Well no, I think there are many many potential negative outcomes so you’re wrong there. I do think successful self defense is a positive outcome, even if it happens to result in the death or injury of an attacker. Best case scenario is no attackers, but without magic that’s not realistic.
Fair enough. I concede that there have been times where people thwarted being robbed by having a gun. There are also times where people have won the lotto. Do you similarly recommend buying a Power Ball ticket every day?
OK. So you think there are many many potential negative outcomes, but only one positive outcome (successful self-defense)?
Trying to draw similarities between the different scenarios is silly. But actually in situations where Power Ball has a positive expected return it’s not a terrible choice to purchase tickets, depending on how much disposable income you have.
Not “only one”. Normalizing is also quite positive. There’s lots more. But that way lies pedantry and it’s where the whole “it’s my right” comes into play. Think of it similar to “check your privilege”.
Possible? Maybe. Probable? I doubt it. Do you really think that you can pull your gun out of your holster (which is of course one of those holsters with the extra strap to prevent someone from walking up behind you and pulling it out) switching off the safety, getting a good bead on your target, and squeezing the trigger, in less time than it takes for them to squeeze the trigger?
While we are on the subject of not answering questions, you did not address my concern about being used as a backstop.
Thought it was pretty well specified, I was remarking on a story about how someone in the open had their gun taken away from them. I was remarking on the other having the drop on you.
Now, sure, if you have boobytraps in your establishment, or a gun under the counter, then that may be easier to draw than a gun from your holster. (Properly secured, right?)
In the pizza story, it said the other person was armed, but it not say with a gun. I dunno if it was just a detail left out, but in any case, did you notice in that story that it was not just the criminal that was injured?
So, it looks like what you are saying is that if the robber is not very good, not very committed, and not likely to actually shoot and kill you, then you have a decent chance of shooting them before they make that decision.
Do you think that any of that holds if the criminal IS willing to kill you? If the robbers start getting shot at if they hesitate, you are just putting selection pressure against the muggers that won’t kill. In fact, if I were a criminal in society where I believed most are armed, I’m gonna shoot you first, then take your wallet and gun.
Well, you are welcome, I guess. I certainly do not value my safety higher than I value yours. I would never put you in danger to escape danger myself. In many ways, I do value the safety of a stranger greater than I value my own safety (in that I would put my life on the line to save a stranger), but to simplify, we’ll say that I value your safety as equal to my own.
I guess that is a difference in philosophy between the two sides. I cannot in good conscience threaten the life and safety of innocent people to protect my own.
There’s times where the Power Ball has a positive expected return?
Okay, two positive outcomes, although I don’t consider “Getting people used to seeing guns around” as a positive outcome. This, against your own count of “many many negative outcomes” ?
I don’t understand the use of “check your privilege” in this context.
Yeah, once every few years, it gets high enough you have “pot odds” in that the payout is greater than the odds against you.
This doesn’t figure in taxes of course. Once every many years, it’ll clear enough to pay back the taxes too.
If it’s won by more than one ticket, then you are back to square one…
So, yeah, the odds sound about the same as successfully defending yourself from a mugger who already has their gun pointed at you.
“Check your privilege” is something told to majorities when a minority feels that the majority is being condescending to them.
This tells us two things (assuming he actually means to use that phrase). One, they know that they are in the minority. Two, they consider me not wanting them to shoot me to be condescending.
It’s not just maybe possible, I gave examples that contradicted your previous statement. In other words, what you said earlier was false. Is this like the fake news that’s been all the rage lately? I thought acceptable instances of fake news were supposed to include retractions when mistakes were uncovered.
You’re right, I didn’t. There was no question presented.
Incorrect again. What I am saying is that you made a statement that was false. That was illustrated by citing an example that contradicted your claim.
Like I said, that way lays pedantry. I say there are lots more, you say there are two - There’s a disconnect there. A simple count also doesn’t weight the items relative to each other either. Of course, this type of measurement is not productive since as you acknowledge you can see no potential positive outcomes that are likely to happen.
I typically interpret that phrase as a way of someone dismissing another person’s views as lacking merit. Because the majority of people who hold certain views towards an armed populace would never ask why someone would want to carry, or any number of other questions along those lines. So when someone does ask those types of questions, the response of “it’s my right” is a way to dismiss the question as without merit. Occasionally someone will ask with genuine interest and in those cases it’s worth taking the effort to present the argument.
Ah, anecdotes are data, then. Awesome.
Gonna play the lottery? Got some anecdotes here. Proves it’s a sure thing.
Good thing that I did not claim that it was impossible, just unlikely, to defend yourself from someone who already has a gun at your head, or else your anecdotes would have proven me wrong.
Tell you what. A guy stands in a proper stance, 6 feet from you, with the gun pointing directly at your heart. He tells you to drop the wallet and the gun.
What do you do?
Are you honestly telling me that you think that you can beat the odds and draw and fire (which of course, requires you to remove the safety strap from your holster, un-safe your weapon, aim at your target, ensure that you are not using bystanders as a backstop, and get your finger inside the trigger guard and squeeze), before he can pull the trigger?
You are either a superhero, or you are overconfident.
I can tell you right now, my wallet is going on the ground, next to my gun in that situation.
I’m thinking that the mugger is gonna get your wallet and gun too, it’s just that they may leave you with a coupla bullets for your trouble.
You are right. I did not ask a question, which is why I expressed it as an unaddressed concern, rather than an unanswered question.
So, I will ask you a question then. How comfortable would you be being downrange, standing next to a target that someone is shooting at?
I would appreciate it if you would stop falsely claiming that I made a false statement, and especially that you disproved it by citing examples.
I made a statement of probability. That I consider it highly unlikely that you would be able to extricate yourself from a situation where the mugger already had the drop on you.
Posting a couple anecdotes does not in any way falsify my statement.
It’s like the lottery. Except instead of a dollar wagered to win millions, it is your life wagered to keep whatever’s in your wallet.
Different way of interpreting that phrase, but okay.
Funny, when I hear “it’s my right”, to me it means “I don’t really want to explain my real reasons because they are poorly thought out, dumb, or overly fearful”
But, as I’ve said many times, I support everyone’s right to carry in whatever lawful manner they are allowed. As long as I can exercise my 1st Amendment right to publicly ridicule them 
For whatever it’s worth, I rank your right to ridicule as more important to a free society than mine is to carry.
Both are important, and there is no reason they should ever be mutually exclusive, but if for whatever reason it was necessary to rank them, First beats Second.
Let’s rewind the tape. Here’s what you said:
"there was* no way *he would be able to get his gun out, un-safed, pointed and fired before he was shot down by the mugger."
See that? The “no way” part? Kinda like impossible. There is no expression of probability, or likelihood. **That part is false. ** If you had said it was unlikely then I wouldn’t be able to tell you that you made a false statement - but since you did, I can and have. So I won’t falsely claim you made a false statement, I’ll accurately claim you did. You made a false statement. I disproved it by citing examples. If you’d like to retract your earlier false statement and amend it to something else than I would leave it alone.
Hopefully I never find out. I would say a few things in your scenario - Serpa Level 2 retention holsters don’t have a strap, and Glock and other similar firearms don’t have an external safety.
Very uncomfortable. That seems like a very unsafe practice and anyone doing so would be foolish. Of course, that sort of thing is entirely controllable so its relevance to anything is so thin as to be non-existent.
Ahh good - you’ll have plenty of opportunity because the number of permit holders continues to grow, as does the states where no permit is required at all.
Okay, I suppose I can admit that I don’t know why exactly he let the mugger take his gun. Maybe he just really wanted to give it away.
Why do you think it was that he did not pull out his gun and defend himself?
Is it because he did think that he would be able to get his gun out, un-safed, pointed and fired before he was shot down by the mugger?
Hmmm, that doesn’t make any sense. Of course, you cut off the beginning of that statement, when I said “he realized”, which changes the statement from what would have gone through his head, to issues of actual physical possibility. So, I will agree that your alteration of my statement is false.
I’m gonna stick with my statement for now. Maybe if we hear what went through his head, we can find out if it is false.
Not needing to unsafe saves a bit of a second, but most firearms I have used w/out safety tend to have a more annoying trigger guard and pull action.
Never used a serpa retention holster. How hard is it for a third party to pull your gun out if you aren’t paying close attention? Do you really think it saves you enough time to beat the trigger pull by your mugger? You really gonna bet your life on that?
Then you know how I feel about being treated as someone else’s potential backstop.
Let’s say I am standing next to or behind someone that you want to kill. (To be fair, he’s doing nasty stuff, worth killing over.) What are the chances that none of your fire goes astray? What are the chances that you even notice that you are not at a firing range with sand or concrete as a backstop, but instead, that any bullet that misses will likely end up in an innocent bystander.
I am actually much more concerned about accidents than intentional misuse. With the number of permit holders being a pretty small minority, it was not a big concern, though there certainly are accidents. With the number going up as it is, I am concerned about the number of accidents going up. Because the low hanging fruit of people like yourself (I assume you are a highly responsible gun owner) has already been armed, it is quite likely that those taking up permits now are not as responsible and capable as yourself. As the number grows even further, you are going to find some pretty irresponsible and incapable people carrying their guns around in public. And you are going to find alot of them, and more everyday, as gun culture become normalized and “cool”.
Think of the stupidest, most irresponsible, most scatterbrained, most undisciplined, but law abiding person you know. There is no legal reason for them not to have a gun, but you have seen themselves send themselves to the hospital using a butter knife. 'Cause guns are popular right now, he wants to get one, and carry it around like everyone else. Do you really think of this as a good idea?
You’re right about more people carrying. In 2007 there were approximately 4.6M permit holders and in 2015 that number rose to approximately 12.8M. Nearly triple. But you’re concerns should be assuaged about the increase in number of people injured or killed unintentionally. Here are thefigures from CDC about unintentional deaths:
Year Amount Per 100K
2013 505 0.16
2012 548 0.17
2011 591 0.19
2010 606 0.2
2009 554 0.18
2008 592 0.19
2007 613 0.2
2006 642 0.22
2005 789 0.27
2004 649 0.22
2003 730 0.25
2002 762 0.26
2001 802 0.28
And unintentional firearm injury:
Year Amount Per 100K
2013 16864 5.33
2012 17362 5.53
2011 14675 4.71
2010 14161 4.59
2009 18610 6.07
2008 17215 5.66
2007 15698 5.21
2006 14678 4.92
2005 15388 5.21
2004 16555 5.65
2003 18941 6.53
2002 17579 6.11
2001 17696 6.21
So even with the increase in permit holders, the figures for accidental death and injury haven’t gone up as you are concerned about. Rejoice!
So, permit holders have gone from 1.2% of the population to 4%. Like I said, low hanging fruit. About 4% or so of the population is responsible enough to carry lethal weapons without causing harm to others too much.
Maybe even 5%. Let’s say we get to 10%. You feeling nervous yet?
If 50% of the population had a gun on their hip, would this make you uncomfortable at all?
If the inverse of the current status quo were in place, and only 4% of the population was not armed at all times, do you not see how issues could get out of control pretty quickly?
What percentage of the population being armed at all times would you like to see? Do you really want every single person, of all responsibility and capability levels, carrying a gun, because it’s the thing to do? If not, what limits are you willing to put on it?
Do you see that we are only having a disagreement on degree, not on principle? (Unless of course, you are for a 100% (legal) carrying public, in which case, we do disagree on principle as well).
Not even close.
Nope.
Doesn’t take a well armed populace to get out of control. Things can always get out of control quickly.
I would like to see anyone who is not prohibited be able to carry if they choose to. Currently that’s the case in 41 out of 50 states, IIRC. I’m comfortable with the current limits of let’s say…New Hampshire.
As I posted earlier, somebody will link to one or 2 stories of an OCer being targeted. In a country of 325+ million people you can find an example of almost anything.
What you will not find is a significant number of open carriers being targeted. It’s just not happening. A handful of occurrences does not show a trend.
So … multiple instances of armed man meeting armed man with one killed or injured. And that’s proof of guns’ efficacy? Oooo-kayyy.
On TV, doctors are supposed to call police when treating a gun-shot victim. Are cases of good guys shooting good guys so common nowadays, that that is no longer the norm?
Great, I like laughing!
I’m pretty sure that “released” refers to medically released, not released back to the street. But the judge will probably do that part.