Really? Because pretty much the only situation in which I'd be tempted to shoot another person is if they also had a gun (otherwise they're pretty likely to shoot me).
If I'm unarmed, then I'm likely to be safe, even if I do get robbed.
If two people are running from a bear, you don’t need to outrun the bear.
Armed victim is more trouble for perpetrator so they will find easier prey. Most crimes aren’t specific but are opportunistic. If you’re a crackhead with a gun or whatnot do you stick up the crazy with a gun on their belt? Or wait 5 minutes for an unarmed victim?
This seems like such simple logic that it surprises me that I frequently hear arguments like yours.
I think that a ccw will not help against a hitman. But it sure helps against crackheads.
A bear isn't rational though. If I'm trying to avoid getting shot, then I don't need to outrun anyone. I can simply hand over my wallet/phone or whatever the criminal is after, and I'm safe.
I'd much rather choose an increase in the chance of having my possessions stolen (the chances of getting caught in this crime are pretty small anyway), than an increase in the chance I get shot.
Plus, by taking the "don't carry a gun" route, you can increase legal restrictions on guns. Gun control won't stop hitmen either, but crackheads in the UK don't have firearms.
> If you’re a crackhead with a gun or whatnot do you stick up the crazy with a gun on their belt? Or wait 5 minutes for an unarmed victim?
Since I'm not a rational long term thinker, I shoot my victim and take the wallet from the body, why give them a chance to shoot back?. This is the end result of the arms race you advocate for.
Crackheads aren’t random, they have some reasoning.
I’ve had a lot of experience with crackheads and robbing an armored car and a random care aren’t equally likely to them. Again, a crackhead doesn’t want to rob a particular person. They just want money.
The bear doesn’t want to eat you. They just want to eat someone.
We’re talking concealed though. So if everyone used your simple thought process, the rational move would be to shoot everyone since you don’t know who has a gun.
If its concealed, then how is it a deterrant for the crackhead to seek another victim? Said crackhead doesn’t know you have a gun, goes to rob you, you pull your gun and whoever is faster lives. Maybe.
Of course this is the pretty example that got on TV. The scenario that ends ugly, deadly and gruesome doesn't get posted to YouTube and (fortunately) not linked on HN.
It's a nice justice boner but it doesn't mean this is the usual outcome.
Especially without military training like this guy had.
Two points:
1. This was a specific example to an assertion I made that another poster had a hard time believing.
2. It's true that when we talk about life and death situations there are many ugly outcomes. It is, however, not clear that the ugly is the most common outcome when a law-abiding gun owner is involved. This is due to the fact that records are more than likely made when someone is shot, but not necessarily if one deters an assailant with a weapon.
Because in a society populated with a lot of violent people its important to have the ability to defend yourself. Pretending you live in a fantasy world where you can pass laws to protect people from violent individuals is delusional.
Does it? “The majority of the developed world” has about as much violent crime or more depending on which country you examine. The only difference is that of course there is a lot less involving guns.
I'm curious, where are you from? I live in Canada and no one carries around a gun except criminals.
We have a fair number of stabbings since anyone buy and carry a knife (with exceptions) but shootings are pretty damn rare. I think almost every shooting in my city (a total of 74 in a city of 1.25 million) last year was criminal-on-criminal.
Not the parent, but: I’m Czech, conceal carry for self-defense is legal here (with competence tests and no criminal history requirement) and some 300k people (out of 10M population) have the permit.
Shootings are pretty damn rare here.
Compared to e.g. UK, which all but banned any weapons imaginable, mugging, stabbing and other violent crimes are very rare as well.
Sounds like you thrive on anecdotes. You should move to Australia, not many people have guns, so we just man up and kill each other with a single punch.
Getting a CCW involves training to use the gun properly to shoot assailants. People with CCWs are more likely to win a standoff than random criminals with stolen guns and no training.
If the assailant also had a CCW, he would know how stupid it is to approach someone else with a gun.
Only in the most restrictive states is training required, and even then it's generally just a class about the laws and regulations. That's not going to help you in a "standoff".
I admit I don't have stats for this, but it seems that most people who get CCWs do practice regularly or at least have extensive experience with firearms.
I don’t have the stats handy at the moment, but ISTR that the number one way that police officers get shot/killed is by having their own gun taken away from them by criminals and then used against them.
Now, granted, many police officers don’t have anywhere near as much gun training than your average NRA member, but I submit they still have way more training with guns than the average person on the street.
Given that, I can’t see how the solution to the gun problem is by having more guns.
The people that attack police have little overlap with those who attack regular people. Also, keep in mind police have their guns visible where they can be easily grabbed.
