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.
Well, Sgt. Tueller 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.