Twice. Once to rescue a woman being dragged into a alley, and once because two homeless guys came out a alley armed with a 2X4 and a bottle demanding money.
And of course, I have no idea of 'what if". I did not fire my weapon.
Oh, and I did draw my gun a couple times as a armed security guard, but that’s different.
Then they’d ask you to leave. Only if you refused would the police get involved.
Unless it’s a school or courthouse, etc, but of course there it’s pretty obvious.
I wasn’t trolling, I was stating my observation.
For chrissake, we have ACTUAL GODDAM TROLLS tapdancing all over this fucking place, and I get called a troll by a mod. Fantastic.
But I wasn’t asking what motivates CCW folks - sure, there are doubtlessly some who see the presence of brown-skinned people as a reason to carry - but rather, questions about the ***actual ***risk of danger that one encounters, that make carrying guns a wise idea.
Take discussion of moderation to ATMB. No more in this thread.
[/moderating]
Considering how many guns are stolen when the owner is away or “go off” when someone is “just looking at it” when the owner is absent, I suppose CCW makes sense. Keep it with you, so you can know where it is. Guns are vulnerable and need protection. Won’t someone think of the small-arms?
And that question was kicked from GQ because there is no factual answer. Ask CCW holders, and their reasons to carry will always outweigh the risks. Likewise, you’ve heard from some posters that they never feel a reason to carry.
In my observation of CCW holders, what risk/benefit analysis they bother with is heavily influenced by their perceived likelihood of encountering someone non-white. In other cases they weigh the risks of carrying with their own (highly inflated) estimated chances of getting the coveted opportunity to shoot someone and becoming a CCW hero. And you can bet that when they fantasize about it, they don’t imagine their adversary as looking like them.
CCW holder by any chance? Asking for a friend.
The Powerful and Mighty Tyrannosaurus Rex
Knock off the asinine trolling.
Warning issued. Stop it.
Any further questions? Take it to ATMB.
OK, that’s enough.
Sicks Ate. You can’t behave in this thread, apparently. You are hereby ordered to not post in it again. You’re done in this thread.
In my state, like some others, it’s not a “crime” to ignore those signs. One cannot get sentenced to jail, get a criminal record, or lose their CCL for violating them. At worst only a small fine can be accessed if a carrier refuses to leave. It’s like a parking ticket.
Wisconsin has also wisely placed liability for safety squarely on businesses that post their entrances and relieves them of liability if they don’t. Hence few businesses are posted here.
And there has been little problem with legal concealed/open carry here.
If we’re using anecdotes, I’ve lived in the Dallas Fort Worth area for 25 years, and have over 500,000 miles of both commuting and traveling under my belt (although not all in Texas). I’ve never once needed the seat belts, nor the airbags, nor have my children ever “needed” their car seats in this quarter-century. Ditto for the smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in my house.
Based on your logic, people have no need for these things and should stop using them. Would you agree?
For what it’s worth: the gun is the only thing in this list I’ve actually needed. And on that day I needed it badly.
To the OP’s question: Any violent crime rate greater than zero.
If we’re trading anecdotes, a good friend of mine was murdered in Baltimore (Hamilton area).
I used to work in the 21201 zip code. It was fine during the day, but there were areas around there that I personally did not feel comfortable walking through at night. YMMV.
Maryland is a “may issue” state meaning that they only issue gun permits if they think you need one, and they almost never think you need one. Concealed carry isn’t an issue in Baltimore, because as a practical matter you can’t concealed carry in Baltimore legally. Only the criminals have guns.
Here is a study that shows the effectiveness of seat belts.
Can you link to a study that shows the effectiveness of carrying a gun around?
To the (very limited) extent this topic can ever be about math and statistics rather than politics and emotions, I think one key is to recognize that averages are not very useful. Which starts with the violent crime some people seek to protect themselves from by carrying guns. Changing your location and pattern of association and behavior (to the extent possible, society might arguably hem you into certain patterns, but that’s a different discussion) could reduce your likelihood of being murdered orders of magnitude. It swamps 10 or 20% increase/decrease in the average murder rate.
Likewise say for going to jail or having to live with killing somebody in an accidental gun discharge. For competent people taking reasonable precautions with reasonable quality guns that’s an extremely remote possibility. For dumb and careless people, who handle guns drunk etc, it’s not so remote. But the average is still of little relevance to either category of person. The rhetorical go around on this is often to point out that people in the second category are not self aware and think they are in the first category. But that doesn’t mean there are not people in the first category, there are many.
A naturally attractive line of argument for further restricting gun rights (which is what all these discussions are about, for or against that, no disclaimer that it’s a ‘non political’ discussion can wholly divorce it from that) is to tell people who use guns for self defense that reducing their gun rights is in their personal interest. Just look at this average stat for accidents v this average stat saying successful gun use is very rare (though latter are highly controversial stats, a different tangent)! But the accident thing just doesn’t apply much to people who are reasonably responsible, and even if some people face a subjectively judged ‘too low to worry about’ threat, other people face a more elevated threat. The real argument you’re making to most gun people is ‘society is better off as a whole with more restrictions and if it’s against your personal interest we propose you just learn to live with that’. Which could be a valid judgement, but argument by averages tends to obscure this.
What does the effectiveness of seat belts in Nigeria have to do with gun laws/carrying in Texas?
Not much. Why, did you think they were related?
There’s no real danger of getting in legal trouble with the law. There are other kinds of trouble with the law that CCW puts you in real danger of, as Philando Castile would attest. Well, if he could, at least.
I’ve still yet to see an explanation of how a gun can be used to defend oneself against an attacker with a gun. If they draw first, they’re probably going to get off the first shots, too. If you’re the one who draws first, then you’re the attacker, not them. And even if you do manage to kill the guy before he shoots you, what’s to stop him from killing you?
Why bring race into this?
I work with several black guys and I know at least one is CCW.
In another thread I posted three cases where a home invasion, by multiple armed attackers , was beaten off by a lone armed home owner.
Generally, yes, if they get the drop on you, you hand your wallet over.
In at least one case, a cop friend of mine, off duty, tossed his money clip at the guy, and the cah came loose. As the perp switched his gun to his left hand and scrambled to pick it up, he heard: “Police, freeze”. and looked up to see the off duty cop had the drop on him.