Right, if the scenario is entirely different then it is entirely different. I am not saying that a gun can never be used to ward off other people, just aht if someone with a gun has the drop on you, pulling out your gun is more likely to get you killed than not having one.
Of course, if they are behind you with a knife to your throat, then you may have some difficulties there too.
So, they learned their lesson, and the next guy that walked by they just clobbered with the pipe and took his money.
Really, purse snatchers are looking for targets of opportunity. Just having 2 large men yelling at him is probably what cause him to run. He probably never even saw your gun.
It’s not a matter of the difficulty, it is a matter of probability. It is not that it would require much work in order to defend yourself in that situation, it is that you would require much luck to not end up dead.
Crane said “A concealed weapon cannot be used defensively” and “When faced by an armed aggressor reaching for a weapon will get you killed. Appearing to reach for a weapon will get you killed.” and “If the other guy is holding a weapon, it’s too late to access yours.”
I think we all understand that it’s certainly a less-than-desirable position, and the odds aren’t fantastic that you’ll prevail, but Crane’s statements lacked all the “more likely” (>50% chance) nuance that yours had. His were absolutes: “cannot” “will” etc. Do you understand that sometimes, even when one is in a disadvantageous situation, like a bad guy already having a gun drawn, that CCWers sometimes successfully defend themselves / others?
If you understand that, then we’re good, and I’ve got no quarrel with you. If not, then we’re back to you carrying on Crane’s nonsensical argument.
As to the first statement, I disagree, as to the third, I consider it good advice, but not an absolute, as to the second, I am in agreement.
Yes, if someone has a gun drawn on you, and they are willing and able to kill you, then any potentially offensive move you make will get you killed. This is what happens when cops kill people for reaching for a cell phone or other innocuous movements, and is also what happens when cops shoot people reaching for a gun. ISTM, that if someone has a gun leveled at a favorite part of your body, then attempting to defend yourself at that point is depending upon the hesitation or incompetence of the aggressor. You are also putting other people’s live in danger, if you, or your aggressor, happen to miss your targets and instead hit innocent bystanders.
This comes up because it was posted, as if proof, that if you have a gun, you have no need of worrying about other people with guns, because of a story of a guy that went from having a gun to the back of his head, to being ducked down behind a car. If I were a criminal, I would have pulled the trigger as soon as he made a move, rather than waiting for him to take cover and give him a chance to retaliate.
And maybe there is a point there. One of the (many) reasons that I am not a criminal is that I have intelligence and skills that allow me to make a living legitimately. It is possible that most criminals just aren’t that smart. They may be so dumb that they don’t realize that the gun in their hand will not protect them unless they are willing and able to pull the trigger. They may rely solely upon the intimidation factor, believing that they will never need to back it up. If this is indeed the case, then you certainly will be able to shoot these people, even if they have the upper hand, as they never had any intention or willingness to shoot you. But, to me, that is killing people over protecting property, and my ethics aren’t in line with that sort of activity.
Personally, were I at gunpoint and in fear of my life, I would be going for the aggressor’s gun, rather than trying to get my own. I find that to be a far smarter play that has a much higher chance of survival for not just you, not just bystanders, but for the perp as well. If I am at gunpoint and not in fear for my life, then I will give up the property that is demanded of me, I also feel that to be a far smarter play.
Those are the sorts of things that I would like to have taught in ccw classes, so that people aren’t out walking the streets, thinking that their gun is some magic talisman that will ward off all dangers to them and their family. That sort of thought is going to get them, and likely other innocent people, killed. And that is the exact sort of thing that will not be taugh in CCW classes when people don’t have to take them anymore at all in order to carry concealed.
The bill passed in the house because the “fix NICS” bill was attached. That’s not the case in the senate. They will be separate and it’s unlikely that the CCR bill will pass the senate… this time.
K9bfriender, my (mistated) post was directed at Crane, not you. Orginally, anyway.
In any case, I can post videos until the cows come home showing concealed weapons used effectively as self defense. And I can post written accounts of the same for the rest of my life, and not run out of material. But there will always be people like Crane, in flat-out denial, and people like you, who attempt to explain away the results.
Here’s another one for you to nitpick (it’s one of my favorites):
I’m always amazed at the fallacies that the anti-gun crowd are willing to perpetrate against all evidence to the contrary. No wonder they make horrible scientists!
I think it is an unassailable fact that there are people on both sides of the gun control issue that are embarrassing; but I think it is extremely petty to say that idiots on one side of the debate are representative of the whole.
I was not explaining away the results, I was flat out saying that in the first two videos (which had nothing to do with concealed carry, BTW) they actually increased the danger for the people around them. Using your co-workers as human shields while you draw and fire your gun isn’t a heroic act. (Well, it is if you use Zoe’s definition of a “hero”:Someone that gets other people killed.)
These are very bad examples to follow, risking the life of co-workers and bystanders is not worth protecting property.
The last video was very well done on the “victim’s” part, but note again, he did not go for his gun, he went for the other guy’s gun.
Really, a gun shop used as an example of concealed carry defensive use? Obviously, in the first place, people are pretty stupid to rob a gun store, I mean you may be surprised when the pharmacist pulls out their piece, but you should not be all that surprised that people in a gun store would be armed.
And I am always amazed at the projection that is done by the gun advocate crowd.
My only point in this thread is that I do think that there should be some minimum standards of responsibility and skill to be assessed before someone walks around with a gun in public. I have not said that a gun cannot be used to defend one’s self, (though I do say that in many cases the attempt is much more dangerous to yourself, and more importantly bystanders, than just giving the person the property they are asking for) so showing examples of guns being used to defend one’s does not refute my argument in the slightest.
I can post accounts of guns in the hands of irresponsible or poorly trained individuals that have resulted in near accidents, accidents, and fatalities for the rest of my life, and not run out of material.
That is all I am saying, there should be minimum standards to be allowed to carry a lethal weapon around in public, and that states should be allowed to set those standards. This bill (which seems to be much less likely to pass now) removes the state’s ability to set those standards.
If you want to argue against my position, argue against that, don’t post anecdotes of people using guns defensively, as that does not in anyway address, much less refute, my position. If you do insist on posting anecdotes about DGU’s, I will start posting anecdotes about children and toddlers killed by irresponsible gun owners, we’ll see who runs out of material first.
Those standards already exist and I suspect that you know that. You may disagree with those standards on a state by state basis, but they exist nonetheless.
That simply isn’t true or factual. This bill does nothing to change a states ability to set standards for their citizens. It simply requires them to honor permits issued by other states. It would only come in to play when a person from another state is visiting or passing through. Nothing more.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I’ve not posted a single anecdote.
If ad hominems make you sleep better at night, you can say whatever you wish.
But it sure would be nice if the gun owning community was more responsible in gun ownership to prevent weekly events of toddlers killing themselves or others.
Sure. No doubt a certain % of both sides are stupid.
But the anti-gun crowd are too often willfully ignorant. Like not knowing the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic. Like thinking that “assault weapons” are a real thing. Like thinking that the 2nd Ad only applies to Guns around at the time the Constitution was signed. Time after time we have had to correct the anti-gun crowd here of simple mistakes in ignorance.
If not, a quick recap: you’re dealt two cards, and the casino dealer gives himself two, one face up. The object is to get as close to 21 as possible, without going over 21. Face cards count as 10, an ace can either be 1 or 11 at your choice, and you may call for additional cards (“take a hit,”) as often as you like until your total exceeds 21, an automatic loss, or until you wish to stop. The dealer then exposes his hidden card and exercises no initiative at all: if he has a total of 16 or under, he takes additional cards until he does not. If he exceeds 21 he loses (“busts”) and if reaches 17 to 21, he stops and you win if your total exceeds his.
For a player, the weakest possible position is to have a sixteen, with the dealer’s exposed card worth ten.
The correct play here, in basic strategy, is to take a hit. You’re more likely to bust than in any other situation, true, but it’s the best choice available.
I draw this analogy to carrying concealed. If you in fact have a gun pointed at you, having access to a concealed weapon of your own is not a magic shield. But it does allow you to make more choices, to pick the best of a set of poor options. You’re in a weak position already; having the weapon doesn’t make you weaker.
(Amusingly some casinos offer a player the option to withdraw at the beginning of a play by surrendering half their bet: in that event, with a hard sixteen facing a dealer ten, surrender is the best option.)
I do know that. And I do know that they are on a state by state basis. That is what this bill is changing. (Or would be changing, if it were to go through.)
I do think that Ohio’s 8 hour class is not enough to be effective at actually decreasing the danger around you if you are carrying in public, but at least it’s something. Some states don’t have any training requirements at all.
That is exactly what I am saying. That it does not allow the state to control the manner in which guns are carried in public. If people visiting other states or passing through was vanishingly rare, then your dismissal would make sense. As it is quite common for people to visit other states, that out of staters do not have to comply with the state’s requirements to carry concealed makes any state’s requirements pointless.
I do not have you confused with anyone else. I was responding to both you, and to another poster (the other one that I quoted) in the same post. This other poster did feel that posting anecdotes about DGU’s that had nothing to do with concealed carry was relevant to my objection to states not being able to control the manner in which lethal weapons are carried in the state.
It is not all that rare that people respond to more than one poster in a post, but I do apologize if that confused you.
Again, not true. Are you aware that when someone with a LTC from one state crosses over into another state (that recognizes the LTC issued by his home state) he is required to obey the laws of the state he’s in, with respect to CC?
Were this bill to pass and I were to travel to NYC, I’d have to obey all the NY laws with respect to CC.
The individual states retain full control over CC within their borders.
