I can imagine the situation where you hear someone break into your house, presumably somewhere other than the room you're in, so you can get your gun, load it, and go a huntin' bad guys in your PJs. I'm wondering what other situations a gun might actually be useful. In a robbery or road rage situation, someone has presumably already stuck a gun in your face, so drawing your concealed piece at that time doesn't seem very useful.

If one of your kids was going to grow up to be a menace to society and a drug dealer, a gun can be used by one son to kill his brother (well, that's what happened the other day, anyway).

A guns' pretty useful if you're hunting.
Also, bear country, it's nice to have there. Bear spray isn't nearly as nice as a slug.

if you are in reasonable, imminent fear of severe bodily injury or death (that of yourself or another person). your assiailant must have shown intent, ability, and you must reasonably fear yourself or another person in jeopardy of the above.

check your local laws.

something else to consider...legal vs useful are often unrelated. meaning, you may be legally in the right but how useful is the firearm in said situation?

then there's civil liability.

I can imagine the situation where you hear someone break into your house, presumably somewhere other than the room you're in, so you can get your gun, load it, and go a huntin' bad guys in your PJs. I'm wondering what other situations a gun might actually be useful. In a robbery or road rage situation, someone has presumably already stuck a gun in your face, so drawing your concealed piece at that time doesn't seem very useful.If somone break into your house and threatens you with a firearm.

Most likley in an arm robbery you won't have time to pull yours. Maybe even in a RR situation.

then there's civil liability.

The whole liability thing is exactly why you never ever bring out the gun or point it unless you're ready to take that person's life, not just hit them. Dead men don't tell lies.

I heard this discussion on NPR the other morning. The reporter pulled up the fact that you are like 22 times more likely to be shot in your home if you have a gun in your house. But then the reporter (not some NRA pundit) pulled apart some of those stats, and said that if your gun was registered, and you have no violent felonies in your past, then there was no statistical difference between owning a gun, and not owning a gun concerning your safety.

I thought that was interesting. So, for your basic owning middle class guy, who has bought and registered his gun legally, and doesn't have a violent criminal history, then you are no more likely to be shot then your peace-activist neighbor.

which begs the question, then why would you need a gun in the first place- to which I would respond, "why not?"

The whole liability thing is exactly why you never ever bring out the gun or point it unless you're ready to take that person's life, not just hit them. Dead men don't tell lies.Bingo! Rule #1 I was taught.

If you pull it, it's shoot to kill and nothing else. 99.9% of people even if threatend won't have the guts to do that. It's harder than people think.

which begs the question, then why would you need a gun in the first place- to which I would respond, "why not?"Maybe because you might join a Milita? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :mad2:

Huh, no one "needs" a gun. Well maybe the Military.

The whole liability thing is exactly why you never ever bring out the gun or point it unless you're ready to take that person's life, not just hit them. Dead men don't tell lies.

aggravated assault is another reason to keep it concealed.

which begs the question, then why would you need a gun in the first place- to which I would respond, "why not?"

I can see guns for sport - but I just come up short when I try to imagine personal safety situations in which there is time to pull out a gun when that's the best response (as opposed situations when there's no legal justification to do it).

I heard this discussion on NPR the other morning. The reporter pulled up the fact that you are like 22 times more likely to be shot in your home if you have a gun in your house. But then the reporter (not some NRA pundit) pulled apart some of those stats, and said that if your gun was registered, and you have no violent felonies in your past, then there was no statistical difference between owning a gun, and not owning a gun concerning your safety.

I thought that was interesting. So, for your basic owning middle class guy, who has bought and registered his gun legally, and doesn't have a violent criminal history, then you are no more likely to be shot then your peace-activist neighbor.

which begs the question, then why would you need a gun in the first place- to which I would respond, "why not?"

data skewed. not all states require registration of legally purchased/owned firearms.

I can see guns for sportoh yah. Shooting paper targets is so much fun....:rolleyes:

I can see guns for sport - but I just come up short when I try to imagine personal safety situations in which there is time to pull out a gun when that's the best response (as opposed situations when there's no legal justification to do it).

I wouldn't own a hand gun for my personal home saftey, as I would always be too afraid it was just a friend/family member or just a junkie looking for a TV with no intent to harm anyone.

Now, I see no problem owning a long gun, esp. one with a trigger lock, in a gun safe.

Bingo! Rule #1 I was taught.

If you pull it, it's shoot to kill and nothing else. 99.9% of people even if threatend won't have the guts to do that. It's harder than people think.

It seems like that rule is well known by those with guns, but those without much weapon experience don't really know that you point only at what you want to kill. I try to explain that, but usually end up telling them to just get some mace.

data skewed. not all states require registration of legally purchased/owned firearms.

They were just talking about handguns. Sorry for not mentioning that.

It seems like that rule is well known by those with guns, but those without much weapon experience don't really know that you point only at what you want to kill. I try to explain that, but usually end up telling them to just get some mace.LOL! Well I told someone this. If you see their gun, then shoot to kill. That's easy right?

Kestrel, that 22 times figure is a classic case of selective statistics, it's been pulled apart many times. However, both sides in the gun debate have been caught playing with the data.

If you've spent much time with the social sciences and statistical analysis, you know it's never so simple and lots of "trends" are barely distinguishable from background noise.

For the OP: the "home invasion" is the classic case; you see these pop up in the news on a regular basis where a granny runs off a thug with her revolver. Cases like these are far more frequent than most people realize. It's usually a case of a dumb burglar who miscalculated and got a nasty surprise. Very few of them end up dead or even wounded though.

For most gun owners, that's it, since very few bother (or want or feel the need) to register / license for carry.

For CC permit holders, there's usually a reason that the individual feels strongly about - they have to deal with cash and seedy parts of town, or they're a female who's been threatened or harmed in the past, or for a few, it's just enthusiasm to exercise the right to carry. In general, cases of CC holders using their weapon (which I include to mean saying "I have a gun" or showing the gun) are pretty rare. I think mostly because all the CC permit courses emphasize awareness and avoidance and the nasty repercussions of shooting someone, even if justified.

data skewed. not all states require registration of legally purchased/owned firearms.

I thought registration was a federal thing? Aren't all guns bought from dealers (not gun show) registered? What states aren't?

I thought registration was a federal thing? Aren't all guns bought from dealers (not gun show) registered? What states aren't?

You don't have to register shotguns in TN, at least when I was in college you didn't.

if you are in reasonable, imminent fear of severe bodily injury or death (that of yourself or another person). your assiailant must have shown intent, ability, and you must reasonably fear yourself or another person in jeopardy of the above.



Cool! So I can start shooting people who threaten me with their cars when I'm bike commuting?

if you are in reasonable, imminent fear of severe bodily injury or death (that of yourself or another person). your assiailant must have shown intent, ability, and you must reasonably fear yourself or another person in jeopardy of the above.

check your local laws.

something else to consider...legal vs useful are often unrelated. meaning, you may be legally in the right but how useful is the firearm in said situation?

then there's civil liability.

Don't people usually shoot first then ask questions later?

Oregon doesn't require registration of any guns (hand guns, rifles, etc.). There is a basic background check performed whenever you purchase a gun; basically, the store or gun show clerk calls in your drivers license # to a state agency which checks you against a black list. It takes about five minutes. There is no state registration of individual firearms however.

It's like anything else: it needs to be realistic and that means that there has to be compromise, but it doesn't seem like there are that many people willing to be realistic about the situation and compromise about it.

Guns are not going away. That is a fact. Get over it. There will never be any dream scenario that will ever be played out where guns are gone.

On the same token: I don't want my neighbor to have chain guns set up on the corners of his roof top. There is a general concern for safety that I think must be respected by gun owners. These laws need to be realistic though.

I have no problems with people owning handguns/rifles/shotguns. No problem at all. It's not perfect, buy my idea of it is something like this: you go to the gun shop and register yourself as a gun owner, wait 2 weeks or whatever while a background check is done to make sure you're not a violent criminal and then you get your gun. The record is updated automatically... so if you commit armed robbery then your gins and your right to own them disappears. But, so long as it's all kept current, feel free to buy handguns/rifles/shotguns till your hearts content with no waiting period so long as the SN is registered at the time of purchase.

It is not reasonable in my opinion that people not have their firearms registered. It also seems extremely reasonable to me to have to pass a one time safety test that can be waived by taking a gun safety class with the Sheriff's dept. or whatever.

Automatic assault weapons, in my opinion, don't need to be owned. If you can't protect your house with a snub nose 357 then you aren't getting it done with an automatic assault rifle. If you think you're going to take on an army with your AK, think again.






joe

They were just talking about handguns. Sorry for not mentioning that.

i am talking about long arms AND handguns. in TN we don't have to register anything. of course if it's purchased from the fun store or bass pro or something, it's registered through the course of purchase. but inheritence, gifts and person-to-person sales are legal without registration/certification.

I thought registration was a federal thing? Aren't all guns bought from dealers (not gun show) registered? What states aren't?

some gun shows have private (individual) sales. face to face sales in some states do not require registration. all guns bought from dealers ARE registered, however. i'm not 100% sure on some shotguns and rifles purchased from dealers, though.

As to the original question, one group that are often ignored are rural people. If the nearest law enforcement is 20+ miles away, these folks are truly on their own when it comes to personal safety. And unfortunately bad people don't all stay in big cities.

My bro-in-law is a logger and for a while remote meth labs were a big problem for them. It was not unusual to stumble upon makeshift labs in abandoned cars way up in the forest, and on several occasions they found people sleeping *inside* the logging machine cabs. The meth lab problem has subsided greatly since Oregon passed the pseudoephedrine laws, but I can appreciate why these guys literally feared for their lives when going to work early in the morning.

Kestrel, that 22 times figure is a classic case of selective statistics, it's been pulled apart many times. However, both sides in the gun debate have been caught playing with the data.

If you've spent much time with the social sciences and statistical analysis, you know it's never so simple and lots of "trends" are barely distinguishable from background noise.

For the OP: the "home invasion" is the classic case; you see these pop up in the news on a regular basis where a granny runs off a thug with her revolver. Cases like these are far more frequent than most people realize. It's usually a case of a dumb burglar who miscalculated and got a nasty surprise. Very few of them end up dead or even wounded though.

For most gun owners, that's it, since very few bother (or want or feel the need) to register / license for carry.

For CC permit holders, there's usually a reason that the individual feels strongly about - they have to deal with cash and seedy parts of town, or they're a female who's been threatened or harmed in the past, or for a few, it's just enthusiasm to exercise the right to carry. In general, cases of CC holders using their weapon (which I include to mean saying "I have a gun" or showing the gun) are pretty rare. I think mostly because all the CC permit courses emphasize awareness and avoidance and the nasty repercussions of shooting someone, even if justified.

great reply.

A guns' pretty useful if you're hunting.
Also, bear country, it's nice to have there. Bear spray isn't nearly as nice as a slug.

But still, there's the question of accuracy under pressure.

The best response is a good friend, and better running shoes.

I lived in 5 states and none of them required gun registration. Well, maybe they did and I didn't know about it! None of my guns have ever been registered. All my motorized vehicles have been though and some of my bicycles.

oh yah. Shooting paper targets is so much fun....:rolleyes:

You might be surprised. Perhaps not the woo-hoo fun of bombing a big hill, but it is an interesting challenge to hit a dot the size of a pencil lead when each heartbeat moves the point of aim off the paper both up and down. Not to mention questions of windage and drop.

Personally, I enjoy it far more than hunting. While hunting is something more of a shooting challenge, I just don't have the stomach for it.

I have never understood why anyone would choose a handgun over a pump-action shotgun.

With a shotgun, you don't need to be nearly as accurate, and the sound they make when you pump them is enough to make anyone fill their pants and run.

Plus, you can hunt with a shotgun. And yeah, I know, there are some guys who hunt with handguns, but there are also people who hunt with longbows...

but inheritence, gifts and person-to-person sales are legal without registration/certification. thank goodness.

But still, there's the question of accuracy under pressure.

The best response is a good friend, and better running shoes.


The better response is a slow friend and good running shoes.

But still, there's the question of accuracy under pressure.

The best response is a good friend, and better running shoes.

Right there is a question of accuracy under pressure but that's why you practice a lot so if there's ever a situation where you need to shoot you're familiar with the gun. Fortunately bears are pretty big.

P.S. Moose are a lot scarier to me than bears.

I've lived in 5 states and none of them required gun registration. Well, maybe they did and I didn't know about it! None of my guns have ever been registered. All my motorized vehicles have been though and some of my bicycles.

I can imagine the situation where you hear someone break into your house, presumably somewhere other than the room you're in, so you can get your gun, load it, and go a huntin' bad guys in your PJs. I'm wondering what other situations a gun might actually be useful. In a robbery or road rage situation, someone has presumably already stuck a gun in your face, so drawing your concealed piece at that time doesn't seem very useful.

In the house, a gun has a fair use, and there's considerably more latitude about use in most jurisdictions. A shotgun is arguably the best answer for a few reasons, not the least of which is that they can be loaded for progressive lethality.

As for concealed carry out in the world, I have trouble defining useful scenarios. If someone has a gun on you, your chances of pulling it are limited; if not, making the justification for it can be trouble. Most thugs don't threaten you; they jump you, making a response tough (but reasonably justifiable.)

Coming to the aid of another is a common 'why', but reality is another issue. There, you'd need to see a bad guy's gun to even imagine it, and make sure it's not an undercover cop in a situation you don't comprehend.

Long way of saying that I agree with your premise - avoiding the emotions of the argument, it's not terribly practical in a day-to-day sense. Not a choice I'd make in any case.

However, it's worth noting that the 2nd has nothing to do with self defense, hunting, or target shooting, and even less to do with the national guard. Don't know if that's where this was headed, but I suspect it will soon.

In general, cases of CC holders using their weapon (which I include to mean saying "I have a gun" or showing the gun) are pretty rare. I think mostly because all the CC permit courses emphasize awareness and avoidance and the nasty repercussions of shooting someone, even if justified.
i agree. but we must be ever vigilant against such outlandish C&C abuses posted below.

Right there is a question of accuracy under pressure but that's why you practice a lot so if there's ever a situation where you need to shoot you're familiar with the gun. Fortunately bears are pretty big.

P.S. Moose are a lot scarier to me than bears.

True. Kinda crazy what adrenaline does to imaginings of handgun competancy, tho.

In the house, a gun has a fair use, and there's considerably more latitude about use in most jurisdictions. ... As for concealed carry out in the world, I have trouble defining useful scenarios. Long way of saying that I agree with your premise - avoiding the emotions of the argument, it's not terribly practical in a day-to-day sense. Not a choice I'd make in any case.

However, it's worth noting that the 2nd has nothing to do with self defense, hunting, or target shooting, and even less to do with the national guard. Don't know if that's where this was headed, but I suspect it will soon.

You summed up pretty well what I keep coming to - there are very few situations in which you might draw a gun (outside the home) when there isn't already a weapon pointed at you & preventing you from drawing the gun. There was a conceal & carry example of people FEELING better if armed, but it didn't really come up with situations when you might actually use the gun.

This wasn't meant to be a 2d Amendment discussion, rather a discussion of what actual scenarios people have in mind when they think their gun will help them.

However, it's worth noting that the 2nd has nothing to do

How'd we get to 2nd? Who's on first?:D

With a shotgun, you don't need to be nearly as accurate...

That's a commonly held misunderstanding. At ranges that can reasonably be considered self-defense, a shotgun's pattern is roughly the size of a quarter. There's no real change in the accuracy required.

The aiming benefit is that any long arm is easier to aim, because of the longer sight radius and more widely spaced grip. A rifle (carbine, really - rifles are generally too unwieldy) would be as successful as concerns aiming. The benefit of the shotgun is in delivered energy - a load of shot stops in the target, with fewer worries of a through-and-through hitting someone or something unintended.

[QUOTE=danl1]True. Kinda crazy what adrenaline does to imaginings of handgun competancy, tho.[/QUOTE

If you're using a handgun you're royally screwed. You get a shot, maybe two if your lucky. Really you're better off shooting your friend and running then.

Rifles/shotguns are much better against big animals like that, you can get 3 or 4 rounds off so you don't have to be the best shot ever.

That's a commonly held misunderstanding. At ranges that can reasonably be considered self-defense, a shotgun's pattern is roughly the size of a quarter. There's no real change in the accuracy required.

The aiming benefit is that any long arm is easier to aim, because of the longer sight radius and more widely spaced grip. A rifle (carbine, really - rifles are generally too unwieldy) would be as successful as concerns aiming. The benefit of the shotgun is in delivered energy - a load of shot stops in the target, with fewer worries of a through-and-through hitting someone or something unintended.

That's more what I was talking about, but lacked the skills to get across. Thanks! My dad used to say that the west wasn't won by cowboys with colt 45s, it was won by women with shotguns.

Plus, when all else fails, a shotgun makes one he!! of a club.

Automatic assault weapons, in my opinion, don't need to be owned. If you can't protect your house with a snub nose 357 then you aren't getting it done with an automatic assault rifle. If you think you're going to take on an army with your AK, think again.
joe

I'm not personally interested in owning one, I'm more the sniper sort. :D

But if you accept the premise of the 2nd at all, it's something of an argument. No, me and Uncle BIlly aren't going to take them on. But if it ever came to a point where true martial law (as opposed to a reasonable emergency / disaster situation) was declared, the armed population would have the resources of the government easily overwhelmed. If you are a fan of the ultimate in checks and balances, there's an argument to be made.

Plus, ripping through a magazine in full rock-and-roll is machismo realized. That alone is reason enough to legalize them. :D

For the record, I believe the benefits of restriction in everyday society FAR outweigh the theoretical advantages of the end-of-the-republic scenario. Practically speaking, common weapons would do about as well in that case.

If we've learned anything in the past 7 years it's that, in the event of marshal law where we fealt physically threatened as a people by our police forces, private army, the military, or all of them, a heads up battle will result in a quick victory for the government. A loose association of individuals who know how to build bombs and who could teach others how to do the same, and how to handle a rifle well would get a lot more done than people holeing up in their houses or people aranging themselves on the battle lines in an attempt to outman the military.





joe

I always carry a loaded 357 with me at all times. You never can tell when those commies might attack. (same for "bad people")

I always carry a loaded 357 with me at all times. You never can tell when those commies might attack. (same for "bad people")

I could see packin' for Commies, because we all know they'll coming running over the hills yelling & waving their guns, so you'll have time to draw and plink off a few rounds before they over-run you.

But the bad guys aren't so gentlemanly. The scenario I imagine with them is someone walks up, sticks a weapon in your face, and demands your money, keys, ATM card, or bike. At that point, it's kinda hard to do the draw and plink thing. So then I guess the trick is to draw before their weapon is in your face, but that doesn't seem very neighborly if the guy walking toward you wasn't planning to rob you. This is my problem... what's the scenario away from home when you'll have enough warning of a threat to draw your weapon?

This is my problem... what's the scenario away from home when you'll have enough warning of a threat to draw your weapon?

Zombie attack. Duh.

Zombie attack. Duh.

Need more than a little handgun, according to How to Kill a Zombie. For that you need to kill the brain with decapitation, bludgeoning, explosion or burning.

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?oid=32136&category=23483

If we've learned anything in the past 7 years it's that, in the event of marshal law where we fealt physically threatened as a people by our police forces, private army, the military, or all of them, a heads up battle will result in a quick victory for the government. A loose association of individuals who know how to build bombs and who could teach others how to do the same, and how to handle a rifle well would get a lot more done than people holeing up in their houses or people aranging themselves on the battle lines in an attempt to outman the military.
joe

All true in the present scenarios. And no, the populace aligning in a phalanx isn't going to work no matter the weaponry. But bombs (IED's) are frighteningly inefficient weapons, useful more for terror than tactical gain, which would be the driver in any implementation of the 2nd. Remember, it's not so we can fight to keep the French out, it's so we could release the grip of a government gone bad. In that scenario, terror simply doesn't matter.

Similar guerilla tactics combined with better weapons would have made for a much different-looking last seven years. Thank goodness Saddam believed in gun control. Then again, perhaps not. If there were more open arms availability there, maybe either he'd have been deposed earlier, or our leaders might have thought again (or at all) about creating that vacuum.

Either way, it doesn't make logical sense to say that a guerilla force on native soil would not benefit from the best small arms they could arrange.

I heard this discussion on NPR the other morning. The reporter pulled up the fact that you are like 22 times more likely to be shot in your home if you have a gun in your house. But then the reporter (not some NRA pundit) pulled apart some of those stats, and said that if your gun was registered, and you have no violent felonies in your past, then there was no statistical difference between owning a gun, and not owning a gun concerning your safety.

I thought that was interesting. So, for your basic owning middle class guy, who has bought and registered his gun legally, and doesn't have a violent criminal history, then you are no more likely to be shot then your peace-activist neighbor.

which begs the question, then why would you need a gun in the first place- to which I would respond, "why not?"

Simple. If you're robbed then you've put more guns on the street.

I could see packin' for Commies, because we all know they'll coming running over the hills yelling & waving their guns, so you'll have time to draw and plink off a few rounds before they over-run you.

But the bad guys aren't so gentlemanly. The scenario I imagine with them is someone walks up, sticks a weapon in your face, and demands your money, keys, ATM card, or bike. At that point, it's kinda hard to do the draw and plink thing. So then I guess the trick is to draw before their weapon is in your face, but that doesn't seem very neighborly if the guy walking toward you wasn't planning to rob you. This is my problem... what's the scenario away from home when you'll have enough warning of a threat to draw your weapon?
There are many other scenarios with weapons that you could draw. Say someone approaches with a knife, or someone tells me to give her my money but only approaches with a bat. It's not always come up behind and point a gun to your head.

There are many other scenarios with weapons that you could draw. Say someone approaches with a knife, or someone tells me to give her my money but only approaches with a bat. It's not always come up behind and point a gun to your head.

OK. So these scenarios have a lightly-armed bad guy approaching from the front with the weapon in full view so one could draw a weapon before the bad-guy arrived to demand the money. I suppose that happens, and the unarmed victim people just keep walking toward the bad guy to see what he wants. Maybe directions? But that seems like an inordinately inept way to rob someone.

I think the more realistic situation is that one is confronted by a bad guy with a knife or bat, but there will be no virtually no warning during the approach. If the guy is square in front, maybe the gun can be drawn and brought around, rather than the wallet, without the guy using the knife or bat. Maybe. Then it's bang, bang, bang. OK. Success. But how does the gun draw work if the bad guy is behind or beside? How does it play out if he sees it coming around? What's the chance of success for the good guy pulling a gun with a weapon brandished at him? 50%? I'd think less, more like 25% if we include the odds that he's behind or beside you. If you don't get the gun all the way around, it seems the odds of the bad guy doing bodily harm is about 90%. What are the odds of being stabbed/batted if you hand over the wallet? I'd think under 25%.. as another blind guess.

So with a gun we have 25% chance of keeping your wallet and shooting the guy, versus 65% chance (90% chance of 75%) of him noticing the gun and, well... doing some damage. Without a gun there's no chance of keeping your wallet and less than a 25% chance of receiving some damage. So with a gun you have 25% chance of keeping your wallet for the bargain price of being 2.5 TIMES more likely to be on the receiving end of something bad. My wallet isn't that important for those long odds.

I consider a gun the last resort, pull it if there is no other way and then use it the same way. In most confrontations, a gun in your pocket will give you much more self assurance and allow you to go the extra mile to avoid deadly confrontation. If you can run, run and if you ain't all that fast and the pursuit catches up, better to go down shooting and missing than begging and losing.

"The scenario I imagine with them is someone walks up, sticks a weapon in your face, and demands your money, keys, ATM card, or bike. At that point, it's kinda hard to do the draw and plink thing."

This is why, as soon as a "bad looking" person gets within 10 feet of me, my 357 is out and pointed at their head. Just call me "quick draw".

I could see packin' for Commies, because we all know they'll coming running over the hills yelling & waving their guns, so you'll have time to draw and plink off a few rounds before they over-run you.

But the bad guys aren't so gentlemanly. The scenario I imagine with them is someone walks up, sticks a weapon in your face, and demands your money, keys, ATM card, or bike. At that point, it's kinda hard to do the draw and plink thing. So then I guess the trick is to draw before their weapon is in your face, but that doesn't seem very neighborly if the guy walking toward you wasn't planning to rob you. This is my problem... what's the scenario away from home when you'll have enough warning of a threat to draw your weapon?

That's why you need to study tai wan doo doo.

OK. So these scenarios have a lightly-armed bad guy approaching from the front with the weapon in full view so one could draw a weapon before the bad-guy arrived to demand the money. I suppose that happens, and the unarmed victim people just keep walking toward the bad guy to see what he wants. Maybe directions? But that seems like an inordinately inept way to rob someone.

I think the more realistic situation is that one is confronted by a bad guy with a knife or bat, but there will be no virtually no warning during the approach. If the guy is square in front, maybe the gun can be drawn and brought around, rather than the wallet, without the guy using the knife or bat. Maybe. Then it's bang, bang, bang. OK. Success. But how does the gun draw work if the bad guy is behind or beside? How does it play out if he sees it coming around? What's the chance of success for the good guy pulling a gun with a weapon brandished at him? 50%? I'd think less, more like 25% if we include the odds that he's behind or beside you. If you don't get the gun all the way around, it seems the odds of the bad guy doing bodily harm is about 90%. What are the odds of being stabbed/batted if you hand over the wallet? I'd think under 25%.. as another blind guess.

So with a gun we have 25% chance of keeping your wallet and shooting the guy, versus 65% chance (90% chance of 75%) of him noticing the gun and, well... doing some damage. Without a gun there's no chance of keeping your wallet and less than a 25% chance of receiving some damage. So with a gun you have 25% chance of keeping your wallet for the bargain price of being 2.5 TIMES more likely to be on the receiving end of something bad. My wallet isn't that important for those long odds.

If I had a ccw my gun would be ready to be drawn whenever i was around any nefarious characters. I don't have a ccw, but carry a knife for utility purposes, I have had my hand on that knife anticipating a threat before it happens. If you're robbed in daylight with a gun to the back of your head you're not going to 1. anticipate the incident 2. stop the incident.
Let's say you're walking down a dark alley in New York at night, you're probably going to have your hand on your gun but not drawn because you are anticipating a bad situation. CCW are really only successful if you can anticipate the danger, that does not mean that you shoot before you are threatened. It simply means you are aware that you could be in a dangerous situation and are ready before a criminal threatens your life.

OK. So these scenarios have a lightly-armed bad guy approaching from the front with the weapon in full view so one could draw a weapon before the bad-guy arrived to demand the money. I suppose that happens, and the unarmed victim people just keep walking toward the bad guy to see what he wants. Maybe directions? But that seems like an inordinately inept way to rob someone.

I think the more realistic situation is that one is confronted by a bad guy with a knife or bat, but there will be no virtually no warning during the approach. If the guy is square in front, maybe the gun can be drawn and brought around, rather than the wallet, without the guy using the knife or bat. Maybe. Then it's bang, bang, bang. OK. Success. But how does the gun draw work if the bad guy is behind or beside? How does it play out if he sees it coming around? What's the chance of success for the good guy pulling a gun with a weapon brandished at him? 50%? I'd think less, more like 25% if we include the odds that he's behind or beside you. If you don't get the gun all the way around, it seems the odds of the bad guy doing bodily harm is about 90%. What are the odds of being stabbed/batted if you hand over the wallet? I'd think under 25%.. as another blind guess.

So with a gun we have 25% chance of keeping your wallet and shooting the guy, versus 65% chance (90% chance of 75%) of him noticing the gun and, well... doing some damage. Without a gun there's no chance of keeping your wallet and less than a 25% chance of receiving some damage. So with a gun you have 25% chance of keeping your wallet for the bargain price of being 2.5 TIMES more likely to be on the receiving end of something bad. My wallet isn't that important for those long odds.

The gun isn't about actual usefulness. It's about the carrier feeling safer. Perception vs reality. et al...

Gun in the hand vs. a cop on the phone.

I'd choose the gun in the hand.

I'm hanging with Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Dick Cheney. I have equal chance to be protected, get laid or shot in the face.

It's all about situational awareness. If you're out and about and end up, unexpectedly, looking down the barrel of a gun, you haven't been paying attention. If you have SA, you see the bad guy coming and are ready for him.

SA is one of the first things they teach you in any self-defense class.

It's all about situational awareness. If you're out and about and end up, unexpectedly, looking down the barrel of a gun, you haven't been paying attention. If you have SA, you see the bad guy coming and are ready for him.

SA is one of the first things they teach you in any self-defense class.

And if I don't have a gun or time to get to one, maybe the guy behind the robber does or the guy across the street. I'm all for concealed carry with proper licensing and training.

You might be surprised. Perhaps not the woo-hoo fun of bombing a big hill, but it is an interesting challenge to hit a dot the size of a pencil lead when each heartbeat moves the point of aim off the paper both up and down. Not to mention questions of windage and drop.

Personally, I enjoy it far more than hunting. While hunting is something more of a shooting challenge, I just don't have the stomach for it.

That first time you see your heartbeat on the target is just magical. Shooting well is a very Zen thing.

I am 41 years old. I have a wife, two boys, a dog, a house, a business, and all the other stuff that goes with the American dream. I've NEVER had a drop of alcohol, or tried an illegal drug of any type. Everyday of my life I see (and deal with) people who have NO regard for life (or property) and it's only getting worse. My number one duty in this world is to protect my family. I've been carrying a handgun for close to twenty years. I have NEVER had to "pull it out" or "point it" at anybody and I pray I never will. It's not for fun, or a hobby of mine. Sometimes It's heavy, uncomfortable, or hot. I've never shot myself in the foot, robbed a store, or waved it around in a parking lot. Call me a nut, but (just like carrying a tube) I'd rather have it and never need it, than the other way around. .

Cool! So I can start shooting people who threaten me with their cars when I'm bike commuting?

In most states this actually falls under 'dangerous game' hunting and fishing laws, so you must be wearing a jersey like this-