Explain to me how concealed carry protects against a mugging

[TechNoFear]

Because in Victoria you don't have to store your handgun at the club or have it locked in while shooting.

Sorry if I was not clear...

You have to be registered at a sporting pistol shooting club for 6 months before you can purchase a handgun (category H firearm).

During that 6 months you must use the clubs hire handguns.

The 2 gun clubs I used to attend (before I bought a rural property) require the firearm to be locked (this is to stop suicides, which were occuring once per week).

Also in WA farmers can get revolvers now, for putting down stock and killing pest animals.

Not true IME.

(2) A person does not have a genuine need to acquire or possess a firearm of category H because it is required for:
(a) hunting
(b) recreational shooting, other than by a person described in paragraph (a) under the heading ?Restrictions for category H?, and for a purpose described in that paragraph; or
(c) destroying stock or vermin.

 

[Deleted]

When you're held at gunpoint, you could whip out your gun too I guess? I supposed it would be more useful in situations that aren't as fast paced and random as a mugging.

The problem is the mugger's probably willing to shoot a man since he's gone this far, while your fiend (the concealed gun carrier) would not actually want to shoot anyone. So a stand off wouldn't be favorable.

 

[Wintermoot]

you could try to learn how to do a trick draw

 

[WolfThomas]

Not true IME.

(2) A person does not have a genuine need to acquire or possess a firearm of category H because it is required for:
(a) hunting
(b) recreational shooting, other than by a person described in paragraph (a) under the heading ?Restrictions for category H?, and for a purpose described in that paragraph; or
(c) destroying stock or vermin.

I thought it has all been overhauled overthere?
http://www.ssaa.org.au/research/2011/2011-02_ssaa-wa-wins-handgun-amendments.html

It mentions pastoralists can now apply for handguns, though yeah I can't find any other sources.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

I've said it once and I'll say it again.

Better 150 muggings than 100 muggings and 25 firefights.

Also, a lof of anti-gun people in this thread as well as others don't understand that the second amendment isn't as much about defending yourself from other citizens, but rather defending yourself against the government.

Penn and Teller may be magic, but they're wrong. The people don't bear arms to defend against the militia, they bear arms so that they may form a militia. In order to provide "security" for "a free state." Obviously, against outside threats. The British weren't a militia when fighting broke out in Boston; they were an occupying force of reprisal.

You don't have security against your own government. You don't maintain a parity of force with body that rules you consensually. That's futile and dangerous. The state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This is practically the entire definition of a state.

Americans have never taken up arms in defense of the Constitution even when it has been fragrantly violated by the government. We have fought a civil war, which would be silly to put down to an armed populace, but how freaking naive do you have to be to believe that an armed populace is something that deters state tyranny? That's just not how states and societies work, and it's not how history has played out.

What's more common? A government spontaneously deciding to massacre its own helpless people, or governments acting ruthlessly in response to ongoing conflicts that are only serious because the people bear arms?

It's not about guns. Guns are just a tool. I don't think anyone will argue with me here. A populace that resists the abrogation of their rights is a sociopolitical phenomenon independent of firepower. Most armed populations in the world today simply wage wars and cause strife without every taking up arms for ideological purposes. Either that, or they fall in line with their oppressive state because the machinery of government is well oiled, and do harm to foreigners.

So in conclusion, your delusions of heroic defense against Washington are misguided and sad. Wanna fight the power? Tell it to Somalia.

And the armed people form a militia because at that point the United States had no standing army, and they had hostile colonial powers and a dangerous wilderness that could pose a threat to ordinary people without menacing the entire state. The militia in this case is a tool of the state, but one which relies on the armory of the people. People aren't armed to resist it. Now that we do have a standing army, people with too much testosterone can fantasize about forming militias that will defend against it.

Japan never attempted an invasion of the United States because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass". And the fact that we're too stupid to protest violation of our rights doesn't mean we never will. At one point, if the government takes a policy too far, the people will snap. With millions being poured into law enforcement, they still cannot take out a bunch of idiots with pants around their knees. If it ever gets to the point in which armed rebellion is a possibility, guns will be used.

So. You're right in that we use them as a militia tool, but wrong that we don't/won't use them to defend our rights.

 

[Goosevich]

Main thing is, if you have a concealed gun, you have to train with it (especially drawing it fast and flawlessly). Now i think most of you will say "meh", but when your muscle memory is trained then you are much more confident and you dont pose threat to YOURSELF.

 

[maturin]

Japan never attempted an invasion of the United States because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

Uh, yeah. Guns held by army guys, not the 3rd Random Yokels Brigade.

And the fact that we're too stupid to protest violation of our rights doesn't mean we never will. At one point, if the government takes a policy too far, the people will snap.

I'm sure if the Senate declared for Stalinism tomorrow, there would be an insurrection. I'm not holding my breath.

But before the government every goes all totalitarian and we need some principled, armed resistors, things are going to be bad. Democracy will already be over, and guns will simply be used to fight over resources. The 'defence against the government' is the primary irrational conceit of the pro-gun position, in an issue fraught with silly notions on both sides. It's about the frontier identity and shooting deer and beer cans at the end of the world, not libertine bullshit. It's Revolutionary War nostalgia and self-defense fantasy.

By the time political tensions are high enough and the economy is bad enough that warfare between the people and the government breaks outs, the NRA will have staunchly stood behind the government's adoption of apartheid measures for Mexicans and Muslims.

This is what makes this idea so silly. The Army isn't going to attack loyal gun-toting Americans. The Army is drawn from the ranks of gun-toting Americans and to those ranks service-members return. They are socially and politically twinned.

In a scenario where the federal government uses the military as a tool of wrongful repression, it will be in response to a foreign threat, and the NRA will be right there with the most jingoistic policy going. And if the country does fracture and people start rising up against the government, it would go the way of the civil war anyway, with a split in the military. Anything smaller would be just another insurgency to be brutally put down, and like 99% of insurgencies, it's not going to be fought over constitutional interpretation.

The dream of sitting on your porch picking off SWAT as they come up the driveway of your ranch just isn't in the cards. If it ever happens, the country will be gone anyway and you'll have bigger problems, or a bunch of gun-toting extremists will be the cause of it.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

the illusion of safety

 

[Vryyk]

While i do think it works off the idea that it will scare muggers away, I often wonder if it doesn't make the muggers move to easier targets aka places where one cannot carry a gun in that city. See schools and the like, these place have big signs saying no guns.

Also if I was a mugger as my job in a gun heavy area I would shoot you then rob you, one more step less risk of you shooting me.

Government buildings all have cameras, moving to gun-free zones would be pretty damn stupid. Also, they tend to be full of people, making mugging pretty difficult.

And shooting first? That draws attention (guns are very loud) and could put you in jail for life instead of the 5-10 you'd get you armed robbery.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I support the second amendment, yes. I am not afraid of a stranger with a gun any more than I am afraid of them with any other weapon. Why are you afraid of guns? Are you afraid of me because I have one? I really don't get your last sentance. :/

1. I'm not afraid of guns, I'm afraid of unworthy people having them.
2. Well you live on another continent, so no, I don't fear you (though I have a completely reasonable fear of anyone who is carrying a gun (less for a knife, but still a reasonable amount, more like caution really, but you said fear so I'll stick with that word).
3. Okay, I'll try and re-phrase it better. If everyone can aquire a gun on the grounds tht "I need it for my own protection", then everyone can get a gun (though not everyone will get one). With more people owning guns, the threat to your own life from other people with guns increases because more people have guns. Because more people have guns, the threat is higher, so the chances of needing to protect yourself increase, so more people are willing to get a gun, which further increases the risk from guns to your life. So what happens? More people get guns. Eventually you reach a state where most people have the power to kill someone else in a second (whether because of anger, depression, fear, paranoia, accidental firing, etc), which means that the level of 'semi-reasonable' fear everyone has towrds everyone else increases because everybody else are much bigger threats. So you've basically got a situation where people are more likely to be jumpy (due to the increase in 'default fear'), and all those jumpy people have an unreversible means by which to kill those around them. And it isn't necessarily a planned homocide, the speed at which someone can now kill someone else is so quick that there is rarely enough time to stop yourself. There isn't a long pause between pulling out your gun from fear and killing someone, all there is is 'aim and shoot'. That doesn't leave a whole lot of tiem for someone to get voer their initial shock, realise what they are impulsively doing and then prevent themselves from doing it.

TL;DR: More guns means a higher risk from guns.

 

[Brawndo]

OP your post is very ignorant and biased.

Explain. At no point in the OP did I say people should not be allowed to conceal carry, nor did I go against private gun ownership. In fact, I am not anti-gun; I go trap shooting on a regular basis and have been going to the range with my friend for over 3 years. When I get my own place I plan on purchasing a shotgun, because my current lease does not allow firearm storage.

I just lots of holes in the argument that CCWs can stop muggings. We receive emails from university police every time a student is mugged within a mile from campus, and in each they describe the details. Usually it goes like this: 2-3 males approach the target at night and surprise the victim at close range with a weapon, which is almost always a handgun. The student gives over their backpack or purse and then the muggers run or drive off before 911 is called. I don't see a CCW doing anything in this situation except possibly getting the student killed or injured.

 

[Vryyk]

Japan never attempted an invasion of the United States because "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass".

Uh, yeah. Guns held by army guys, not the 3rd Random Yokels Brigade.

Most of our military force was overseas at that time, it really was the civilians Japan feared. The common perception for most of the world was (and continues to be) that nearly every American owns a gun. For the rest of the world such a thing is unheard of, what Admiral wouldn't be unnerved by such an idea?

 

[The Heik]

My roommate carries everywhere he goes except class, citing the high frequency of robberies and muggings of students around our college campus (we get emails about 4-5 incidents a month). But I don't see how carrying a gun in a holster under your jacket is going to help you:

1) You can't legally draw your gun on someone first unless they pose legitimate threat to you or a third party. For example, if my roommate sees three young men walking behind him at night on his way home, and he whips out his gun, he can get arrested and lose his CC license

2) The mugger has the element of surprise. So long as he has a firearm and pulls it on you first, you're screwed. The average person cannot outdraw someone who has the jump on them, and any idiot who thinks he's John Wayne will likely end up on the pavement bleeding out.

3) Once the mugger takes your stuff and leaves the immediate area, you cannot follow him and legally shoot him. At this point, he is no longer a threat to your safety and you could be charged with second-degree murder.

So at what point in this crime is a CCW going to help you? If anything, its more likely to be taken from you along with your wallet and other valuables. CCWs are useful in that they could stop a mass shooting attempt where the shooter has many targets, but I don't see how they are useful in common street robberies or carjackings, unless someone with experience otherwise can enlighten me.

Carrying a gun doesn't prevent someone from getting mugged. The best idea when getting mugged is to accede to the mugger's demands. Your life is not worth the money in your pocket. Most people who have a gun aren't willing to fire it unless extreme situations force them to, and pulling out a weapon of one's own is definitely an "extreme situation".

And honestly, carrying a gun on you is just asking for trouble, and most people who carry one around are more likely to get into scraps, because they don't bother to look at their surroundings for possible threats, thinking that the gun will act as a repellent. It almost never does, unless the would-be muggers are dumb enough to try and taunt you first. Any half decent mugger acts before their mark has a chance to react, trusting that any aggressive action will be be cowed by the appearance of the weapon.

However, if you think you need to protect yourself, learning a martial art is the best option. Your limbs never run out of ammo, you can't forget them at home, and everyone has them, so no one considers them much of a threat when the opponent has a weapon. Hence, if you're forced to fight, you have a reliable chance of surprising the mugger and disarming them before the weapon is used. Also, unless it is an experienced mugger most, will have close up in order to get the money, rather than tell you to drop it and move away.

Most importantly though, becoming learned in martial arts teaches you to analyze your opponent, so you know when your opponent is simply desperate for money, meaning that you can walk out of the incident without either party coming to any harm, or deranged and capable of hurting whether or not you go accede to their demands, requiring you to act.

Though if you don't want to be mugged, the best tactic is to simply avoid getting into the parameters that could create a mugging situation. Don't go out late, avoid the rougher parts of your area, travel in large groups.

So yeah, your friend is being silly carrying his gun around. He's just inviting trouble.

 

[Alucard832]

TL;DR: More guns means a higher risk from guns.

So we should make guns unavailable to the public so that the only people to own guns outside of the government are criminals. Makes perfect sense to me.
/sarcasm

Your fear and paranoia are completely irrational seeing as anyone stupid enough to commit the incidents you're afraid of would only own a gun illegally anyway. In addition to the logical fallacy of banning law-abiding citizens from owning guns that I mentioned earlier, word of getting something like that passed would only force everyone who's ever thought of owning a gun to immediately go out and buy one before that right gets stripped away.

 

[acturisme]

I'd rather have it and not need it over needing it and not having it.

Hear hear!

Personally, I would rather die rushing an armed criminal to STOP him or her than let him or her get away.
If I succeed and live then he or she can have no more victims.
If I succeed and die then I am the last victim.
If I fail and live then I probably got close enough to describe him or her to the police.
And If I fail and die then I can die knowing I tried to stop a dangerous and armed mugger.
Any way you cut it...Epic Win.

Besides if you carry in a place that looks like a wallet pocket in your coat or pants you can pretend your reaching for it and a hammer-less gun WILL fire through a jacket pocket.

But it will also ruin your jacket.

Furthermore, muggers in real life are not like muggers on TV. TV muggers are all calm cool and collected. A real mugger is going to be nervous and skittish. He or she doesn't want to call attention to him or herself by firing a very LOUD gun.

Anyone with practice can draw and evade at the same time. And that's another thing, its very hard to hit a moving target. If you are being mugged and you can,FUCKING RUN!!! And in order to hit you the mugger must put the weapon up in front of his face where its difficult to see below the weapon. It is all about the PERCEPTION of control. The mugger only has as much control over you as you give him or her.

If you won't/can't carry a gun
CARRY A KNIFE.
If you won't/can't carry a knife
CARRY PEPPER SPRAY.
If you won't/ can't carry pepper spray
LEARN TO DEFEND YOURSELF!
And if you won't do that then no one can help you....
What do you want? I just gave you four, count them, FOUR options. Bugger off.

And even though I don't think that this shows an accurate portrayal of a mugging, it is a cool clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pcVDmX4ho4

 

[Something Amyss]

You know what should be made legal? Lightsabers. Isn't there a real version that can blind an assailant instantly?

That's no good. They can still shoot blind. We need REAL lightsabers.

 

[Shycte]

The problem is that Average Joe isn't mature enough to handle a gun.

 

[Shadowtek]

Simply put, I carry a blade at all times. I depends on the outing and location as to what I carry. The problem is that most people don't know how to use a knife properly. On top of that If you happen to get disarmed you need to know how to use just your bare hands. There are far to man problems with this situation. Almost none of which will end well for either party.

Simply surrendering your money or property is normally the best route anyway. Once most muggers/robbers have that they will leave. And your safe once again. Your life is worth more than some cash and credit cards that you can cancel right away.

 

[Terramax]

He should get one of those shoot-out-of-the-sleeve things Travis Bickle had.

TL;DR: More guns means a higher risk from guns.

So we should make guns unavailable to the public so that the only people to own guns outside of the government are criminals. Makes perfect sense to me.
/sarcasm

This is where giving serious punishment to caught criminals come into place.

 

[Alucard832]

He should get one of those shoot-out-of-the-sleeve things Travis Bickle had.

TL;DR: More guns means a higher risk from guns.

So we should make guns unavailable to the public so that the only people to own guns outside of the government are criminals. Makes perfect sense to me.
/sarcasm

This is where giving serious punishment to caught criminals come into place.

Because that's working so well right now. It still wouldn't change the fact that criminals would be the only ones with access to guns.