Having a gun and showing it may prevent a crime, or may prevent a situation escalating. But other than that, yes I agree, once the gun goes bang that round is landing somewhere.
I’m not a poor shot 
but, you might find it informative that the vast majority of defensive gun uses don’t even involve firing a shot. Merely presenting a firearm in a lot of cases is good enough to ward off a threat / deter an attack.
ETA: so, no cite?
Can you explain what you mean here by “presenting a firearm”?
One of the factors contributing to violent crimes is the near certainty that in some areas nobody other than law enforcement will be lawfully armed and able to defend themselves effectively. An assailant can attack with impunity. In other areas, this a lot more dicey affair, and this has a beneficial effect even if someone is unarmed - the perps can’t be sure. Disarming peaceable citizens has been a long running disaster, in recent years this has been turning around at the state level.
Really Not All That Bright covered it well already, but I’ll add this: if the gun control side wants to use the commerce clause justification for the feds regulating things like short-barreled rifles that are manufactured in Utah, spend their entire existence in Utah, and never cross state lines or are involved in interstate commerce, then we sure as hell can use it to regulate the recognition of CCW permits for people that are crossing state lines for business or pleasure.
Simple, letting a potential bad guy know that one is armed. Maybe opening a coat uncovering a holstered revolver. Many times this is enough to persuade someone to break off a confrontation. Criminals want to get their prey as easy as possible, preferably unarmed.
Basically, pull it out of whatever location one is carrying it in and either hold it “at the ready” or point it at the threat. Something like this or this.
The pic on the right in your first link shows the guy in what we used to disparagingly call “full Sabrina.” Has this suddenly become considered good form?
I thought you weren’t supposed to pull it out unless you fully intend to pull the trigger?
Fully prepared, rather than fully intend, is how I was taught.
But with a hotel, at least money is changing hands. Commerce is taking place. What is the commerce involved in the possession of a permit? Or a state setting conditions on the time and place of possession of a thing within that state? That doesn’t make much sense at all.
Contrast this to the aforementioned law regarding interstate commerce of armored truck personnel carrying guns, I readily agree that this is a matter of regulating business that occurs between states.
I cannot think of a plausible argument that carrying guns has an economic impact. On a related note, the Supreme Court found that Federal legislation banning the carrying of guns on school property and a law making violence against women a Federal crime, both of which were claimed to have its basis in crime being an economic activity that ought to be regulated, were beyond the commerce clause. The ruling on the school gun zone case included this statement: “To uphold the Government’s contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.”
Again, not conclusive, but shows that general police power is not equal to economic activity.
It wouldn’t be my preferred stance. I got those images from a page on American Cop Magazine. They have a pretty good discussion about the negatives of that particular situation (and use the “Sabrina” label) in a life-and-death situation. Truthfully, I mistakenly thought I was just linking to the left image. I didn’t realize they were side-by-side like that until after the edit window.
That’s a non-argument if I ever saw one.
I’m delighted at your enthusiasm for a limited interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
Do you know what they did to ameliorate the Constitutional deficiencies in the GFSZA? They added the qualifier “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce” and then it went on to lead a happy life full of convictions upheld.
Do you think that the GFSZA was an usurpation of the states’ general police powers? After all, there’s no “commerce” involved in merely possessing a firearm less than 1,000 feet from a school. Shouldn’t the states be able to decide whether the act of possessing a firearm near a school should be a crime or not? Will you join me in calling for the repeal / striking down of the GFSZA?
Thanks for answering.
However, in the numerous other threads here about guns and gun control and such, it was made pretty clear to me that one should never pull out a gun unless they feared for their life, and if that fear is so great to pull out a gun, then you should shoot as soon as you get it out.
Is this not the case anymore? Is the correct thing to do when even a little scared is to pull out your gun to scare the bad guy away?
I don’t know the substance of the act after it was amended due to the Supreme Court decision, but as a general matter, I don’t see the Federal interest in having a law about possession of guns on local school property.
Note that my opinion is based on the general principle that Federal power has limits. I’m pretty sure your opinion on Federal power changes on whether or not it is being used for pro-gun, or anti-gun, causes.
I think you’ve been misinformed. There are lots of cases where it would be appropriate to “access” a firearm (have it in-hand, probably at the low-ready position) even if you’re not going to shoot. Police officers routinely do this. Soldiers routinely do this. If I were at home and I heard a window break in my basement and someone walking up my stairs, I’m going to pull out a gun, but the decision to fire or not will be largely determined by the subsequent actions of whoever broke into my house.
I think federal power has limits too. I just think that nationwide reciprocity is well within those limits that the courts have recognized.
I wouldn’t mind - in fact would probably even prefer - a much narrower interpretation of the Commerce Clause. We could discard the National Firearms Act, the Hughes Amendment, the GFSZA, etc (essentially throw out the entirety of the federal gun-control scheme, along with significant environmental regulations), and if that were the current jurisprudence, I don’t think it’d be appropriate to mandate that all states recognize each other’s CCW permits, but that’s not where we are today. In a country where the NFA, GFSZA, and Hughes Amendment are valid, so too should the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 be valid.
In the very threads where I said I wouldn’t shoot someone for stealing my TV, when I brought up police and soldiers pointing their weapons without shooting, I was told they have training and I don’t.
I fully agree with you that a person could scare off a criminal simply by pointing a gun at them without shooting them. However, I was told this was wrong, and even illegal in some places.
I suspect you’ll find about as much agreement on this as to whether one should use a pistol, revolver, shotgun or AR-15 for home defense. Also, to me, it makes a big difference whether you are on your own property or somewhere else. But in the end, if letting someone know you are armed stops or de-escalates the situation, where is the harm? And there is an obvious (though often disputed) difference between showing you have a firearm and actually pointing it at someone. Of course, as with everything else, it probably depends on the state. In PA, there are no statutes related to “brandishing”, but I believe there might be in other states.