- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,779
- Reaction score
- 1,080
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Something about the idea of carrying firearms for personal protection has always puzzled me.
Many people argue that carrying firearms in public, either concealed or openly, will make you safer. I'm not sure I understand how this works.
A firearm can be a very effective way of deterring someone from committing a crime against you. This is true but like any effective tool, it's only effective if you can get to it when you need it.
In a situation where you are walking down the street and confronted by someone who pulls out a gun and demands your walled, where is the opportunity to employ your firearm presented? You've been surprised, your firearm is holstered, his is not. You could try to be sneaky and pull it out, but your chances of getting yourself shot are probably better than you pulling a John Wayne.
I've heard the argument that firearms serve as a visual deterrent. Well...ok, but again, in an ambush situation you are no longer able to follow through on your threat. This is doubly nonsensical if you consider a concealed weapon; there is no visual display of you being armed to inform potential criminals that you are armed and can put up a potentially lethal fight.
Even in a situation where your attacker is armed with a knife, a gun may not save your life. Police departments sometimes operate on what's known as the "21 foot rule", 21 feet being the "average" distance a person with a knife can travel before a person with a holstered weapon can draw and fire two rounds at the target's center of mass. (On a side note, the "21" is disputed and calculated to more like 30 feet) So in close quarters, you may be able to get your weapon out but not before being stabbed at least once.
All these situations are made much more complicated if your attacker isnt working alone.
Some have suggested that armed citizens may help resolve situations such as armed robbery or other similar crimes. However this presents more problems as you are firing in an area with innocent people and unless you can quickly bring the incident to a close, you will create a firefight situation where innocent people and law enforcement are caught in a crossfire. That is, if you arent killed yourself. Additionally, law enforcement may not recognize you as a civilian trying to defend yourself in the heat of the moment and accidentally fire on you.
In such cases, escalating the situation has made it far more dangerous than if you had simply kept your head down and not made problems. I know that's not as Hollywood as we would like but statistically speaking, your chances of surviving an armed robbery are pretty good.
( Federal Bureau of Investigation - Press Room - Headline Archives Acts of violence: Were committed in 329, or 4.5%, of the 7,272 violations. Of the 13 total deaths, 10 were the perpetrators.)
Further problems develop when the argument is made that armed citizens can help defuse situations such as Virginia Tech or other similar public rampages. The same problems come into play here as in an armed robbery scenario; you are potentially creating a firefight situation where you are likely to get killed on top of creating problems for law enforcement.
On top of all this, while some form of training is often required to receive a carry permit for firearms, this training often is not repeated for some time or lacks critical components such as maintaining fire discipline in a high-stress situation. The training falls short of the expected environment the weapon will be used in. In fairness this does vary from program to program.
With all this in mind, how is carrying guns around supposed to help protect people?
Many people argue that carrying firearms in public, either concealed or openly, will make you safer. I'm not sure I understand how this works.
A firearm can be a very effective way of deterring someone from committing a crime against you. This is true but like any effective tool, it's only effective if you can get to it when you need it.
In a situation where you are walking down the street and confronted by someone who pulls out a gun and demands your walled, where is the opportunity to employ your firearm presented? You've been surprised, your firearm is holstered, his is not. You could try to be sneaky and pull it out, but your chances of getting yourself shot are probably better than you pulling a John Wayne.
I've heard the argument that firearms serve as a visual deterrent. Well...ok, but again, in an ambush situation you are no longer able to follow through on your threat. This is doubly nonsensical if you consider a concealed weapon; there is no visual display of you being armed to inform potential criminals that you are armed and can put up a potentially lethal fight.
Even in a situation where your attacker is armed with a knife, a gun may not save your life. Police departments sometimes operate on what's known as the "21 foot rule", 21 feet being the "average" distance a person with a knife can travel before a person with a holstered weapon can draw and fire two rounds at the target's center of mass. (On a side note, the "21" is disputed and calculated to more like 30 feet) So in close quarters, you may be able to get your weapon out but not before being stabbed at least once.
All these situations are made much more complicated if your attacker isnt working alone.
Some have suggested that armed citizens may help resolve situations such as armed robbery or other similar crimes. However this presents more problems as you are firing in an area with innocent people and unless you can quickly bring the incident to a close, you will create a firefight situation where innocent people and law enforcement are caught in a crossfire. That is, if you arent killed yourself. Additionally, law enforcement may not recognize you as a civilian trying to defend yourself in the heat of the moment and accidentally fire on you.
In such cases, escalating the situation has made it far more dangerous than if you had simply kept your head down and not made problems. I know that's not as Hollywood as we would like but statistically speaking, your chances of surviving an armed robbery are pretty good.
( Federal Bureau of Investigation - Press Room - Headline Archives Acts of violence: Were committed in 329, or 4.5%, of the 7,272 violations. Of the 13 total deaths, 10 were the perpetrators.)
Further problems develop when the argument is made that armed citizens can help defuse situations such as Virginia Tech or other similar public rampages. The same problems come into play here as in an armed robbery scenario; you are potentially creating a firefight situation where you are likely to get killed on top of creating problems for law enforcement.
On top of all this, while some form of training is often required to receive a carry permit for firearms, this training often is not repeated for some time or lacks critical components such as maintaining fire discipline in a high-stress situation. The training falls short of the expected environment the weapon will be used in. In fairness this does vary from program to program.
With all this in mind, how is carrying guns around supposed to help protect people?