyone I know who's been mugged. At all.

Also: the thesis was "a weapon getting involved is ALWAYS going to increase your personal risk of injury/death in a mugging situation". I STILL stand by that assessment.

GusNSpot
09-27-2011, 12:10 AM
I want the gizmo that tells me or my wife that this is only a straight mugging, or simple home robbery etc. Sure will keep bad guys alive longer around me. ..... Not.

Borzo, Yes, yes & yes..... In my moral system.

You all notice up thread where ptkbites gave you all those different situations? Well, he has already decided what he is going to do in different situations. The point: Ha has seriously thought about it. if you have not done so, during the event is way too late to start.

When I had / have children in my home, any unauthorized entry will be met with deadly force, even it it turns out to be a 12 year old girl with a Swiss army itty bitty knife in her hand. That decision has already been made.

I have had a Sister raped twice.

My 18 year old daughter was murdered.

I can guarantee you that not having a gun or weapon at hand did not save them. So having one could not have made it worse.

If you can not take a life, do not carry.

But to set up a scenario that you can not be sure what it is and then say what would be the thing to do is silly.

You have to decide in advance in general.

Break in my house and I will not wait to see what you are doing, I will assume the worse and take you out.

Same for pointing a weapon at me. Do that and I fear for my life and I will do my best to kill you as fast as I can. That decision is already made.

If you can not kill, do not tell others what they should do.

Anyone can dream up a cut & dried situation that has a high % correct solution. It does not have anything to do with real life and to go all pontificating about right & wrong is silly.

YMMV

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 12:21 AM
Anyone can dream up a cut & dried situation that has a high % correct solution. It does not have anything to do with real life and to go all pontificating about right & wrong is silly.

Do you think, in a typical mugging, your possession of a firearm increases or decreases your chances of being injured or killed?

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 01:07 AM
If someone tries to mug you and says "Gimme all your money, or I'll kill you!" -- is it morally okay to shoot and kill them to avoid giving up your wallet?

Yes. I am not even a conservative who worships property above all else. The falacy you are making is that you think that because they add the "give me your money!" part. They are threatening to KILL YOU, it doesn't matter if they give you an "out", your life is being threatened and you have no way of knowing if it will end at the money. You are morally justified to kill someone in self defense who has threatened your life, period.

What if you draw a gun and say "Get away from me!", but instead, they lunge towards you or pull a weapon of their own?

I'm trying to come up with a person who just threatened to kill you who would lunge at a gun you draw and orders to "Get away from me!" who you'd be safer against WITHOUT a gun.

I got nothin'.
Is it morally okay to escalate a situation to a point where you'll be - more or less - forced to shoot them?

You're not forced to shoot them because they can walk away at any time. They put you in a self defense situation where it is morally okay to do nearly anything to them as long as they are not retreating peacefully.

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 01:13 AM
I don't believe this is relevant at all. Also, when exactly was the last time you conducted a study of gang member's fighting abilities?

I've seen multiple gang members fight in real life and also online. I have rarely been impressed.


Neither am I, so what? I'm a pudgy guy in my thirties, are you asserting I'm somehow going to be vastly more capable than a gangbanger at a fistfight?

I'm saying gang members don't tend to lunge at people who point guns at them and they are not anticipating someone fighting back, they pick their victims based on who they think will be afraid of them, and they are preoccupied with watching out for the police, your stupid idiotic excercise with foam knives and airsoft is about as realistic as Call of Duty is to middle eastern warfare.

I stand by it--if you try this in real life, you're going to get your ass beaten down and your gun taken from you. And that's nothing personal--I wouldn't bet on me in that situation, and I DO practice quickdraws and tactical shooting.

You are overestimating the reflexes and fighting ability of the thug and UNDER estimating their fear of getting shot. Also I have never been mugged where a weapon was brandished first, in my head we are assuming no one is holding any weapon, otherwise I would agree with you.

The bottom line is this--I don't believe you can have your gun in a place that's simultaneously

Completely concealed
Easy to quickdraw and bring to bear
A plausible location for you to pull a wallet from

unless you're in a winter coat or something.

Care to respond to my statement that all 3 times I have been mugged I was aware something bad was about to happen at least 30 seconds to a minute before anyone approached me? If I had had a weapon on me I would've pulled it and then NO ONE would have even approached me to threaten my life for money in the first place.

I am willing to concede there are times it will be a liability, the fact that you cannot imagine a single situation where a weapon wouldn't help you in a mugging is wishful thinking on your part.

Captain Amazing
09-27-2011, 01:37 AM
OK, a few things:
1) The original story in that thread is in Wisconsin, not Massachusetts. And, in that story, the bad guy is, indeed filing suit, but frivolous or spurious lawsuits get filed all the time. Whether or not he'll actually win is another story.


Just for the record, the judge did dismiss the case, saying, in part,

Certainly [Prochaska] could not expect that the startled homeowner confronted at night by an intruder will calmly ask the burglar to sit down at the kitchen table, drink a cup of herbal tea and join in a chorus of ‘Kum Bay Yah.’

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/mar/06/judge-dismisses-burglars-lawsuit/

Regarding Massachussetts, it was the case in the '70s that it wasn't a defense against a murder charge that the person was in your house illegally unless, basically, you tried to escape and they wouldn't let you. See Commonwealth v Shaffer (1975).

But Governor Dukakis pardoned that woman and the Mass. legislature changed the law to read:

In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Borzo
09-27-2011, 07:51 AM
I agree with GusNSpot that if your life is threatened, or those of your loved-ones, use of deadly force is acceptable (I don't think anyone is arguing against that). However, I have had cases where people have entered my home accidentally (there was a real estate showing next door, contractors coming to the wrong address, neighbour's friends coming over at night - but to the wrong house, etc)... I probably wouldn't shoot on sight, and I assume GusNSpot will use a bit of discretion before his policy of "shoot first, ask later" is put into effect.

That said, if it's 3am, your doors are locked, and you hear windows breaking, that's a different matter altogether. If people break into my home under such circumstances, I'd do my best to not "shoot first, ask later"... but realistically such an option might not be available. If I sneak a peak and see a single dude with a visible gun, I'd probably take the first shot with no warning, to be honest.


Yes. I am not even a conservative who worships property above all else. The falacy you are making is that you think that because they add the "give me your money!" part. They are threatening to KILL YOU, it doesn't matter if they give you an "out", your life is being threatened and you have no way of knowing if it will end at the money. You are morally justified to kill someone in self defence who has threatened your life, period.

This is interesting. I've always thought that if they "give you an out" then you should be morally bound to take the out, instead of taking their life (provided that it seems reasonable that they just want your money, and no more).

But as for "you have no way of knowing if it will end at the money" part.... Usually muggings end there. In the specific case of on-the-street-muggings, how would their demands escalate? They're not gonna ask for your kidney. What more could muggers want? (I'm willing to make an exception for women, and drunk/drugged/non-rational muggers, obviously... but that's something you should be able to assess when being mugged - as I detail below.)


You're not forced to shoot them because they can walk away at any time. They put you in a self defense situation where it is morally okay to do nearly anything to them as long as they are not retreating peacefully.

True, they can always retreat, so it's not a forced situation.


My main issue is this:

I want the gizmo that tells me or my wife that this is only a straight mugging, or simple home robbery etc. Sure will keep bad guys alive longer around me. ..... Not.

If the assumption is that it is a straight mugging, then I fail to see how there is any justification for killing the mugger. I can't find any conceivable moral ground for killing someone due to the fact that they want to forcefully take your wallet.

I've never been mugged, I'll be honest, but I have had friends who've been mugged almost a dozen times each. And I can say that the muggings fall into 2 very specific categories:

1) The perpetrator is drunk or on drugs, or is in desperate need of drugs. This has happened in shitty neighbourhoods. Guns are never shown, but threats of guns abound. Knives are occasionally pointed at the victim. The attacker is nervous, uncertain, belligerent, etc. Sometimes after the mugging, the attacker(s) beat the shit out of the victim. None of my friends have been female, but if they had been, I could see the situation escalating to sexual assault. In cases like these, I'd be tempted to draw a gun and shoot at the first sign of anything but immediate retreat. (Unless of course there's several attackers.)

2) The attackers are professionals. They hit victims in upscale neighbourhoods. They may have a car as well. There's always more than one of them. If they claim to have a gun, they show it immediately. They are not drunk, or distracted, but are fully focused on you and your hands. Usually they demand you get on the ground immediately and they search you for weapons, wallets, phones, etc. A second attacker is usually keeping an eye out. Sometimes there is a 3rd. Once they have your stuff, they either tie your hands, put on a blindfold, and tell you to count to 100 before moving a muscle. They then leave. They don't try to carve out your kidneys, they don't try to rape you, they just want your money/stuff, and that's it.

In case #1 there is reason to believe that no matter what they say, you might end up hurt no matter what. Using a weapon as proactive defence might be okay. But in case #2, I can't see why anyone would even attempt at drawing a gun. It would be suicide.

My friend worked as a security guard in one of the slummiest neighbourhoods in my city. He was victim of #1 quite a bit. Having a triple blackbelt, he occasionally felt the need to subdue the attackers, and it often worked out well. My other friend lives in a very nice neighbourhood, but walks home late at night often. He's been the victim of three cases as described in #2. He's complied with them, because while he felt scared, he also felt sure that his life was never in any real danger, provided he complied with their demands.

I guess this discussion, and people's opinions on it, are very dependant on what type of muggings we're describing, and people's personal experiences.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 08:53 AM
Care to respond to my statement that all 3 times I have been mugged I was aware something bad was about to happen at least 30 seconds to a minute before anyone approached me? If I had had a weapon on me I would've pulled it and then NO ONE would have even approached me to threaten my life for money in the first place.

Based on my own personal experiences? I do think this statement reeks of selection bias, yes. By your own admission, you were in a bad neighborhood and on your guard already--how many times did you THINK something bad was going to happen and then it didn't?

Maybe you get some kind of weepy wuss-thug out wherever you are, I dunno. Everyplace I've been, your average thug is either high on macho bullshit or meth, and either believes he can kick your ass (the former) or doesn't care (the latter), and in either case is substantially likely to have been in more fights than "you" and thus have a much better idea of how to handle himself in them.

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 10:20 AM
Based on my own personal experiences? I do think this statement reeks of selection bias, yes. By your own admission, you were in a bad neighborhood and on your guard already--how many times did you THINK something bad was going to happen and then it didn't?

It doesn't matter (the answer is none, the feeling of dread is when you see someone eyeing you up and you know exactly what is going to happen). If nothing had happened when I pulled a weapon, there would be no consequences, except if a cop saw it because handguns are completely illegal in Chicago. But considering the neighborhood at that time of night the chances of a cop being around were near zero.

I could've avoided an unneccessary beating if I had brandished a gun at the group that I saw coming down the street 2 blocks away unavoidably with bandanas on their faces at 3am. They also let me go into my own pockets, btw.

Maybe you get some kind of weepy wuss-thug out wherever you are, I dunno. Everyplace I've been, your average thug is either high on macho bullshit or meth, and either believes he can kick your ass (the former) or doesn't care (the latter), and in either case is substantially likely to have been in more fights than "you" and thus have a much better idea of how to handle himself in them.

South side of Chicago. Gangsters don't actually fight hand to hand one on one, they either shoot you or they administer beatings because they have a weapon and you don't and/or they have 5x more friends than you do. Thugs don't streetfight in duels which is the type of fantasy LARP crap you are talking about.

I don't know why you would think some gang member is some quickdraw knife expert who will charge a gun, but your scenario is utterly stupid and shows you don't have the faintest idea about gang members or being mugged.

Chronos
09-27-2011, 12:06 PM
Quoth rogerbox:
Are you being intentionally dense? When I said "I pull a gun and say 'Get away from me!'" you thought I was intending to shoot no matter what? Why in the Hell are you pulling a gun on someone you don't intend to shoot? Even I know that the first rule of gun safety is "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy". If you're not intending to shoot, then the proper course of action is to leave your gun in its holster. Or at home locked in a safe, maybe.

Borzo
09-27-2011, 12:52 PM
Why in the Hell are you pulling a gun on someone you don't intend to shoot? Even I know that the first rule of gun safety is "Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy". If you're not intending to shoot, then the proper course of action is to leave your gun in its holster. Or at home locked in a safe, maybe.

Well to be fair, in context, I think he means that he is ready to shoot - but is also willing to give the guy a chance to back off.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 01:36 PM
South side of Chicago. Gangsters don't actually fight hand to hand one on one, they either shoot you or they administer beatings because they have a weapon and you don't and/or they have 5x more friends than you do. Thugs don't streetfight in duels which is the type of fantasy LARP crap you are talking about.

You have clearly never dealt with NYC or Philly thugs then, or for that matter the kind of thug who's robbing you because he feels his high wearing off. I'm comfortable saying you have a pretty wuss breed of thug up there.

I don't know why you would think some gang member is some quickdraw knife expert who will charge a gun, but your scenario is utterly stupid and shows you don't have the faintest idea about gang members or being mugged.

Every mugging I've ever been a victim of or heard of, the mugger was within arm's reach. There's no "charging a gun", there's "punching the yokel who thinks he can draw and aim faster than I can take a step in and beat him senseless."

The question is, anyway, "On average does having a gun increase your chances of getting hurt in a mugging?" The answer is 100% yes.

Tymp
09-27-2011, 03:03 PM
... all 3 times I have been mugged I was aware something bad was about to happen at least 30 seconds to a minute before anyone approached me? If I had had a weapon on me I would've pulled it and then NO ONE would have even approached me to threaten my life for money in the first place.


30 seconds to a minute advanced awareness? Why the hell were you still there? That's plenty of time to get away from the perceived danger, isn't it? It's also plenty of time to pull out your phone, rather than your gun, and call for help. It seems that what might have helped in these three instances was not a weapon, but some common sense.

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 03:08 PM
30 seconds to a minute advanced awareness? Why the hell were you still there? That's plenty of time to get away from the perceived danger, isn't it? It's also plenty of time to pull out your phone, rather than your gun, and call for help. It seems that what might have helped in these three instances was not a weapon, but some common sense.

I find it amusing (literally put a smile on my face) YOU think *I* don't have common sense when you think that calling someone on my phone will somehow help. You think a GUN will not help you in a mugging, but a freaking cell phone is?

Consider yourself lucky you live your sheltered little life where you have the liberty of thinking a freaking CELLPHONE will help you in a mugging, because you can "call someone". :rolleyes:

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 03:14 PM
You have clearly never dealt with NYC or Philly thugs then, or for that matter the kind of thug who's robbing you because he feels his high wearing off. I'm comfortable saying you have a pretty wuss breed of thug up there.

I like how you take pride in thinking your gang members are somehow superman, but you are buying a myth. There is no such thing as a gang member who regularly fights one on one hand to hand. They lose everytime to someone who pulls a gun and murders them. This is true everywhere in America. I don't think you should call a Chicago GD a "wuss" to their face since they will probably kill you. It doesn't make you a "wuss" to use a gun over fists, just a more serious breed of violent criminal.


Every mugging I've ever been a victim of or heard of, the mugger was within arm's reach. There's no "charging a gun", there's "punching the yokel who thinks he can draw and aim faster than I can take a step in and beat him senseless."

Life is not a videogame, people do not react instantaneously, especially when someone is a heartbeat away from pointing a gun at you. The natural human reaction is not to throw a punch, which probably won't keep the person from shooting you in the belly anyway.

The question is, anyway, "On average does having a gun increase your chances of getting hurt in a mugging?" The answer is 100% yes.

The only honest answer to that question without a pre-concieved agenda is "it depends on the situation."

Tymp
09-27-2011, 03:29 PM
I find it amusing (literally put a smile on my face) YOU think *I* don't have common sense when you think that calling someone on my phone will somehow help. You think a GUN will not help you in a mugging, but a freaking cell phone is?

Consider yourself lucky you live your sheltered little life where you have the liberty of thinking a freaking CELLPHONE will help you in a mugging, because you can "call someone". :rolleyes:

Uh huh. And the first option I inquired about? What were these scenarios in which you were aware of a threat in advance and unable to get away?

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 03:31 PM
Uh huh. And the first option I inquired about? What were these scenarios in which you were aware of a threat in advance and unable to get away?

I'm overweight I can't outrun anyone for two of the muggings, the third was on a moving traincar.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 03:37 PM
Life is not a videogame, people do not react instantaneously, especially when someone is a heartbeat away from pointing a gun at you. The natural human reaction is not to throw a punch, which probably won't keep the person from shooting you in the belly anyway.

My bet upthread stands. I'll give you an airsoft pistol (just about the same size as my carry piece, which is why I got it--for practice), conceal it how you like, then I'll be five feet away from you and only attack once I'm sure you're pulling the gun and not your wallet. $500, I will be unscathed with your gun in my hand at the end of it 7 out of ten times, and I'm a pudgy white guy and not a gangbanger. If I go for you and you're handing me a wallet and not a gun, you win the bet instantly.

Look, the fact is, I know I'm right. I've played this scenario out, I've practiced quickdrawing on a close-range target. It Does Not Work in real life. Call it LARP bullshit all you want, it's just plain and simple facts. You do not know if you are going to get a gangbanger who's going to wet himself and flee, or if you are going to get a guy who's going to beat you into the hospital for being an overweight white guy who tried to step to him.

Gus_Handsome
09-27-2011, 03:42 PM
Question for the legal eagles...

Suppose I get mugged and I have a firearm on me but don't use it because I deem it too risky.
As the mugger is walking away with my cash, if I pull my gun out and shoot him in the back, would I be in hot water?

Thanks
Gus

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 03:50 PM
My bet upthread stands. I'll give you an airsoft pistol (just about the same size as my carry piece, which is why I got it--for practice), conceal it how you like, then I'll be five feet away from you and only attack once I'm sure you're pulling the gun and not your wallet. $500, I will be unscathed with your gun in my hand at the end of it 7 out of ten times, and I'm a pudgy white guy and not a gangbanger. If I go for you and you're handing me a wallet and not a gun, you win the bet instantly.

Your bet is stupid because no one's life is on the line, there is no potential jailtime involved, and the aggressor's attention is fully focused on the wallet or the gun as opposed to Cops, or witnesses. He has no adrenaline from the danger. It's rock paper scissors. So could you please stop dangling this idiotic Dungeons and Dragons scenario around? It has no parallel to real life whatsoever. Go play Call of Duty. I'm not going to respond to such idiocy anymore.

Look, the fact is, I know I'm right. I've played this scenario out, I've practiced quickdrawing on a close-range target. It Does Not Work in real life. Call it LARP bullshit all you want, it's just plain and simple facts.

It's funny how in your retarded scenario, the gun owner is a bumbling fool and the gang member is some quick draw knife expert and/or boxing expert with one punch knockout power. Stack the deck much?

msmith537
09-27-2011, 04:02 PM
Depends on the gun. You can get ultra-compact pistols that fit into a holster the size and shape of a billfold. Keep it in your usual wallet pocket, and when the useless waste of life demands your wallet, you give him a belly full of hot lead instead and he doesn't even know it's a gun until he's bleeding out on the concrete. If it's a monstrosity the size of a Desert Eagle, leave it in your pants - at least until after the sorry bastard has your wallet, then you blow him away and get your money back.

'Course, I live in Georgia. That's probably not sound advice for those of you living in more liberal-minded states where the convicts have more rights than the citizens!

That's right Lady Derringer. Convicts have all sorts of rights that citizens don't have.:rolleyes:



It's worse than that, since he doesn't even have to shoot or stab you first. He can still do that after you shoot him, too. Guns are good for killing, but they're not good for killing instantly, or even incapacitating instantly. Even if you get off a good center-of-cross-section shot on your assailant, he's still got several seconds or minutes in which to continue to fight. He'll probably bleed to death shortly thereafter, but him bleeding to death in a few minutes isn't going to do anything to help you.


How does he plan to do all this without the back of his head?


Muggers are not all-powerful supervillians. Of course you are better off having a gun IF 1) you are prepared to use it and 2) he isn't so close to you that 3) he is big enough to wrestle it away from you. I mean it's not like anyone except the craziest crackhead wants your wallet so bad they are willing to risk death for it.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 04:07 PM
It's funny how in your retarded scenario, the gun owner is a bumbling fool and the gang member is some quick draw knife expert and/or boxing expert with one punch knockout power. Stack the deck much?

Dude, in my actual practice of this, both of us were pudgy 30-something white guys arguing if this were a valid gun self-defense scenario.

I lost. So now I report that I lost, and further based on my experiences that I don't think it's possible to win.

What's your cite for this? I don't recall you saying you had any experience with reacting to muggers with aggression, just for your spider sense.

Do you practice quick-drawing? Do you shoot tactical pistol? Do you have any actual experience with close-quarters pistol use? Have you ever responded to a mugger with the threat of violence?

If not, where do you get YOUR supposed expertise?

Regarding my scenario, I figure any potential challengers can spot me "not looking over my shoulder for a cop" since I'm already spotting them "the entire thread is about whether you're more likely to get injured, which can easily happen even IF you shoot me".

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 04:17 PM
If not, where do you get YOUR supposed expertise?

I was punched multiple times by gang members and never got even close to losing consciousness, so I would do fine if I pulled a gun and got lunged at with a punch, the mugger would still end up shot if I had a gun.

I'm not going to deconstruct how stupid your scenario is anymore.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 04:30 PM
I was punched multiple times by gang members and never got even close to losing consciousness, so I would do fine if I pulled a gun and got lunged at with a punch, the mugger would still end up shot if I had a gun.

I'm not going to deconstruct how stupid your scenario is anymore.

So you have no relevant experience with the scenario, either mine or the OP's, or with the concept of close-quarters fighting with weapons involved.

That's all I needed you to admit. I'll let everyone else judge your credibility.

Chronos
09-27-2011, 04:40 PM
Quoth msmith537:
How does he plan to do all this without the back of his head?How'd he lose the back of his head? I stipulated a center-of-cross-section shot, not a head shot. Are you claiming that you're such an amazing quick-draw marksman that you can draw and get a headshot before he gets a shot anywhere into your torso with his already-drawn gun?

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 04:41 PM
I like how your foam knife LARPing is more relevent than it actually happening to me, well played.

I have martial arts experience with weapons, I can probably pull and flip a balisong and stab somepne pretty fast, too. Has absolutely nothing to do with a real life or death situation, though. You would know that intuitively if you've been the victim of mugging instead of playing with toys and playing cowboy.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 04:54 PM
I like how your foam knife LARPing is more relevent than it actually happening to me, well played.

It's more relevant to the scenario of escalating to an armed conflict, which has never happened to you by your own admission.

I have martial arts experience with weapons

How did you train, if not with rubber knives? Or is it not "LARPing" when you do it?

, I can probably pull and flip a balisong and stab somepne pretty fast, too. Has absolutely nothing to do with a real life or death situation, though. You would know that intuitively if you've been the victim of mugging instead of playing with toys and playing cowboy.

Er, I have been mugged. So have several of my friends. I said that upthread.

Do you haven any real world experience with quick-drawing firearms, or with anything like tactical pistol courses? Have you ever measured your own ability to draw, aim, and fire a pistol rapidly under high-adrenaline conditions? How do you square your assertions against, not even counting my own experiments, the data collected and promulgated by SWAT officers and police training courses concerning the inadvisability of drawing weapons while in a close-quarters situation?

Also, could you make up your mind on the quality and state of armed-ness of your local gangers, who are apparently prepared to kill you for an insult AND decide to beat you up and fail.

I don't think you should call a Chicago GD a "wuss" to their face since they will probably kill you. It doesn't make you a "wuss" to use a gun over fists, just a more serious breed of violent criminal.
I was punched multiple times by gang members and never got even close to losing consciousness, so I would do fine if I pulled a gun and got lunged at with a punch

Look, all the LARP insults you've brought won't change the fact that I've proposed a scenario that involves the two relevant things--to wit, ability to draw and fire with useful accuracy at point-blank vs. ability to stop that happening. Meanwhile, you're claiming a comic-book spider sense that hasn't ever misled you and gives you half a minute of warning.

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 05:13 PM
The only one claiming a spider sense is you. Since you obviously have an active imagination, let me take the opportunity to educate you a bit: humans are social creatures. Consciously or not you are giving off social cues constantly that give insights to your mood and mindset. Even babies can pick up on these things.

So when someone is eyeing me up to examine how easy a victim I would be and how much money i am likely to carry, it isn't a spider sense to notice when they start following you after you leave the train station. Nothing supernatural bout it, unfortubately awareness doesn't help much when you dont have the tools to fight back or the means to get away.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 05:20 PM
So when someone is eyeing me up to examine how easy a victim I would be and how much money i am likely to carry, it isn't a spider sense to notice when they start following you after you leave the train station. Nothing supernatural bout it, unfortubately awareness doesn't help much when you dont have the tools to fight back or the means to get away.

Are you going to answer the question about your gun ownership and practice? I note you're studiously dodging it, which leads me to believe you are not quite as authoritative on quick-drawing as you appear to be claiming to be.

rogerbox
09-27-2011, 06:06 PM
I never claimed to be an authority on quick drawing. I have handled firearms and weapons before but I have not studied quick drawing a weapon formally. Neither have gang members, so it doesn't matter.

SciFiSam
09-27-2011, 06:32 PM
That's right Lady Derringer. Convicts have all sorts of rights that citizens don't have.:rolleyes:




How does he plan to do all this without the back of his head?


Muggers are not all-powerful supervillians. Of course you are better off having a gun IF 1) you are prepared to use it and 2) he isn't so close to you that 3) he is big enough to wrestle it away from you. I mean it's not like anyone except the craziest crackhead wants your wallet so bad they are willing to risk death for it.

If you shoot someone in the back of his head, doesn't that mean he's already leaving? That takes away your self-defence claim (excepting some movie-like situations - he's completely turned away from you to tell his friends to kill you) and, if you miss, really pisses him off.

In most muggings, the assailant is close enough to you to get your stuff, ergo they're close enough to disarm you too.

The only one claiming a spider sense is you. Since you obviously have an active imagination, let me take the opportunity to educate you a bit: humans are social creatures. Consciously or not you are giving off social cues constantly that give insights to your mood and mindset. Even babies can pick up on these things.

So when someone is eyeing me up to examine how easy a victim I would be and how much money i am likely to carry, it isn't a spider sense to notice when they start following you after you leave the train station. Nothing supernatural bout it, unfortubately awareness doesn't help much when you dont have the tools to fight back or the means to get away.

Presumably you're not shooting everyone you think is following you from the train station, so either you're taking other actions - like moving to the other side of the road, dialling '91' and keeping your thumb paused over the other '1,' moving into more lighted areas where possible, taking on a more consciously assertive body language, and all the various other things you can do to persuade potential attackers that you're not the best target that night - or you're rarely faced with the prospect of someone possibly following you from the train station at night.

'Pulling a gun' isn't the only or even the best option. Having a gun might even be worse in a way, if it makes you think you don't need to bother with diversionary tactics.

If they're actually going to rob you on the street you can't be sure of that till they say or do something a hell of a lot more obvious than walking on the same side of the road as you after the train station, and they'll be a lot closer when they do so.

Zeriel
09-27-2011, 09:34 PM
I never claimed to be an authority on quick drawing. I have handled firearms and weapons before but I have not studied quick drawing a weapon formally. Neither have gang members, so it doesn't matter.

It absolutely does, when YOU have to quick-draw and HE just has to beat on you. Nothing could be more relevant.

Measure for Measure
09-27-2011, 10:38 PM
Anecdotes are not data. In all 3 instances I was mugged I had at least 30 seconds of EXTREME awareness something bad was going to happen with which I could've armed myself and made enough threat for the muggers that they would've moved on to look for someone else, had I a weapon. ... A single person's three examples does not constitute a reasonable basis for generalization.

FWIW, my single mugging differs from rogerbox's experiences. I turned a corner and the mugger was waiting for me (or rather somebody like me). No advanced warning. He brandished a weapon... sort of. He was simulating a firearm (actual or not) through his jacket. I can only imagine that me having a weapon would have needlessly escalated that situation. I gave him my cash (about $16?); he told me to turn around and don't look back and that was it. He may have had an accomplice, so this falls into Borzo's 2nd category.

All in all, I consider the experience a cost of doing business and have no inclination of acquiring a bang stick.

pkbites
09-27-2011, 10:58 PM
Question for the legal eagles...

Suppose I get mugged and I have a firearm on me but don't use it because I deem it too risky.
As the mugger is walking away with my cash, if I pull my gun out and shoot him in the back, would I be in hot water?

Thanks
Gus

Yes. The threat is gone. You have no justification to use deadly force at this point.

rogerbox
09-28-2011, 01:25 AM
Anecdotes are not data. A single person's three examples does not constitute a reasonable basis for generalization.

I never said that carrying a gun will ALWAYS be to your advantage in every mugging. I have no idea even what percentage it would help in, in mine all three instances even in retrospect I would've armed my then-self.

I think it isn't possible to intellectually argue that it is NEVER safer to be armed during a mugging. I honestly am surprised this is a controversial thought process, to me it is similar to the idiots who know someone who got killed in a car accident BECAUSE they were wearing their seatbelts and thus refuse to wear one.

So I was never giving my anecdotes to be DATA other than I feel a gun would have helped in those instances, and thus a gun is at least more than never helpful during a mugging. I even conceded that there are some instances where a gun COULD work against you... IMO I am being much more reasonable than the people arguing with me are.

We have also heard another poster who did some mighty fancing shooting to save his wife's life, so I'm really confused about the mini pile-on. :confused:

Chronos
09-28-2011, 11:37 AM
I think it isn't possible to intellectually argue that it is NEVER safer to be armed during a mugging.Well, nobody yet has managed to come up with a scenario where it would help. Scenarios involving ESP and shooting someone before they give any indication of mugging you don't count.

SciFiSam
09-28-2011, 12:14 PM
I never said that carrying a gun will ALWAYS be to your advantage in every mugging. I have no idea even what percentage it would help in, in mine all three instances even in retrospect I would've armed my then-self.

I think it isn't possible to intellectually argue that it is NEVER safer to be armed during a mugging. I honestly am surprised this is a controversial thought process, to me it is similar to the idiots who know someone who got killed in a car accident BECAUSE they were wearing their seatbelts and thus refuse to wear one.

So I was never giving my anecdotes to be DATA other than I feel a gun would have helped in those instances, and thus a gun is at least more than never helpful during a mugging. I even conceded that there are some instances where a gun COULD work against you... IMO I am being much more reasonable than the people arguing with me are.

We have also heard another poster who did some mighty fancing shooting to save his wife's life, so I'm really confused about the mini pile-on. :confused:

You did actually start off by saying this:

But no matter what any experts say, I will say "OF COURSE" a gun makes you safer in a mugging, unless it's some stupid hypothetical where they already have a gun aimed at you and you then pull one...of course they will shoot. If you have a gun pulled first to show them you're not the mark and tell them "Get away from me", you will be fine.

So you did say it would always be to your advantage except in some stupid hypothetical circumstances.

The who (says) he shot his wife's attacker wasn't being mugged and TBH it sounds like a huge risk to take in order to save a car, but maybe there was more to it. Mugging is about taking property and requires the mugger to be physically only a few steps from you, so it is possible to reason that it would be extremely unlikely that it would help if you had a gun. That doesn't mean guns wouldn't be a help in any kind of robbery.

Clothahump
09-28-2011, 01:15 PM
The "old guy shooting a robber in the head" story doesn't sound very believable, and even if its true was incredibly stupid - or psychopathic. After all, what the old man in that scenario is actually doing is seriously risking shooting his wife in order to save some property. Kind of shows his priorities.

His priority was saving his wife's life and his into the bargain. When someone pulls a weapon and threatens to kill you or someone else, you take them at face value - your life is at risk.

Assuming the story is true, he did a good thing, and deserves an ecology award for cleaning garbage out of the environment.

rogerbox
09-28-2011, 01:31 PM
Well, nobody yet has managed to come up with a scenario where it would help. Scenarios involving ESP and shooting someone before they give any indication of mugging you don't count.

You are trolling.

Gary "Wombat" Robson
09-28-2011, 03:33 PM
You are trolling.
[moderator note]
It is against the rules to call someone a troll outside of the Pit. If you believe that someone is trolling, report their post and let us take care of it.
No warning issued.
[/moderator note]

Gary "Wombat" Robson
09-28-2011, 03:58 PM
I think this thread has drifted well out of GQ territory. Rather than trying to bring it back, I'm just sending it over to Great Debates.

Debate rules now apply.

Measure for Measure
09-29-2011, 01:34 AM
His priority was saving his wife's life and his into the bargain. When someone pulls a weapon and threatens to kill you or someone else, you take them at face value - your life is at risk.

Assuming the story is true, he did a good thing, and deserves an ecology award for cleaning garbage out of the environment. I'd prefer not to shoot and kill robbers: I'd prefer to put them in jail. I don't applaud at another's death. I've noticed a tendency among some gun advocates to initiate debates with proud claims of defending the innocent and then segueing into bloodthirsty murder fantasy. Then again, this is all based on a recollection of a propaganda piece written by the gun seller's lobby, so the discussion is rather silly. I don't cite cornflakes ads in nutrition threads.

At any rate, I am not surprised that the US has consistently higher murder rates than other OECD countries.
----

Cutting rogerbox some slack, I would suppose that a gun might help an off-duty cop apprehend a thief: pkbites has referenced some scenarios that he has run through his head. I maintain that firearms are far more problematic self defense tools than advertised and it's by no means clear to me whether they advance or destroy most of their user's life expectancy. But like all tools they have potential uses, though I'll venture that in this context such constructive use isn't particularly well understood.

Boyo Jim
09-29-2011, 01:52 AM
I have a friend with a CCW permit, who agrees with me that there is almost no scenario where having a gun will help you defend yourself on the street.

He supports CCW for the reason that it makes the robbers' problems more complicated. Who is armed? Who isn't? Am I gonna end up in a gunfight for 50 bucks? So robbers will rob less because they are more fearful of potential bad outcomes.

This may be true -- I have no idea. I am skeptical because I don't think robbers do a lot of thinking about the consequences of robbery. I doubt they're smart enough to be neurotic about their crimes.

rogerbox
09-29-2011, 10:33 AM
If he actually believes that a gun couldn't help during a robbery then he is stupid for concealed carrying, because then robbers get a free gun from him.

Boyo Jim
09-29-2011, 10:37 AM
I have no idea if he carries or not, but he supports the right because it sows confusion in the minds of robbers, supposedly.

msmith537
09-29-2011, 11:16 AM
How'd he lose the back of his head? I stipulated a center-of-cross-section shot, not a head shot. Are you claiming that you're such an amazing quick-draw marksman that you can draw and get a headshot before he gets a shot anywhere into your torso with his already-drawn gun?

I assume so.




If you shoot someone in the back of his head, doesn't that mean he's already leaving? That takes away your self-defence claim (excepting some movie-like situations - he's completely turned away from you to tell his friends to kill you) and, if you miss, really pisses him off.

Actually I was thinking of shooting him in the face. The messy part is when it explodes out the other side. And somehow I don't think the cops will nitpick where I happen to shoot him. If a robber pulls a gun and I pull a gun, we are in a gunfight. If he happens to get shot in the back diving for cover, it is still self defense.

Of course, in NYC I think you get in trouble just for having the gun in the first place, so I would check local laws.


In most muggings, the assailant is close enough to you to get your stuff, ergo they're close enough to disarm you too.


He's also close enough to get punched in the head or shoved away long enough for me to draw my hypothetical Glock.


In reality, I think it totally depends on the situation and the individual.

Mosier
09-29-2011, 04:43 PM
I've noticed a tendency among some gun advocates to initiate debates with proud claims of defending the innocent and then segueing into bloodthirsty murder fantasy.

It's very hard to have a serious debate with someone who insists on framing the discussion in terms like this. You are projecting the worst possible motives on to people you don't know, for absolutely no reason.

I'm not necessarily a gun "advocate," and I don't own a gun myself. I have been the victim of violent crime, though. It's a pretty horrible feeling, to be helpless at another person's mercy. I can understand why someone would want to have a way to defend themselves in that situation, even if it may come at the cost of a statistically lower chance of surviving a violent criminal attack (which has not been adequately established, in my opinion).

I wouldn't say that person has a bloodthirsty murder fantasy. I wouldn't even say robbers have bloodthirsty murder fantasies. How horrible do you think people are?

Chronos
09-29-2011, 07:04 PM
I assume so.And yet, it's the folks on my side of the argument who get criticized for inventing superpowers.

Der Trihs
09-29-2011, 07:31 PM
His priority was saving his wife's life and his into the bargain. And by pulling out that gun and using it, he was probably putting her life in greater danger from him than she was in from the robber.

I wouldn't say that person has a bloodthirsty murder fantasy.I've heard far too many such fantasies over the years from the gun people to buy that.

Measure for Measure
09-29-2011, 07:34 PM
It's very hard to have a serious debate with someone who insists on framing the discussion in terms like this. You are projecting the worst possible motives on to people you don't know, for absolutely no reason. I'm not sure that I am. I intended to make an observation that these gun threads get interspersed with startling comments like, "Assuming the story is true, he did a good thing, and deserves an ecology award for cleaning garbage out of the environment." I see that a lot. I consider it bloodthirsty. What would you call it? Maybe it's worse. I don't think non-Deities have a right to call people "Garbage", "Scum" or make similar comparisons. But others have differing points of view. At any rate I addressed the statements, not the persons. I'm not necessarily a gun "advocate," and I don't own a gun myself. I have been the victim of violent crime, though. It's a pretty horrible feeling, to be helpless at another person's mercy. I can understand why someone would want to have a way to defend themselves in that situation, even if it may come at the cost of a statistically lower chance of surviving a violent criminal attack (which has not been adequately established, in my opinion). Statistically, owning a firearm is a net loser, life-expectancy wise. But gun advocates note correctly that this applies to a varied population and furthermore may not sufficiently control for confounding effects. I have not come across a good treatment of these problems.

I agree that some may want to accept a greater net risk of death if that is indeed the case, which is by no means clear to avoid humiliation at the hands of an adversary. It's a legitimate preference. Furthermore, it is entirely possible to be a responsible gun owner and to consider killing another an absolute last resort.

But my observation remains. Let these threads rattle on long enough, and you will get these bloodthirsty comments. I paint with no broad brush: most gun owners will kill nobody. The US has a pronounced and consistently elevated murder rate. I'll venture to say that those who value human life more will on average kill less ceterus paribus. I wouldn't say that person has a bloodthirsty murder fantasy. I wouldn't even say robbers have bloodthirsty murder fantasies. How horrible do you think people are? I speculate that the guy who robbed me was most interested in my money. I don't think people are intrinsically one way or another, but most are capable of pretty evil acts. Cite: Milgram (1974) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), the Stanford Prison Experiment and the unfortunate history of the 20th century.

Gary "Wombat" Robson
09-29-2011, 10:56 PM
The US has a pronounced and consistently elevated murder rate.This isn't the first time in this thread that I've seen this -- and I've also seen the correlation between gun ownership and crime rates raised. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any backup data. I normally stay out of gun threads, so forgive me if this has been covered a zillion times, but when I look at Wikipedia, it shows that the U.S. is #1 in gun ownership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership) (measured as number of guns in the country divided by citizens), but down around #89 in intentional homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) (assuming I counted right).

What's the problem with those numbers? Well, first of all, there's a clustering phenomenon in gun ownership. I would be willing to bet that with 88 guns per 100 citizens in the U.S. (per the cite above), that a solid majority of U.S. citizens don't own guns. I know very few gun owners with just one. Many people around here have a dozen or more. Is there a study that shows percentage of households with guns in them? Wouldn't Switzerland, for example, be higher than the U.S. in that case?

I found an interesting chart from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state) about U.S. gun-related crime by state. I find it fascinating that states with very high gun ownership and loose gun laws (e.g., Montana, Wyoming, Vermont) seem to have very low gun crime rates per capita, while states with rigid gun laws (e.g., California and New York) have higher rates. The District of Columbia, with very stringent gun control, has the highest gun crime in the country by a huge margin.

I know it's darned-near impossible to find an unbiased study, but I'd sure love to see something that did a real statistical correlation between gun ownership and overall crime rates (not just crime rates involving guns). Gun owners, for example, may say that if guns were outlawed, muggers would just use knives or some other weapon (or illegal guns, for that matter). Is this speculation, or can it be verified?

My problem is that there's so darned much data that it would take me months just to read it all, and since I haven't been involved much in the debates, I don't know which sources are biased which way. In the interests of full disclosure, yeah, I own a gun. I bought it when I had a ranch and there were a lot of problems with large predators in the area. Even though I obtained a concealed carry permit so I could carry it in town, I never have. I just didn't want to worry about being legal if I did happen to go into town and forget to put it away.

To bring it back to the OP, are you safer if the robber or mugger thinks you have a gun? Are you less likely to be jumped if you're open-carrying? Are there fewer muggings in areas with high gun ownership and loose gun laws, or in areas with low gun ownership and strict gun laws?

Boyo Jim
09-29-2011, 11:21 PM
... Gun owners, for example, may say that if guns were outlawed, muggers would just use knives or some other weapon ...
Gun owners don't say this. They say, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Criminals won't be disarmed, law abiding citizens will.

Gary "Wombat" Robson
09-29-2011, 11:48 PM
I've heard that quote, Boyo Jim, but I've also heard people explain that criminals wouldn't stop being criminals just because they didn't have guns. They'd find other ways to hurt or kill people. "If I can't shoot him with a gun, I'll just use this bow & arrow, or beat him with a baseball bat, or stab him with a knife, or poison him, or blow up his car, or set his house on fire, or run him over with a car, or ..."

Measure for Measure
09-29-2011, 11:49 PM
Gary "Wombat" Robson: I try to keep my claims limited to what I know. I once commenced a casual study of some of the literature, but my attention was drawn elsewhere. From my limited exposure, I was disappointed in its quality: it didn't ask the tough questions. But then again I was reading all of 3? articles taken from the internet and published in 4th tier journals. [1]

As for the murder data: take another look. All of the countries with higher murder rates are middle or lower income countries and presumably have weaker rule of law. Among higher income OECD countries, the US has the highest murder rate - consistently. Now admittedly Mexico is an OECD member. But Mexico is a middle income country, not an upper income one. So the US is an outlier within upper income OECD countries both with respect to gun control and with respect to murder. (There have been threads here addressing the Swiss experience, which I have not read.) My hypothesis is that you can reduce murder with gun control and you can reduce it by locking up lots of people and giving long prison sentences. The latter is more expensive. Both have diminishing returns.

The standard pro-gun argument is that confounding factors make the US more violent - it has a violent history and what about unemployment? Well the latter can be controlled for. And Germany and Japan have rather violent histories as well. Still, I would prefer a more systematic treatment, though in my experience strong univariate relationships tend to be weakened but are ultimately upheld after you control for additional counter-explanations.

Still, we got what we got. There's a case to be made that given the multitude of firearms circulating in America, and the fact that they hand them out like candy during gun shows (with registration laws easily circumvented) that CCW could lower crime under such circumstances. That hasn't been conclusively shown. But it's plausible and there is some statistical evidence for it, although I understand it doesn't pass the most rigorous tests. To bring it back to the OP, are you safer if the robber or mugger thinks you have a gun? Are you less likely to be jumped if you're open-carrying? Are there fewer muggings in areas with high gun ownership and loose gun laws, or in areas with low gun ownership and strict gun laws? Specifically, Lott showed a statistical relationship between CCW and lower crime, by county. The relationship passes the standard tests, but not the most rigorous ones (which involve cluster sampling). And he has made claims that call into question his professional honesty alas. The same can be said for a certain historian who made gun-control friendly claims. It's all a little embarrassing, frankly.

As for state-level bans on handguns, their effectiveness is blunted by the fact that they are readily available in other states.


Politically, I've thrown up my hands. The US has a sizable number of voters who will swing on this single issue. And the gun lobby has a solid and recent SCOTUS decision to back them up. But there's the personal safety issue that still intrigues me: how does one glean whether purchasing a firearm is in fact a safety-enhancer or not? And what are the alternatives, the best practices? Applying scrutiny I don't find the answers to be obvious. If anything the self-defense literature is even more laden with anecdote, AFAIK and I may be wrong.

I can say one thing. By far our biggest threats involve autos, seat belts, an expanding waistline, a sedentary lifestyle, alcohol, cigarettes, sugary and fatty foods. The risks you should care about are common and mundane and therefore don't appear on the TV news.



[1] I have boatloads of ignorance. I trust you had good reason for buying a handgun rather than a rifle or shotgun, but...

Gary "Wombat" Robson
09-30-2011, 12:19 AM
You make some good points. I think that we'd never be able to try the "very low gun-ownership" (like Japan) experiment in the U.S. - with a few hundred million guns in private hands right now, they could never be eliminated.

The state-by-state information is still rather interesting. It appears to show that in today's environment in the U.S., stricter gun control seems to correlate with higher murder rates. Obviously, there are many other factors to consider: crime rates are higher where population densities are higher, for example. I haven't seen any studies comparing prevalence of safety training programs to firearm-related deaths, either.

As for the politics, I'm with you. Between the people who vote totally single-issue and the people who blindly vote down party lines, it's amazing we get anything done at all.

[1] I have boatloads of ignorance. I trust you had good reason for buying a handgun rather than a rifle or shotgun, but...It's more portable. I wouldn't be likely to shoot something unless it was close enough to be a physical threat, at which point having a highly-accurate long-range rifle isn't going to be much help.

Boyo Jim
09-30-2011, 12:30 AM
I've heard that quote, Boyo Jim, but I've also heard people explain that criminals wouldn't stop being criminals just because they didn't have guns. They'd find other ways to hurt or kill people. "If I can't shoot him with a gun, I'll just use this bow & arrow, or beat him with a baseball bat, or stab him with a knife, or poison him, or blow up his car, or set his house on fire, or run him over with a car, or ..."

I think the point is that outlawing guns will do absolutely nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, so they will have absolutely no need to find any other ways to hurt or kill people. Presumably this applies to habitual criminals -- a spouse killer acting out of passion may indeed have to resort to a knife or something else, but not your typical armed robber.

Argent Towers
09-30-2011, 01:27 AM
And Germany and Japan have rather violent histories as well.

Totally different. They have violent histories in terms of leaders using the population as a collective mass to carry out violent goals, but they have zero tradition of individual people committing individual and unrelated acts of violence. The people in those countries were all working together for what they thought was the greater good. America is far, far more fragmented and factional, with many wide and varied groups of people with totally different reasons for committing violent acts.

In short, the Japanese and Germans have a history of being violent to other peoples. The Americans have a history of being violent to each other. Totally different kind of violence.

Measure for Measure
09-30-2011, 01:54 AM
Totally different. They have violent histories in terms of leaders using the population as a collective mass to carry out violent goals, but they have zero tradition of individual people committing individual and unrelated acts of violence. Samurai had the right to kill any peasant that looked at them funny. At times they did so. Okinawa in particular didn't enjoy being ruled under such arbitrary individual power. Drunken samurai were a real threat.

Also, the European state in the 17th and even 19th century wasn't exactly a force that promoted the commonwealth: that idea was only invented during the Enlightenment. Murder rates were quite a bit higher, exceeding 10 per 100,000 in the late 1500s in Jolly England. I'd say that they declined with the expansion of rule of law, something that was in shorter supply in 19th century US.

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2009/05/homicide-rates-over-past-800-years.html
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/long-term-trend-in-homicide-rates.html
Admittedly, UK murder rates in the 1800s were a lot lower than the US. I think the point is that outlawing guns will do absolutely nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, so they will have absolutely no need to find any other ways to hurt or kill people. That is certainly one point. A point that is falsified by the European experience, where the bad guys use knives and pick pocketing.

rogerbox
09-30-2011, 03:55 AM
edit: Nevermind.

Der Trihs
09-30-2011, 07:32 AM
I've heard that quote, Boyo Jim, but I've also heard people explain that criminals wouldn't stop being criminals just because they didn't have guns. They'd find other ways to hurt or kill people. "If I can't shoot him with a gun, I'll just use this bow & arrow, or beat him with a baseball bat, or stab him with a knife, or poison him, or blow up his car, or set his house on fire, or run him over with a car, or ..."Guns however are more efficient at killing, and more likely to kill you even if the criminal isn't actually trying to do so. A criminal who shoots you once and runs away is more likely to kill you than one who punches or clubs or stabs you once then runs away. A relatively common form of gun crime, I understand.

I think the point is that outlawing guns will do absolutely nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, so they will have absolutely no need to find any other ways to hurt or kill people.
Of course, in reality it would and in more than just this country. America is the criminal arsenal of the Americas; the US is awash in easily accessible guns and they provide a ready source of weapons for criminals in both North and South America. Mexico, for example; we complain about drugs and illegal aliens crossing the border into America, but we don't care about our guns crossing into Mexico and killing Mexicans. But then, American gun lovers typically don't care about anything but their guns.

Less access to guns for the general public means less for the criminals themselves. Less for them to steal, less for them to purchase at gun shows and so forth. They don't make their own guns, after all.

Blake
09-30-2011, 07:54 AM
Guns however are more efficient at killing, and more likely to kill you even if the criminal isn't actually trying to do so. A criminal who shoots you once and runs away is more likely to kill you than one who punches or clubs or stabs you once then runs away.

Such a claim is debatable and unprovable at best at best, and completely wrong at worst.

How did you calculate the number of times criminals shot at someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that >95% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because of the accuracy of weapons fired in this manner.

How did you calculate ow may times criminals stabbed someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that <5% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because it's damn near impossible to miss with a knife.

But since you presented this statement of fact in GD, you will be bale to provide us with this evidence, won't you?

IOW: CITE!


American gun lovers typically don't care about anything but their guns.

:rolleyes:


Less access to guns for the general public means less for the criminals themselves.

CITE!
When you look at places like Australia, where handguns have been always heavily restricted, criminals have no problems whatsoever obtaining handguns

So I would like to see some evidence for this claim that reduced access to firearms by members of the public is correlated in any way at all to firearm use by criminals.

Zeriel
09-30-2011, 09:16 AM
The state-by-state information is still rather interesting. It appears to show that in today's environment in the U.S., stricter gun control seems to correlate with higher murder rates. Obviously, there are many other factors to consider: crime rates are higher where population densities are higher, for example. I haven't seen any studies comparing prevalence of safety training programs to firearm-related deaths, either.

I am willing to bet you'll find the correlation to higher murder rates is with drug use, poverty, and population density, but not necessarily firearms regulation.

LonesomePolecat
09-30-2011, 09:42 AM
Not necessarily.
A robber with a weapon, and you with none, leaves your life fully at the good mercies of a felon.
A robber with a weapon and you with one can help equalize the situation.

Full compliance with the demands of a malefactor led to the WTC coming down.

hhNot seeing the connection. We're talking about ordinary street crime here, not political terrorism.

LonesomePolecat
09-30-2011, 10:25 AM
Question for the legal eagles...

Suppose I get mugged and I have a firearm on me but don't use it because I deem it too risky.
As the mugger is walking away with my cash, if I pull my gun out and shoot him in the back, would I be in hot water?

Thanks
Gus Yes. IMNAL, but a self-defense plea only works if you are in immediate danger of death or serious injury. That doesn't include shooting someone who's walking away from you in the back, even if he did just rob you. Please tell me you don't own a gun.

Kearsen
09-30-2011, 10:34 AM
And it has also caused the vast majority of hijackings to end with minimal loss of life, which is why it was the advised course of action in hijackings.

The analogy is flawed anyways for the 9/11 attacks because it's not the same thing. The OP isn't asking if it's safer to pull a gun or not when caught in a terrorist attack, they're talking about getting robbed.


Aha, but how do you know which is which?

Excuse me pilot, I need you to take this plane to Minnesota, I want to go to the world trade fair or: Excuse me pilot, I want you to fly this plane into the Pentagon.

Not all robberies end with the criminal letting the person go, nor do all rapes, kidnappings etc...

Una Persson
09-30-2011, 12:13 PM
...we complain about drugs and illegal aliens crossing the border into America, but we don't care about our guns crossing into Mexico and killing Mexicans.
Obama Administration? Meet Der Trihs, who I'm sure has posted a thread castigating you on providing semi-automatic weapons to Mexican drug dealers...but doggone it, Search isn't pulling up that thread. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/us/31guns.html?_r=1&ref=guncontrol)

But then, American gun lovers typically don't care about anything but their guns.
Apparently, the same is true of American gun haters. Imagine that.

Chronos
09-30-2011, 03:53 PM
Quoth Wombat:
I found an interesting chart from the Guardian about U.S. gun-related crime by state. I find it fascinating that states with very high gun ownership and loose gun laws (e.g., Montana, Wyoming, Vermont) seem to have very low gun crime rates per capita, while states with rigid gun laws (e.g., California and New York) have higher rates. The District of Columbia, with very stringent gun control, has the highest gun crime in the country by a huge margin.I've never yet seen these statistics done properly... Perhaps some time when I have a lot of time on my hands I'll try to do it myself. Gun crime rates per capita (technically speaking, crime per the integral of population density with respect to area) is the wrong measure to use, since a gun crime (or most crimes, really) is an interaction between two people. What you really want to measure is crime per capita per population density (technically, crime per the integral of the square of population density with respect to area).

As for the gun laws being tightest in places where there's the most gun violence, well, which way does the causality run? It seems to me that if you've got a lot more gun crime, there's a lot more incentive to pass restrictive gun laws.

Shodan
09-30-2011, 04:50 PM
slight non GQ hijack...

what if you are a woman, and being robbed is only the first thing the mugger want to do to you......

saying losing your money is okay, but what will the mugger take aswell,You throw your money one way and run in the other. If he goes after the money, you get away. If he goes after you, at least you have a head start.

But "run for it" is nearly always the best option. Even if he points a gun at you and says "get in the car", you still run. Most criminals - heck, most people - are lousy shots, and won't hit you except by accident unless the muzzle is actually pressed against you.

Regards,
Shodan

msmith537
09-30-2011, 05:31 PM
CITE!
When you look at places like Australia, where handguns have been always heavily restricted, criminals have no problems whatsoever obtaining handguns

So I would like to see some evidence for this claim that reduced access to firearms by members of the public is correlated in any way at all to firearm use by criminals.

Firearm murders per capital by country:
USA #8
AU #27

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

Blake
09-30-2011, 10:21 PM
Firearm murders per capital by country:
USA #8
AU #27

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita

And.....?

Chronos
10-01-2011, 02:19 PM
So apparently criminals in Australia do have a harder time getting guns. Or they're more reluctant to use them, or something.

Gary "Wombat" Robson
10-01-2011, 05:31 PM
As for the gun laws being tightest in places where there's the most gun violence, well, which way does the causality run? It seems to me that if you've got a lot more gun crime, there's a lot more incentive to pass restrictive gun laws.Quite likely. Correlation does not imply causation.

SciFiSam
10-01-2011, 05:46 PM
Such a claim is debatable and unprovable at best at best, and completely wrong at worst.

How did you calculate the number of times criminals shot at someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that >95% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because of the accuracy of weapons fired in this manner.

How did you calculate ow may times criminals stabbed someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that <5% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because it's damn near impossible to miss with a knife.

But since you presented this statement of fact in GD, you will be bale to provide us with this evidence, won't you?

IOW: CITE!




:rolleyes:




CITE!
When you look at places like Australia, where handguns have been always heavily restricted, criminals have no problems whatsoever obtaining handguns

So I would like to see some evidence for this claim that reduced access to firearms by members of the public is correlated in any way at all to firearm use by criminals.

Isn't it logical that, the more guns there are in a country, the easier criminals will find it to get them? But it's fair for you to ask for a cite, I guess, as long as you provide one for your comment about Australia.

Abatis
10-02-2011, 02:01 PM
I know it's a complicated question, which is why I'm really interested in cites here - if I'm being robbed, does it make it more ore less dangerous for me to have a gun? My thinking here is that on the one hand, if I have a gun and the person robbing me doesn't, okay, I may not get robbed. But if we both have guns (or if the person robbing me is just crazy), I've just escalated the situation, which may make it more likely to end in violence. But I realize I have no idea what the actual statistics are one way or the other.

Please note, I'm talking about one person, not about gun control - I'd prefer to keep this in GQ.

17 years ago the DOJ analyzed crime data from 1987-92 and put the number of persons defending themselves with a firearm against crime of violence averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.

"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/HVFSDAFT.PR) April 1994, NCJ-147003

Given the changes in firearm laws in the ensuing 24 years, that 62,000 annual average should be considered a low-end estimate today. More than 30 states have moved to a shall issue concealed weapons permit system (or unrestricted) since then (http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif) and many millions of citizens now carry a gun for defense now.

Even if we were to accept that 62,000 average as applicable today it is still impressive; that is 170 people a day nationwide that defended their lives and person from bodily harm. What is the old saying . . . If it saves one life?

Now to the precise point of your question . . . The USDoJ says those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.

"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent."

National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence (https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt). by Jeffrey A. Roth

Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.

"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? (http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html) by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

As I said, with the changes in gun laws in the years since these studies, I think one could safely assume that instances of and thus these percentages describing defensive gun use have only grown.

If 34% of felons described being personally "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" when only 9 states allowed concealed carry what is it now when 41 states allow it?

runcible spoon
10-03-2011, 01:17 PM
17 years ago the DOJ analyzed crime data from 1987-92 and put the number of persons defending themselves with a firearm against crime of violence averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.

"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/HVFSDAFT.PR) April 1994, NCJ-147003

Given the changes in firearm laws in the ensuing 24 years, that 62,000 annual average should be considered a low-end estimate today. More than 30 states have moved to a shall issue concealed weapons permit system (or unrestricted) since then (http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.gif) and many millions of citizens now carry a gun for defense now.

Even if we were to accept that 62,000 average as applicable today it is still impressive; that is 170 people a day nationwide that defended their lives and person from bodily harm. What is the old saying . . . If it saves one life?

Now to the precise point of your question . . . The USDoJ says those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.

"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent."

National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence (https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/fireviol.txt). by Jeffrey A. Roth

Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.

"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? (http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html) by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).

As I said, with the changes in gun laws in the years since these studies, I think one could safely assume that instances of and thus these percentages describing defensive gun use have only grown.

If 34% of felons described being personally "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" when only 9 states allowed concealed carry what is it now when 41 states allow it?

Thank you for the statistics! Fascinating. It should be noted, though, that the paragraph after the one quoting injury rates reads:

For two reasons, these statistics are an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection. First, the decision involves a
trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action. More detailed analysis of gun self-defense cases is needed to measure both the frequency and consequences of different self-defense actions using guns.

Still, it seems that pulling a gun may not have as much danger of escalation as a lot of people (including me) assume.

Zeriel
10-03-2011, 01:46 PM
17 years ago the DOJ analyzed crime data from 1987-92 and put the number of persons defending themselves with a firearm against crime of violence averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.

In other words, the cites don't really address the question, unless there's a definition of "violent crime" that only includes muggings.

Certainly having and producing a concealed firearm is a useful thing when confronted with an actively violent criminal, but absent statistics otherwise I'm not really convinced the data you've provided speaks to the question in the OP.

Measure for Measure
10-06-2011, 12:45 AM
Supporting Zeriel's point:
"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns. Next sentence in link: In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with weapons other than firearms. So at best, the stat has to be treated with care before applying it to the OP. It's not clear whether from that statistic whether an unarmed defender could have done as well.

But props for finding that study. You linked to a press release: it might be interesting to give the whole work a close reading. (Alas, I for one am too lazy.)

Moving on to armed/unarmed victim comparisons: "At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent." Interesting. So we have an 8 percentage point edge for gun use over no resistance at all. I wouldn't call that large. I'd like to check the statistical significance. Interesting though. Now, again, let's move on to the very next sentence:

For two reasons, these statistics are an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection. First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action. More detailed analysis of gun self-defense cases is needed to measure both the frequency and consequences of different self-defense actions using guns.

Emphasis added. Yi-yi. Criminologists really need to work harder. That or they should get better funding.