This is why I carry on my person, not mounted in my truck

Of course there are no guarantees! But I didn't see a single case you mentioned where having a gun would have helped. That's where the logic comes in. Sure there are some small % of "what-ifs" where the gun would help, but you have to balance that with an equal or greater number of "what-ifs" where drawing a gun is more likely to get you killed.

 

Wow... that's wild. My experience certainly doesn't fit that narrative. In fact that's plain old BS. You could say *some* (a very small %) of them have zero regard for human life, and that would be true. You could also look at the group of gun owners who would have no qualms about killing someone who wanted to rob them... or, be realistic; just make them "feel threatened". How much "regard for human life" are we looking at there?

It's a weird world, that's for sure...

 

You, Sir, are spot on. Very nicely and clearly written.

 

The problem lies in which perps mean you harm and which don't. Unless you are a mind reader, you don't know. Unfortunately, we have to treat individuals as the lowest common denominator. I'm not suggesting that we engage first and ask questions later but, if a person poses a threat to me, my family, or other citizens, I will be acting accordingly.

 

Criminals are only afraid of 1 thing. It's not a judge, a police officer, a jury, jail. The only deterrence is a "would-be victim" with a firearm.

That said, TRAIN. Buy ammo. Shoot ammo. Your nickel/gold/stainless/blued/etc barrel doesn't matter. Your cerakoted frame/grip, etc doesn't matter. Your kept-up-with-the-jones-flavored holster doesn't matter. Learn to hide. Learn to stalk. Become a problem.

Dot your eyes, cross your T's.

 

Yep, thought plenty about both of these... and it still comes out the same. Not carrying is safer over all, for everyone involved. I'm missing out on the placebo effect of carrying (which is absent anyway because I no longer believe in it), and the .01% of instances where I might wish I was armed... but I can live with that.

BTW I'm not opposed to people carrying guns at all, but I do think it's good to be realistic.

 

Ok, as long as you are comfortable with your position, then drive on. I am 72, weigh all of 170 lbs., and I'm not going to get into a physical conflict with some half-crazed meth user. I will do my very best to protect myself, my family, and you if called upon. I hope that never happens but you never know.

 

I'm not concerned about the perp; I think it's more dangerous for the victim to be armed, more often than not.

 

Personally, I think the only person safer when a body doesn't carry is the assailant.

 

It all depends on how the victim behaves.

That's one of those rare instances where I'd wish I was carrying. The great majority of the time you'll be alone and confronted by someone with a gun out who wants to rob you. If they are dangerous or twitchy that's a real poor time to go for your pistol.

 

I would politely disagree with you on that one. The decision that you make not to carry is fine; nobody is trying to make you do so. But dissuading others to do so is a statement I don't find to be well validated. As just one example, take the CDC study that confirmed Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s findings of more than two million defensive handgun uses per year. I believe his number was 2.46 million per year. That's 2.46 million defensive firearm uses that law enforcement officers were relieved of - either in part or entirely - and 2.46 million peoples who's lives were affected by positive firearm usage by themselves or someone in close proximity to them. Sure, the paperwork had to happen at the end of the day, but that's a large burden shifted from the shoulders of LEO's a significant number enough to not ignore.

I'm blessed to live in a peaceful place with good neighbors, solid friends, and law enforcement officers that have shown themselves to have my best interests in mind (including most of the guys that run the programs, not just the boots on the ground). I've had personal conversations in the last year with a state trooper, local sheriff, and sheriff's office personnel that have all encouraged me to obtain a CCW and practice it's tenets, despite living in such a wonderful place that already has constitutional carry. After learning of my young family, their encouragement was usually upgraded to adamant insistence.

I grew up hiking and camping in great wilderness areas with bears, mountain lions, rattlesnakes, moosen, and other potentially dangerous animals. I've run across them several times and have rarely had issue with them, but have on occasion had to deal with them. A few years ago, the husband of one of my customers was mauled to death by a griz while guiding an archery hunt. Sparing you the details, his firearm was saddled with the horses instead of on his person. His client refused to carry one. Those two mistakes cost him his life while his client fled.

While not a back alley mugging in a shady part of town, it was a stark reminder to me that tools are only useful when they are in reach. And proficiency only comes from practice. It also reminded me that my responsibility is not only to myself, but to protect my littles and my wife. While I hope I never have to draw my weapon EVER, I hope to never be in the situation where I am unable to.

I've lived in a country where firearms are prohibited from personal ownership or use. The only guys with guns were police officers, members of military, and the rebels. When I say rebels, I mean the guy who tore the country in half by killing those who opposed him and enlisting those who did not. It was not uncommon to have those police officers set up road blocks to shake people down for moneys or just harass them for fun. After all, they were the ones with the guns; they had no need to respect those who could not fight back and they rarely did.

Having once walked around a corner to see some guy on his knees begging for his life staring down the barrel of an AK with the officers laughing, knowing there was nothing I could do but mind my own business, turn around, and run to save myself the same trouble… well, that’s something I won’t forget. And something I will do everything I can to prevent. That’s always why keeping your head on a swivel is step number one to overcoming conflict.


Even if carrying or owning is only a deterrent, I would take it in a heartbeat.

 

My mother was born and raised in Chile. She was there through Allende and left before Pinochet. She will tell you from firsthand experience to never let citizens be disarmed.

 

I’ve got a chl, I believe in the 2nd amendment. But I very rarely carry. When I do, it’s because I’m going into a location deemed unsafe. I always here my dad in the back of my head. 66yrs on this planet and he’s never had a need to pull a gun. Why? Don’t go to places that your gut says not to. It’s the main reason I live where I live. Got tired of pulling guns on people to protect my family.

 

If you watch or read the news, you'll see bad things happening to people in historically safe places.

 

Guns are like having insurance - you may never use it, but you’ll be glad if you ever need it. I’ve been driving for over 25 years and I’ve never been an accident, but that doesn’t mean I cancel my insurance. In that same logic, having good driving skills and driving awareness will prevent you from getting into an accident.

 

Estimates range from 55k to 4.7M. I have a different interpretation of self-reported "defensive firearm use"... the great majority are bogus. People who have guns "use" them... whether there is an imminent threat or not. This is from observing people in action, and being on the receiving end a few times! Remember what I said earlier about needing to be proactive? I'm not the only one who figured that out.

I couldn't find any viable statistics that support "more guns = less crime" but there are a lot in the opposite direction. A couple... In the US there is a clear negative correlation between state gun law permissiveness and violent crime (easy carry = more crime). It isn't a huge different though... less than double. In other developed countries, citizens are not allowed to carry guns, yet they all have lower rates of violent crime than the US... homicide in particular. None of this is a slam dunk as there are many reasons why things are different in different places... but believing that carrying pistols is making us safer isn't resting on any viable evidence that I've found.

Regarding grizzly attacks, that is a good example. The great majority of charges are bluffs... the bear veers off at the last moment. That's why rangers want you to use bear spray... even though it will never stop a serious bear, it seems to work... because the bear was going to veer off anyway! It makes people feel safer and it's not lethal. If everyone carried a gun there would be a whole lot of shot bears... because who is going to wait until the bear is right on you? In reality your odds of surviving a real charge with a pistol are nil. Only a very well placed shot would save you. It's placebo.

 

I'd say it's a lot like those companies where you think you are insured... until you actually file a claim...

 

I agree with that.

 

@rruff I respect your decision not to carry. I also respect your right to disagree with what I or anybody else here has said.

As to avoid the hubris of trying to prove somebody else wrong or the perception of launching a personal attack, I invite you to continue the conversation one on one. I'd be happy to exchange references and data that show virtually the opposite of what you have stated above. I'd also be happy to show you some data on bear attacks vs pepper spray or firearms BTW, firearms are prohibited in most national parks, but pepper spray is not. So rangers recommend only what they are able to

Seriously, though, I'm happy to continue the conversation where it can be better viewed as a dialogue rather than an argument.

I will share another story that was relayed to me by the main character himself. While I awaited delivery of my firstborn, I ended up chatting with one of the hospital staff about - what else - the weather. He was excited that the weather was starting to clear up so he could get outside to play, noting that he had recently relocated to the area a year or two previous and loved the outdoor playgrounds so close and varied to our locale. I asked him if that's why he moved here, half joking, and he flat answered 'Nope. I moved here because my family and I can enjoy certain rights here that offer us more safety than we had before.' Figuring what he might be talking about, I was curious and asked him how so.

He had just relocated from what he referred to as the armpit or bumhole of CA, depending on who you talked to, but BOTH according to him. He and his wife used to be big in to the party scene, and although he abhorred elicit drugs they loved to booze. One night he was at a party and had the life-changing epiphany that his current path was taking him nowhere in life and that with a younger child at home this wasn't becoming the person he'd like to be. He said as much to his wife and she told him to.. well... get lost, I guess, is a polite way of saying it. So he went home.

Shortly after arriving home, he heard somebody break the glass out of his back door and start fumbling with the locks to gain entry to the house. He shouted out that he was home to try and dissuade the intruder. The intruder was un-dissuaded. So he ran to retrieve his pistol and shouted to the intruder that he was armed. The intruder was still un-dissuaded and was now in the house. He drew a bead on the guy and shouted, once more, that he was armed, that the intruder was trespassing, and that he had taken aim and was about to pull the trigger. And still... the intruder was un-dissuaded, but now rushed towards the homeowner in a frenzy. So the homeowner fired. It took four hits to put the intruder down. The intruder landed mere inches from the bedroom doorway where the homeowners young daughter was sleeping (at least until the commotion).

Under California law, this guy was mere inches from going to jail for defending himself and his daughter. That in itself is another conversation that I'm not trying debate here, but is noteworthy. After calling 911, he made a phone call to a friend on the force to ask how long he was going to jail for. His friend asked him some key questions (mostly about where his daughters room was in relation to both him and the intruder, and whether or not she was actually in it) and confided him that if his daughter was not home at the time, he would have been convicted of at least 2nd degree murder, if not 1st degree. In the end, he was cleared of the shooting for that exact reason. Else he had no right to his stuff; the criminal had more right to it than he - again, not a point I'm trying to debate here as I'm willing to concede that people are worth more than things, but I bring it up only to further the point that deterrents only work if the possibility exists that they can be employed. Criminals in these places understand that; take for example all of the looting for $900 or less in stuff in certain places during the pand(emonium)emic. Again, not trying to debate the politics of these laws, only using their existence to illustrate a point.

This gentleman told me that he cheated death and was beyond lucky to be able to get to his firearm in time. There was no way a local LEO could have arrived in time (if memory serves, the average response time in his neck of the woods was 45 mins to 2+ hours depending on time of day.. er time of night, rather). And it became quite obvious that the intruder intended to do him harm as he advanced toward him instead fleeing or just grabbing whatever was in sight - even after being cautioned that the homeowner was home, aware of the intruders presence, and armed. As it turned out, the intruder was a local guy that the homeowner knew; he was often strung out to some degree. In this case, he knew that the homeowner had some "good stuff" that he could steal and hock for his next hit. He didn't care that it was his neighbor, that there was a kid at home, or that guy was home. He didn't care that he got caught by somebody that would recognize him, or of the possibility that the homeowner could be armed (remember the way the law was written there?). He just wanted his fix, no matter how irrational he had to act to get it. So now the homeowner lives where it is legal and acceptable for individuals to embrace that part of the constitution, and people of all walks understand the implication of such behavior.

 

This thread was quite an interesting read, I’m in the western suburbs of Chicago, Chicago has turned into a ruthless no holds barred robbers delight, people jumping out of cars robbing people at gunpoint walking down the sidewalk, I can see a lot of people wanting to have a CCP (conceal carry permit), one thing that was always told me some time ago…
it’s better to be tried by 12
than carried by 6

 

I almost agree with you on this statement, but it's missing two key words. There is a TON of evidence that "more LEGAL guns = less GUN crime".
Here is a very simple statistic that can be confirmed by just about any source that is not rabidly anti-gun. The cities with the strictest gun laws are the ones with the highest amount of gun-related deaths per capita. Chicago, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc. The bottom line is that gun laws ONLY restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals are going to have guns either way. From that point it is 3rd grade math.

 

To me, violent crime is a result of some other issue such as a society that doesnt value strong morals, religion, family or perhaps poorly functioning economy resulting in poverty or maybe a million other reasons. Looking at statics related to what type of weapon is used seems to focus energy on the wrong subject.

 

I agree to a point, but also the FBI has spent decades studying gun and crime statistics to understand what works and what doesn’t, what guns, what bullets, how many bullets, etc so they can better equip themselves.
I think the main takeaway from this thread is that even in a truck forum, people are passionate about guns and gun rights whether you’re for them or against them.

 

I think it's fine to do it here, as it should be helpful to others. I honestly don't have a dog in this hunt, and I have no issue with citizens carrying guns. One thing I will say about the data and studies, is that it's pretty damn tough to find one that is relevant and impartial and intelligently put together. I have experience with controlled studies and tests and can spot flaws, but it's time consuming to get into the details where they are evident. One problem is that the most relevant data doesn't exist.

 

The relevant statistics IMO, would be the rate of violent crime vs permissiveness of handgun laws, and the change in violent crime rate when handgun laws are changed.

 

Can you please explain to me why there would be an issue if his daughter wasn't home? Fearing for his own life when an intruder is advancing upon him in his own home is enough reason, no?

 

That's why I have no issue with decent citizens being armed. You gotta do what feels right to you.

It's not exactly being nice. Not being afraid or threatening, and being open to them is closer to the mark. I wouldn't recommend it as a "strategy" that's for damn sure, as you can't fake it... but it's worked for me on many occasions when I was hanging out with the dregs of society.

 

In most sane parts of the country, you are correct that fearing for one’s own life is reason enough. But not in California. They do not embrace the Castle Doctrine as most states do. That is commonly referred to as ‘stand your ground’ law, but the law there is written so as to make your own ground available to all and not something worth protecting at the expense of another’s life. The two things that saved him jail time were that his daughter was a minor and that she was betwixt himself and the assailant. BOTH had to be true in order for him to justifiably fire on the intruder. His life alone was not worthy of defense in the eyes of that justice system. To add insult, had the intruder survived, he (the homeowner) still would have been open to a the possibility of a law suit.

I’m not a lawyer but that’s how it was explained to me by both a the homeowner and a California-based lawyer (not a criminal lawyer but lawyer none-the-less).

 

I have plenty of actual experience, and the point is... a thought experiment and statistical evidence regarding the effectiveness of carrying a handgun to deter crime.