The Need for CCW. Is it necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Incursion,

I congratulate you for examining the ethical and legal aspects involved in carrying a concealed firearm. Your question concerning brandishment is valid but the issue does not lend itsel0f to being boiled down into one or two sentences. I can tell you that if you reasonably believed that you were in immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger that you did not contribute to or exacerbate then you would probably be justified in presenting a weapon and issuing a challenge. I say probably because if you are charged it is up to a jury to decide. It's the dilemma we all face. We risk the possibility of criminal sanction vs. the possibility of violent attack. There are no absolutes. It is a decision that only you can make for yourself.

That said, there are things you can learn that tip the odds in your favor. Situational awareness and mental preparedness are critical to defending successfully. Since most criminals don't wander down the street waving the gun they have to approach you to make the assualt work. Learn what pre-assault indicators look like. Be AWARE of those around you. If a suspicious person approaches, make eye contact and hold it. Keep your hands at waist level with the fingers slightly flexed. Without showing the weapon you have just sent a clear, unambiguous message to the predator. Of course, you have to mean it. If he thinks you are bluffing all bets are off.

Learn what justifiable force is and when it can be employed. I recommend two books, both by Massad Ayoob; IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME and THE TRUTH ABOUT SELF-PROTECTION. These two books will tell you a great deal about how and when it is proper to employ force. For just over $20 total you have the best literature out there for making the decision whether or not to carry a weapon for lawful defense. To order these two books just call 1-800-624-9049.
 
Incursion,

The bottom line is do you have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones or is that right soley in the hands of the police/government?

The criminal has a gun, he is on the offensive, police pick up the pieces later, the criminal has no minimum training requirement, he has nothing to lose from using that weapon (irresponsibly) in a crime.

The law abiding citizen is not allowed to have the gun, he is on the defensive, police cannot protect you, you have a training requirement, you have everything to lose from using the weapon irresponsibly(house, car, etc…..).

I see a skewed sample at work but I cannot believe the # of people shot by BG’s while not resisting in a robbery/rape/whatever. Evil is there, I have seen it again & again & again. When it comes for you will you resist or rollover? I work with inmates on occasion. Have you ever looked into the eyes of a shark? I have seen the same eyes in certain inmates. They are predatory machines. They hunt you.

If something/someone suspicious is coming towards you get your hand on your weapon(concealed) early and evade(of course you may not have the luxury of doing this)- you don’t have to wait till they "draw". If the problem follows you, pick your spot to face the opponent as quickly as possible and from here watch the hands and protect your life in any way possible. That is my mantra. It may not work, but I will not be a passive victim in any arena of my life.

The biggest problem is in identifying the threat EARLY, which requires vigilance. Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean your bad #$#, or that you will survive. It simply means you can FIGHT BACK defensively instead of going quietly into the night.

Should you, as a citizen, have that right? Do you have the right to DEFEND yourself against violent crime? Or should you be forced into a passive role by society and be forced to fall prey to the human predators out there?

Seems obvious to me.

Regards,

Olazul
 
Incursion: I can see that you are quite well-read for just 19 y.o.. I respect your apparent sincerity in trying to decide what's best for you. Two great books by M. Ayoob have already been mentioned above, and I would second(or third?)those endorsements.

The author explains, and highlights with
numerous examples, a principle of self-defense law common throughout all(?) the states. Three "elements" must be present for you to defend yourself with a firearm: Ability, Opportunity,and Jeapordy.

Ability to cause you death(or grievous bodily injury)and the "means" with which to do so, via gun, knife, club, martial arts expertise, etc. Opportunity to carry out the act. He's so "close" to you, that the threat is "imminent". And, doing some act which places you in real Jeopardy of such death or injury.

Obviously, a BG 50yds away with a ball bat is not an immediate threat. He has the ability. Swinging the bat while screaming that he'll crush your skull would place you in jeopardy. But distance precludes his opportunity(with that weapon). The scenario would change if he leveled a rifle in your direction! A cop stops an "armed robbery" suspect. W/o being commanded, the BG exits the car, and reaches back under his covering garment. Is he going for his ID, or a gun?! A split second to decide your fate, if you're the officer.

I've read the glaring exception of Texas above, but most states have the doctrine of retreat in their defense laws. That is the idea that you exhausted all other means of your defense(like running away!) before using your gun. There are many circumstances that temper that, however. Like if you're "cornered", have an injury, or a disparity in age or strength for example. A 75 y.o. male would not be expected to successfully run from an assault by two much younger men.

Anyhow, this is my poor attempt at encouraging you to get those darned books. Worth much more than their cover prices! :)
 
i don't think a gun would have helped your brother's situation. if you can see that you don't have much of a chance in certain situations (ie. no cover and BG's gun is already drawn) then just do what he says (unless you can tell he will definely kill you). if he asks for your money give it to him! however as you mentioned there are cases where a gun would be useful and in those cases its good to have a gun. so even if in most cases a gun won't help (which isn't necesasarly true) you might as well be prepared for the times where it would help you.
 
Incursion: I think that your original post and followups display a high degree of thoughtfulness and maturity on this topic. You have also gotten some excellent responses.

Some opinions:
1) Regardless of the training required by law by any jurisdiction in order to get their CCW, you owe it to yourself to exceed that and get the best training and practice you can afford, in time and money. I believe that is the reponsibility of all gun owners, and especially those who carry. Maybe someone here can post a link to Thunder Ranch, a great facility in TX. That would be a nice graduation present for you.I have other links i could e-mail you.

2) Carrying a gun is no substitute for using your brain. In fact, you must be more aware, less complacent, anticipate better, and catalog options other than deadly force, and be able to do it quickly, when carrying. This is tactical thinking. Many who carry guns CCW also carry a cellphone and pepper spray with it at all times. It is a big responsibility, and I totally respect those who do not feel they can meet it. I have a CCW, and accept the responsibilities. It's also a great form of ID! Hand it to an LEO on a traffic stop, even when not carrying, and according to many here, they are relieved to know that you are highly unlikely to be a criminal or give them trouble. Peace of mind for them.

3) Re: Lott. that HCI could possibly be objective in rebutting Lott is absurd. How do you tell when they are lying? when their lips are moving. I have a thorough rebuttal of them sent FROM Lott to me, when I asked for his comments on the HCI rebuttal. I think I can send it to you via e-mail. The gist is this, as someone has said: There are millions of people with CCW's now, and the rate of revocation for illegal behaviour is less than 1%. Of that, many revocations are for things like DUI/DWI, non-payment of taxes or child support, or other non- gun-related offenses. The predictions by anti-gunners that CCW's would lead to blood in the streets, and gunbattles over parking places is SO far from the truth. I had a conversation with a midwest chief of police who has granted 400 ccw's in his rural county. He says that, by far, his CCW holders are among if not the most law-abiding and responsible members of his community. dirtbags generally don't apply for CCW's. Inherently law-abiding, law & order people who feel a responsibility to themselves, their families and friend, and the community, DO.

My two cents worth. Good luck on your decision, and your training. Be safe and smart.

[This message has been edited by Covert Mission (edited March 19, 2000).]
 
I want to thank you guys for your informative posts. Keep them coming. I feel welcome on this board even though I'm a newbie.
 
Replying to the original post:

It is a nice theory you have but that is ONE example of many situations. I cannot emphasize that enough.
I was mugged once, and as an intelligent, trained, and armed person, I decided that $20 was a small loss considering the repercussions I would have faced legally for resisting (the good guy never gets off easy in today's world)
So, in that case, a gun was no good. I read the situation and decided that just giving out a few bucks was the least damaging course of action.
But, in another case, I was walking out to my car and three obvious hoodlums approached me in an apartment complex. I had no idea who they were, because I was new to the area. They flat out told me they were "going to kill me". I pulled my gun and made clear that it was not going to be so easy. They literally ran off screaming apologies and all kinds of jibberish (criminals do not like resistance, which is why there were three of them against one of me. Unlike what many people say, criminals do not want to fight you, they want an easy target. If you show resistance, they do not usually attack you, instead they look for another target.). I have no idea what would have happened had I not had my gun, but thank God it is my Right NOT to find out.
In another case, I got out of my car one day to go into my friend's new house in a neighborhood I had never been in, and a gang of twelve guys jumped me and my friend and started beating us up, for absolutely no reason (we did not say a word to them, and I had never seen them before). My gun got us out of that situation alive. If I had not had it, I may have had my head kicked in and I would be drooling on myself and eating out of a straw to this day. I have no idea what would have happened, but I certainly did not want to find out because it would have been ugly for me.
This is just a couple of examples of times in my humble life where a gun stopped a violent crime against me. Crimes happen in SO many different ways that to take one incident like your brother's and exploit it is wrong. Most muggers do not come out of thin air and pull a gun on you. In fact, few even use guns, they use screwdrivers or whatever else. There are MANY ways in which crimes happen, and in most of them you can react in time to defend yourself or other innocent people if you HAVE to.

There are myriad of ways that bad events go down. Sometimes a gun is useless. But, a lot of time it is not. I would rather have it when I need it than not have it.
If you choose that carrying a gun is not for you, then that is cool, but please don't start telling me how to defend myself (just a sidenote, not attacking you).
Some people ARE better off not carrying a gun. Some people have too short of tempers or bad decision making abilities, and some people just don't have the balls to use it when they need to, and that is worse than not having it. Each person has the RIGHT to make that decision for themselves. If you make the wrong decision, then it costs you your life, or prison time, depending on the nature of your poor decision. If you make the RIGHT decision for you, then it could very well save your life someday.


My gun has saved my life many more times than my seatbelt. I carry it "just in case". I do not carry a gun because I expect to need it, and neither do I put on a seatbelt because I expect to get in a crash, but I use both "just in case".
Even in some case, in a car crash, a seatbelt is no use, but do you not wear it because of that one example where a seatbelt does not help the crash victim, or in rare cases makes the injuries worse?
There are some cases where a life saving device cannot help you, and very rare cases where it even makes the situation worse (seatbelts and guns both being examples), but the far greater odds are that it will help you. I choose to play the far greater odds, and I wear a seatbelt, and I carry a gun. Those far greater odds tell me that they will be helpful in a bad situation.
Both may never need to be used again (I hope this is true), but I would rather have them and not need them then need them and not have them.
A gun is just a tool, a life saving device. If you choose not to use it, then that is your choice.

Here is a stat to keep in mind: Women who resist rape physically are two times less likely to be injured than a woman who does not resist at all. Women who resist rape with a gun are SIX times LESS likely to be injured or raped than a woman who doesn't resist. That should give some perspective on what the effects of resisting crime has. Resistance is not always the best option, and we can find rare straw man cases were resistance was futile, but we can find many more cases were people who resist criminals, especially with guns, are extremely effective on fending off attackers and reducing crime as a whole.

Regarding the "false sense of power".....most people just get the OPPOSITE of that. They realize the seriousness of using that gun and they want to avoid it with all their might. They become very aware and the LAST thing they want to do is use that gun and face the legal battle afterword. When I carry a gun, and the same is true of everyone I know, we are very humble and avoid trouble. But, if trouble finds us, then at least we have a fighting chance if we HAVE to defend innocent life.

Regarding CCW citizens misusing guns:
According to a Florida study, CCW holders are 3 times LESS likely to commit a crime than an off duty Police Officer (both of them being able to carry guns concealed). And, we all know that Police Officers don't commit very many crimes. CCW people commiting crimes just does not happen very often at all.

Lastly, I live in Phoenix Arizona, a huge, booming metroplex. Police estimate that as many as %50 of the cars on the road have guns! Practically everyone here carries guns. We NEVER have any problems with shootouts in traffic or all that crap that HCI tells us we will have. What we DO have though, are cases of good citizens saving Police officers in shootouts and things like that. The FACT is, that CCW here is a raving success and no one is shooting each other over arguments in many years now of CCW. And, many citizens are shown to be stopping crimes with their guns.
I have many friends who are Police Officers and HCI is LYING when they say that "cops don't want citizens to carry guns". SOME cops (very small minority) do not like citizens having guns, but MOST cops are perfectly cool with good people carrying guns. In fact, I have had the BEST responses from cops so far when I have gotten pulled over and I hand them my CCW permit. They instantly know that I am one of the good guys and they get very nice and relaxed all of the sudden.
Bad guys carry guns whether it is legal or not. Only good guys go to the trouble (and can qualify) to carry legally with a permit.
 
You didn't answer my questions; wear a seatbelt?

And...

Who is ultimately responsible for YOUR personal safety?

------------------
"All my ammo is factory ammo"
 
Westshoot: Yourself, is the ultimate responsible for your personal safety?

It is like in the movie, the authority are only there after the crime. As what I know so far. We have to accept it, that having CCW is not that easy for everyone. If someone has CCW, he has to face probable intricacies that includes legal problems when the gun is being used (even used in self defense as commonly claimed by every one). CCW is an invitation of trouble also from BG's if they can sense that someone is carrying one and they think they can overpower the bearer. So, it is a must that a CCW person must be ready to tackle any eventualities in order that he can protect himself by his gun and protect his gun of being taken by any BG. In short he is capable to defend himself by his gun and his barehands.
 
From the people of HCI:

"It is important to note before detailing the major points of criticisms of Lott’s book and study that he is unabashedly libertarian and may not be an unbiased source for research on gun-related issues."
<Then>
"Both Lott’s book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott’s methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence."

Incursion,

I find it very amusing that the people at HCI claim that Lott is "unabashedly libertarian" and "may not be an unbiased source" when dealing with this subject.
They then list a number of critics to his research. Of this list, every single man listed is rabidly anti gun. This is particularly evident in the case of Arthur Kellermann who developed the debunked theory that you are "43X more likely to be shot in your home when you own a gun". His idea was that there was a real danger that angry family members in the heat of an argument would grab their guns and kill each other.

He of course fails to mention in his research that he didn't differentiate between the different sources of the guns. Most of the subjects examined to prove his point in the study were shot by intruders using guns that the >bad guys brought into the home< to rob the homeowner. They fit his stats just because they owned firearms and were then shot in their homes. When there are close to 200 Million+ firearms in this country, the odds that a homeowner victim both owns a gun and then is shot by an intruder using a firearm might match Kellermanns numbers. Are the two stats related, I don’t think so.

This is the kind of misinformation that we as honest law abiding gun owners have to deal with. We are vilified in the press and then that vilification is backed up by shoddy research like the above.

My own state of Florida passed CCW legislation in the mid 80’s and as these laws were passed you should have heard the screams. Comments like the “gun shine state” and “The streets will run red with the blood of people shot over fender benders” were everywhere. Funny thing, the exact opposite took place

There weren’t any increase in shootings and crime did go down. In fact this is when some highly publicized robberies took place of foreign tourists near the Miami Int. Airport. When the goblins were questioned as to why they picked those people to rob, they admitted that they knew they were most likely from out of state because they were in rental cars, these being marked at the time by a “Z” in the license plate. They further explained that this being the likely case, they knew these people had two things that the little snerts needed. A lot of money for their vacations, and that they were not local and thus would not be armed.

The way I look at it is with 1 in 50 citizens in florida carrying concealed, the bad guys have admitted that they don’t know who is an “unarmed victim” and who is able to effectively fight them off. THEY HATE THAT, and anything that makes their lives difficult is a plus in my mind


------------------
TANSTAAFL- R.A. Heinlen

"Molon Labe"- Leonidas to Xerxes at Thermopile



[This message has been edited by Mordwyn.45 (edited March 21, 2000).]
 
Let us assume for a moment that HCI's analysis is correct, and that CCW results in a lowered rate of decrease in crime.

Who cares? That statistic, if true, does not affect me in any way. I carry for me, not for society.

Government is charged with protecting individual rights, not society as a whole. If CCW could be directly linked with a 50% increase in crime all across the country, it wouldn't make a darn bit of difference to me. It's my situation I'm concerned with, not society's.

------------------
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
 
sorry webshoot... the answers are yes I do wear a seatbelt all the time. I'm responsible for my own safety. That's the same argument I've been using to convince my family and friends that guns are not a bad thing! You're preaching to the choir! :)
 
People are afraid of guns which is a sad fact. I think their fears are unwarranted. I can understand why people feel intimidated by guns when they around them because I feel intimidated around them, but the more I'm around them and the more I read about them, the less fear I have of them. I think guns are like anything else that can cause damage. They need to be treated with respect, and people need to be educated about them. I was talking to my brother about how I probably wanted to get a CCW when I turned 21. He was telling me that there's no way that I'm bringing my gun with me if we went out together because his fiancee would object. What the hell does she think I'm going to do? She must think I might suddenly go postal and blow everything in sight away. My brother also doesn't think it's good to be around someone with a CCW as well. His logic is that if there is no gun around, there's no way he's going to get shot. On the other hand, if there is a gun around, he MAY get shot. I keep trying to tell him that most people with a CHL are the GOOD people that are probably trained fairly well. This bothers me because this is the first time my brother and I have disagreed so much on a certain issue. I think education is the key in preventing anti gun legislation. Any other suggestions on converting my brother and his fiancee? (I've read some other posts about bringing them to the range. I could easily get my brother to go to the range, but what about his fiancee?)
 
Incursion and others: Want to see an example of Lott's credibility vs. Handgun control's? Read this thread i just posted elsewhere on TFL. Here's a teaser:

ANNAPOLIS, MD - Gov. Parris N. Glendening's office forwarded inaccurate information from Handgun Control Inc. to state legislators, doubling federal statistics on 1997 gun deaths in Maryland.

find it at:

http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25790

Now tell me who you believe is accurate and/or truthful? By the way, The MD Governor is a staunch proponent of: Legally requiring that all handguns sold in MD be "smart guns" (though it is unproven technology), and handgun registration.
 
Incursion,
I couldn't help but to enter the fray. What we should wish to accomplish by being armed is to be prepared to defend ourselves against lethal threats. Because we are prepared doesn't mean we are looking to engage in battle. No, quite the opposite actually. If what prompts you to carry a gun is your fascination with firearms, or what the gun magazines want you to buy, or even the what the news tells you to fear, then you may become a potential liability to yourself and others. A far better perspective is based on a martial arts or defensive arts view where avoiding trouble is the number one priority. In my experience those who bring with them a self-preservation/self-defensive attitude are much better suited to CCW than those who like to buy lots of guns.
 
This topic is well over 100K. Time for part 2, but it should be continued in the General Discussion or Legal & Political forum....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top