And yet another day a person goes home safely because they had a gun.

[Tim01]

What happened? I can't say. Who was involved? I can't say.

Because, as usual, the person involved didn't report it. Because, as usual, they are afraid of getting in trouble.
They are afraid of what might happen to them if the cops get involved, even though they should be in the clear. That is a reasonable fear.
It is over and they are glad they made it out without getting hurt.

Another defensive gun use that will never get reported. Almost boring in it's predictability.


The guys that tried to pull the guy out of his truck on a Sunday morning. The guys that tried to drag the girl into their car. The drug dealers that tried to take over a guys apartment. The drug dealers that tried to take over a guys business. The ruffians that tried to rob the guy on main street.
They all ended the same way and none of them ever got reported.

[rusty charly]

1. And you're so sure

it's happening everywhere because...?

[Tim01]

2. Yeah, probably only where we are allowed to carry guns. Good point. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. Because of the huge number of incidents that are reported.

[Wetzelbill]

3. WTF?

That's a weird way to make that argument. Is there any evidence that this even happens on a regular basis? Why not get a permit to carry one and then they wouldn't have to worry about getting in trouble? That's ridiculous.

[GunGuyinPA]

71. Ask and you shall receive.....

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com/

Guns save lives.

[Wetzelbill]

77. yeah those are reported

Did any of them have a fear of not reporting what happened because they were so oppressed by gun laws they thought they were going to get in trouble? Nope. So no, you didn't send me anything of merit that says that there is a bunch of evidence that unreported incidents happen because people live in fear of getting in trouble for carrying a gun.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Ah. The two guys I found rumaging around in my shop and who then started...

...coming toward me with a look I didn't like.

Had I not run into my house for a proper weapon I think I'd be dead.

[iverglas]

22. yeah, that one's an amazement

All those people who report they think they'd be dead if they hadn't ... done something ... with a gun.

Turns out that instead of 15,000 homicides a year, the US would be seeing several tens of thousands more, were it not for all those guns somebody ... did something ... with.

What truly amazes me is how the bad guys who would have done all that killing had the truly astounding bad luck to pick only on people who had guns at hand. I mean: obviously, if they'd picked on people who didn't have guns, those people would be dead.

It's one of life's little mysteries.

[Tim01]

26. This or that.

Washington D.C., in downtown D.C. all of the workers at a Starbucks coffee shop are taken into the back room and executed. That happened.
Richmond Va, a robber convenience stort in a puts everybody up against the wall and informs he is going to kill all of them. One of the customers pulls his Colt and puts a couple in the torso of the badguy, who seems unphased,the gunfight continues until Joe Average Open Carry gets one more in the badguy which puts him down. The badguy had already shot the store owner and was shooting at the other customers when the open carry guy pulled his own gun and started firing.

It doesn't have to be 15,000. If my child was one of the workers killed that would be one too many for me. I would prefer my child was one of the survivors where the badguy was shot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. "those people would be dead." They are included in that 15,000.

[iverglas]

45. yeah, Dave

Your math is failing you here, I fear.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Says the woman who thinks there are 15,000 gun homicides a year in the US.

And you say my math is failing.

[iverglas]

56. can ya read at all, Dave?

Or did you set out to say something untrue intentionally?

What I said:

Turns out that instead of 15,000 homicides a year

What you said:

the woman who thinks there are 15,000 gun homicides a year in the US

I can lend you my spectacles if you like.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. Everyone knows what you were trying to do. I just wanted to call you on it.

[iverglas]

59. take your false allegations

and shove 'em, Dave.



typo fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. No false allegations and you know it.

[TPaine7]

95. It's been solved repeatedly...

Yawn.

Yes, many more people will believe they would have been killed than actually would have been killed. It's the robber's, rapist's and kidnapper's strategy to make them think they would be killed. Fear facilitates the crime.

You see, iverglas, not all robbers, rapists and kidnappers are scrupulously honest. Some deceive their victims into thinking they will be killed if they don't comply. Some use empty or fake guns so that they cannot shoot someone. Now I know this will shock you, but they don't actually share these details with their intended victims. They bluff. They bluff well.

I know you have a hard time believing that robbers, rapist and kidnappers would stoop to lying, but think about it--it's the way the ones who have no intention of killing go about getting what they want.

Let's say a guy wants your money, but doesn't bother to put you fear for your life or well being to get it. That's call begging. BEGGING IS NOT A CRIME--AT LEAST NOT A VIOLENT ONE. BEGGING WOULD NOT SHOW UP IN A POLL ON VIOLENT CRIME.

Let's say a guy wants to sleep with you, but doesn't bother to put you fear for your life or well being in order to meet his objective. That's called seduction (or at least attempted seduction). SEDUCTION--successful or not--IS NOT A CRIME (assuming the object of seduction is of legal age and mentally competent, of course). SEDUCTION WOULD NOT SHOW UP IN A POLL ON VIOLENT CRIME.

Let's say a guy wants you to accompany him, but doesn't bother to put you fear for your life or well being in order to meet his objective. That's called inviting. ISSUING AN INVITATION IS NOT A CRIME--(assuming the object of invitation is of legal age and mentally competent, of course). INVITING AN ADULT TO ACCOMPANY ONESELF WOULD NOT SHOW UP IN A POLL ON VIOLENT CRIME.

Why the huge "discrepancy"? Well if only 1 in 100 rapist actually intended to kill a victim, women who used firearms to repel would-be rapists would report that the defensive gun use saved their lives far more often than is compatible with national rape/murder statistics. Ditto for intended robbery victims and intended kidnap victims.

Duh.

All those people who report they think they'd be dead if they hadn't ... done something ... with a gun.

Turns out that instead of 15,000 homicides a year, the US would be seeing several tens of thousands more, were it not for all those guns somebody ... did something ... with.

What truly amazes me is how the bad guys who would have done all that killing had the truly astounding bad luck to pick only on people who had guns at hand. I mean: obviously, if they'd picked on people who didn't have guns, those people would be dead.

It's one of life's little mysteries.

No, iverglas. You're not amazed. It's not a mystery.

You're just hoping that new people won't see through this creaky sophistry.

[depakid]

5. Still in denial about the fact that you and your family are at greater risk of a tragedy

or perpetrating a violent crime by having guns around.

Once again, fear trumps reason. At least, until some kid gets hold of a gun- or some argument results in a senseless shooting.

[Tim01]

8. Maybe that's how it would be in your house.

Around here we are careful with things like power saws, electrical outlets, and guns.

[depakid]

12. That's how it is overall

No one who brings home a gun (often out of fear) expects a tragedy to occur- much less some of the various things that we've seen happen on a regular basis. They think they're "safer" -but they're not.

[Tim01]

14. I know lots of people who have used guns for defense.

None of them were ever reported, there are no numbers. I know 1 person hurt with a pistol, long long time ago.


Since the numbers do not exist, list your experience.

[iverglas]

21. interesting

I know lots of people who have used guns for defense.
None of them were ever reported, there are no numbers.

I have been asked whether I "did anything" (or words to that effect) when I was abducted, assaulted, etc. - the plain insinuation in the question being that I didn't. (Obviously if I oppose the carrying of firearms, and oppose killing for any reason but genuine defence against actual life-threatening assaults, i.e. would not take it upon myself to avert further offences by the individual by killing him, i.e. am not a vigilante, I wouldn't report crimes to the police, apparently.)

In fact, of course I did. Spent hours leading the police to scenes of events, undergoing questioning and physical examination, giving statements; attended trials; etc.

And yet here we have all these law-abiding gun owners, escaping unscathed from their own close calls, and not reporting the crimes or attempted crimes of which they were victims.

Huh. Fine upstanding citizens, eh?

They're all right, Jack. And fuck the next victim of the offender they sent packing.

I guess it's just women who are sexually assaulted who are duty bound to report the crime to police. Guys with gunz, nope.

Sure doesn't do much to disprove my statement of the obvious: that gun militants want the public to feel unsafe. A public that feels unsafe is a public that will have no defence against the demands of gun militants that all limitations on their ability to occupy the public spaces with their firearms be removed. Refusing to report crimes is certainly one way of furthering that agenda.

And then when the next telephone surveyer calls and asks how many times they've used their gun "defensively" this year, nobody will be able to say nay to any tale they tell. Not reporting the tale to police is just the norm, and no reason to question the truth of their tale, is it?

Ha. I will, every time. As did the panel of judges who considered a sample of such reports, and found a big whopping lot of them to have been illegal and unjustified uses of firearms.

[Tim01]

24. I don't yell at people for being bad victims.

I have a serious disagreement with you about how rapists should be treated. I think if they end up dead that is just fine, life in prison is also fine.
But I am not going give someone crap for not being a "good' victim.
I have a lot of respect for you for how how you handled yourself.

The gun owners are right. Depending where they are, there is a good change they will be the ones in trouble before it is over. The badguys will of course lie. They will say they were minding their own business when this person pulled a gun for no reason. It then becomes his word against theirs. And the badguys will most certainly want charges brought against the gun owner. It gets really ugly sometimes. The gun owners sometimes end up in a pile of legal trouble as a result of telling the police.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Oh get off your high fucking horse.

Guess what happens when you point a gun at a 'bad guy' and yeah, he goes away, and all is well, until the cops kick down your door because the 'bad guy' called the cops and said you pointed a gun at him (or her) for no reason?

You get fucked, that's what.


The FIRST thing you do when you even so much as brandish a firearm in self defense is, at the earliest opportunity you call the cops. You get your voice on the 911 recording, you get your version of the event recorded. You get the cops looking for the OTHER guy. Not only for the safety of others, (even though that's an excellent reason) but for your own protection.


Some bad guys would never, ever call the cops. You want to risk losing that race with someone who would? There's basically no valid excuse you could offer an officer for why you felt the need to draw a firearm in self defense, but didn't feel the need to call the police.

Having a good lawyer can be as important as having a firearm, when in need. Don't be so afraid of the legal system, you end up doing something moronic and getting yourself thrown in jail.

[Tim01]

62. Are you late for you school crossing guard job? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I like insults better when they are pertinent or funny.

You are neither.


By all means, insult me, but address the point as well.

[Tim01]

68. Nailed it did I? I figured as much. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

69. If you are so pathetic as to require explanation, no, I work for a living. Crossing guards are

volunteers around here.

Now address my point.

It is risky, immoral, and apparently now illegal to fail to report a felony that would justify you drawing a firearm in self defense.

What kind of MORON wouldn't report such a crime?

[Tim01]

70. "Nothing to fear from the legal system" the words of a moron.

I already know victims of the legal system. No sense in trying to get me to eat your horse shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. So you not only would commit a crime yourself, you encourage others to do so as well?

Not really helping the 'law abiding' image there, pal.

Thanks for that. I'm so thrilled to have people like you on 'my' side.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Also, if you're going to quote someone, actually quote them.

Don't put double quotes around some horseshit I never typed, and attribute it to me.

[Tim01]

79. Sue me. nt

[Tim01]

81. "Don't be so afraid of the legal system"= horse shit. Happy?

Everybody in the government is looking out for you.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Why can't you quote the whole thing? Is it because it would change the meaning?

I mean really, do you think you're fooling anyone when they can just click a few posts up and see the entire sentence?

[Tim01]

94. Like wrestling with a pig in the mud. I'm done. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

103. You could just admit you are wrong.

It's painless. Adds credibility.

[spin]

121. Calling the cops after the incident is good advise...

just for the reasons you stated.

[Statistical]

32. "it's just women who are sexually assaulted who are duty bound to report the crime to police"

Why?

Nobody is duty bound to report anything to the Police.
Most people want to notify the Police especially if the crime is severe.

However a large portion of people don't report all crimes to the Police this is evidence in the disconnect between crimes reported in the DOJ Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI UCR numbers (which go on actual police reports).

[iverglas]

42. fyi

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=11122&mesg_id=11562
Emphasis mine.

RoeBear
Mon Sep-22-03 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #8

26. Would it have been in your self-interest if...

...a previous victim of your rapist had done whatever was necessary to stop the SOB?
Did you do anything to make sure there were no more victims of this rapist?

formatting fixed

[Statistical]

43. Well RoeBear can ask (but shouldn't IMHO) however that doesn't make it a Duty.

The question shouldn't be asked.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. I beg to differ.

At least in Ohio, this is wrong.

CHAPTER 2921 OFFENSES AGAINST JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
§ 2921.22. Failure to report a crime or knowledge of a death or burn injury.

"(A) No person, knowing that a felony has been or is being committed, shall knowingly fail to report such information to law enforcement authorities."


Edit:

Oh hey, I didn't even know this was a law. Learn something new every day.


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


If you get into an altercation that warrants the use of deadly force (excuses the act of brandishing, so it counts even if you don't fire) someone probably committed a felony. CALL THE COPS.


CALL THE COPS

CALL THE FUCKING COPS WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE

[iverglas]

46. that's weird

No such thing here, to my knowledge.

Burn injury? I don't imagine I am required to report every time I stick my hand into the oven and hit the broiler ... the police here would have to assign me my own constable. Is there history to it?

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Dunno.

The similar statue for Alaska seems to pertain only if the victim is a child. The proposed new law in Connecticut applies to both.

But I updated that post with this:



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > §4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


So the varying state laws are meaningless on this point. If someone threatens you to the degree it warrants brandishing a weapon, or implying deadly force, you better call the cops.

(Disclaimer, I have no knowledge of common prosecution of people under this law, it seems somehow archaic or unused)

Edit: Holy shit, this thing was passed in 2008, and I never heard of it before.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. To the term Misprision yes, english common law.

I hate to keep editing that post, so second post.


"Canada
Under section 50(1)(b) of the Canadian Criminal Code, a person is guilty of an offence (although it is not described as misprision) if: "knowing that a person is about to commit high treason or treason does not, with all reasonable dispatch, inform a justice of the peace or other peace officer thereof or make other reasonable efforts to prevent that person from committing high treason or treason."

The maximum penalty is 14 years."

It looks like that is the genesis of the term. Used to apply to high treason, in old english common law, possibly even farther back than that.

On the 'burns' question, it appears to have been tacked on, after the fact. Probably to address some situation where a caregiver is required to report a burn to their in-care charge. Some death or crime committed at an assisted living facility may have led to it. A lot of that Ohio statute talks about serious injuries or apparent crimes committed by caregivers, in hospitals, etc. But the first bit applies broadly to all citizens, all felonies.

[iverglas]

53. what I figured about burns

It's a common form of child (and elder) abuse, but the statute is a little overbroad!

Now treason, we take that seriously up here.

Not. ;) The treasonous bastards usually hold the balance of power in the House of Commons, you know!

We even have a leading Supreme Court decision called Reference re Secession of Quebec. And to think, some people have civil wars!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Of course those "facts" include illegally possessed firearms.

[TPaine7]

96. You're too kind, Dave

I've never seen credible evidence that those "facts" are valid even including illegally possessed firearms.

[Euromutt]

97. Ah, Kellermann's "43:1" ratio raises its ugly head again (Scout, take note)

The so-called "fact" you cite is essentially based on a couple of studies, all co-authored by one guy, Arthur Kellermann, and all have been mercilessly lambasted by critics outside the public health community.

Kellermann's first study that attracted notice (commonly referred to as "NEJM 1986" after the journal and year of publication) concluded that a homeowner's gun was 43 times more likely to kill a family member (including the owner) or an acquaintance than it was to kill an intruder, and that therefore "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned." There are numerous obvious flaws with this conclusion.

First, by counting only instances in which the intruder was killed--as opposed to driven to flight, forced to surrender, or non-fatally injured--the study illegitimately discounts what is probably an overwhelming majority of successful gun uses for home defense. Furthermore, Kellermann and his co-author Reay only counted instances that were determined by law enforcement on the spot to be justifiable homicides; they did not count instances which went to trial but resulted in acquittal on grounds of self-defense, or convictions that were overturned on appeal, thereby skewing the balance even further.

The second problem is that, of every 43 cases of a gun being used to kill a family member of acquaintance, 37 were suicides. But there copious research that indicates that availability of firearms does not affect the overall suicide rate; at most, when suicidal people have access to guns, they will use guns to commit suicide, but absent guns, they will use other methods.
As a thought experiment, let's consider how many instances occur of various ligatures (such as rope, neckties, belts, boot laces, ethernet cables, et al.) being used to commit suicide, as opposed to the number of times they're used to kill an intruder. Does anyone consider it plausible that the ratio might be anywhere near 37:1, as opposed to, say, several hundred thousand to one? I seriously doubt it.

The third problem lies with the use of the term "acquaintance." This is a recurring problem in pro-gun control research, incidentally, because it uses the term to suggest that the bulk of homicides occur between regular people who get a little rowdy with each other after a few too many beers on Superbowl Sunday. The thing is, violent criminals have acquaintances too, and those are quite often also unusually violent types. Members of rival drug gangs are considered to be acquainted with each other, meaning that every death in a turf war is in effect an "acquaintance killing." When gang members murder a fellow gang member suspected of being a snitch, that's an "acquaintance killing." When one Hells Angel shoots another for stealing his girlfriend, that's an "acquaintance killing."

-+-+-+-+-

Kellermann's second study of note is known as "NEJM 1993," and concluded that "In homes with guns, a member of the household is almost three times as likely to be the victim of a homicide compared to gun-free homes." This finding was achieved by interviewing proxies for homicide victims, and comparing those with "control subjects who were matched to the victims according to neighborhood, sex, race, and age range."

The most obvious problem is that there's no logical way to arrive at the conclusion from the stated protocol. When you're comparing homicide victims to people who aren't homicide victims, by definition your test subjects have a higher chance of being "the victim of a homicide" (because they are, ergo chance of 1) than the controls (who, being alive, have a chance of 0 of being homicide victims). The way to arrive at the conclusion would be to take a group of gun owners as test subjects, non-gun owners as controls, and see how many of either group ended up the victim of a homicide within the study period, but that's not what Kellermann did.

The second problem is that--as real scientists (as opposed to MDs dabbling in statistics) understand--correlation does not imply causation. This cannot be stressed enough. Sociologist/criminlogist Gary Kleck criticized Kellermann's conclusions by pointing out that, using Kellermann's logic, keeping insulin in the house makes you more likely to develop diabetes. Kellermann's conclusion is tendentious because it does not take into account the possibility that people who think they are at elevated risk of becoming victims of violent crime (e.g. because they lead a high-risk lifestyle and/or engage in criminal activity) will acquire a firearm. Indeed, in several of the test cases, the "offender" was listed as "police officer," indicating that the possession of a firearm was not the main thing that put the decedents at risk (and that the decedent's death was not necessarily an unlawful killing).

Exacerbating this problem is that the test cases exhibited certain high-risk behaviors to a much greater extent than the controls did. The test cases were 2.5 times as likely to have been arrested, 4.4 times as likely to have a household member hurt as a result of a fight in the home, and 5.7 times as to likely use illicit drugs as the controls. Test cases were also significantly more likely to live alone (3.7 times) and live in rented accommodation (4.4 times), indicating a less settled lifestyle. The authors claim they "controll<ed> for these characteristics," and "Although we noted a degree of association among several behavioral risk factors, each contributed independently to the risk of homicide." I find that claim incredible; I'm supposed to believe that a firearm in the home is as much of a risk to an upright, uptight citizen as it is to someone with a substance abuse problem and/or a history of violent behavior?

The incidents that were police shootings indicate another problem, namely that not all the homicides were committed using a gun kept in the victim's home, but rather using a gun brought to the dwelling by the perpetrator. Kellermann dodged questions about what percentage of homicides had been committed with a gun kept in the victim's home, but analysis of his data indicates that at most 34% of the matched gun homicide cases involved a gun from the victim's own home being the killing weapon, and only ~4.5% of overall homicides. Furthermore, gun homicides committed using a weapon kept in the victim's home where no members of the household had prior arrests, substance abuse problems, or a history of violent behavior, constituted 7% of gun homicides and 2.1% of overall homicides.

These are only a few flaws in Kellermann's work, but they put into question the validity of his findings. Well, actually, the simple fact that correlation does not imply causation invalidates Kellerman's argument.

the fact that you and your family are at greater risk of <...> perpetrating a violent crime by having guns around.

This isn't a fact, it's an assertion that has been repeated often enough to be mistaken for fact. But it simply doesn't make sense. As a former infantryman and a gun owner, I know very well that guns can readily kill; that you can't just give someone a "boo-boo" with a bullet. For me to fire one at my wife or child "in a fit of rage" would require that rage to be nothing short of homicidal. But if I were to experience so severe a fit of homicidal rage, but did not have a firearm available, why would I not grab one of the various bladed or blunt implements available in the house (kitchen knives, hammers, etc.) and attack the family member with one of those? I mean, if I'm mad enough to want to kill them, why should I be restrained from trying just because I don't have a gun to hand?

And in our nine-year relationship, my wife and I have never (despite some vicious arguments) never so much as raised a hand against each other, much less a knife or hammer. What could make us snap without warning so badly that we'd want to shoot each other? Unless it's those magical mind-control powers that guns have. Woooooooo, spooky.

And to think some people get affronted when gun "control" proponents are accused of magical thinking.

[X_Digger]

100. Great post..

I ran through a similar exercise a while back, noting many of the same things..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=221485

[katandmoon]

6. UnR.

[Tim01]

9. *kisses* nt

[katandmoon]

49. Your lips are too firmly planted on the NRA's ass to kiss anything else

[Tim01]

63. I'll make an exception for you. nt

[yodoobo]

7. And yet another day a person goes home safely because of gun control

What happened? I can't say. Who was involved? I can't say.

Because, as usual, the person involved didn't report it. Because, as usual, the victim didn't become a victim, because the criminal didn't have ready access to a gun.


It is over and over, and the victim doesn't even know that they avoided being a victim, all because this unknown criminal couldn't get a gun quickly without risk.

Another crime that doesn't get reported, because it never happened.Almost boring in it's predictability.

[Tim01]

10. Yeah, I heard about the lack of violence in D.C. and Chicago. nt

[yodoobo]

11. I was in DC just 2 weeks ago.

Must have walked 10 miles in that city. Conducting business plus a fair amount of sight-seeing and went to a number of museums.

Didn't get shot once. Never even heard a gunshot.

For all I know, I am alive and posting because some thug couldn't get a gun in that city.

[Tim01]

13. Are you serious? D.C. led the nation in murders for a while.

It has been dangerous for a very long time, and the gun ban has had no effect at all.
I live close to D.C. I used to have rental property there. The bad guys have tons of guns there. One of the local drug dealers once offered to take one of my tenants out back and shoot him in the head with a 9mm because he was annoying the whole block. That really happened.


One night,huh? Near the museums? Yep, very safe part of town. I would be very surprised if you had any trouble on one night in that part of town.

[yodoobo]

15. of course I'm serious

Actually I was there all week.

And I'm well aware of their crime problem, in fact is was very much on my mind as I worked my way around the city.

The point of course is not to say that we don't have a crime problem - We do and it is especially bad in areas like DC.

The point was to point out, that using non-events to prove your point is precarious at best.

I would think that even the most pro-gun person on the planet would have to concede that some criminals have been precluded from getting guns and that some people are alive and well today as a result. A quick look at the number of NICS denials every year tells the 1st half of the equation and logic tells us the 2nd half.

Perhaps you are alive today as a result of gun control. Proving the why of what may have been is full of folly.

[pipoman]

18. You bring up an interesting point

the NICS denials are investigated <1% of the time, even though a denial = a prohibited person actively trying to buy a gun today. Now that person is turned down, true, but are they not more likely to attempt to purchase on the black market? Shouldn't every attempted purchase by a prohibited person receive a visit or a second look at least to determine if perjury is an option? But alas, they are not. It would be interesting to know how many gun crimes are committed each year by people who have been recently denied by NICS, we know that the vast, vast majority of gun crimes each year are committed by prohibited persons.

[yodoobo]

28. They certainly should be.

They should be an investigation, at some level. I'm sure that some of those denials are based on innocent things like incorrect data, transcription errors etc, but many are not.

I'm guessing its a resourcing issue - i.e. the investigations are not funded.

Every now and then, we'll read about a story of someone who tries to buy a gun, is turned down by NICS, and then obtains a gun somewhere else and then goes and commits a terrible crime.

If between the denial and the crime they have received a follow up call or visit - how many crimes would be either detected, or the perpetrator simply changes their mind due to attention?

In any event, I support investigating the denials, at least at a high rate than we do now.

[Statistical]

33. As do I (likely the only thing we agree on).

It is a non intrusive way to prevent crime that doesn't infringe on law abiding gun owner rights.

Most people who believe they were incorrectly turned down will report it because they likely still want a firearm and need to clear their record.

Also the number could be reduced by checking followup inquiries.
I don't like giving my SS# out and it is optional on the 4473. My first firearm purchase I left SS# off the form. I was denied (or more correctly not approved). The store owner told me this happens a lot with common names. I put in another app w/ my SS# and it was approved. Every time since then I have always used by SS# on the 4473.

[pipoman]

78. My point is

if we fail to fund, or just simply refuse to investigate violations of existing law, I really can't see what good more unenforced laws are going to do. In fact, I feel that if existing laws were enforced we likely wouldn't need additional regulation. Straw purchasers are also an area which I believe is under enforced. I am not really talking about the gun traffickers as much as people supplying guns to their brother in law or friend who is a felon, then claiming they knew nothing about giving the gun to the person. Not easily proven, but expensive to defend against... Further, sentencing guidelines at the state level which requires people who commit crimes with guns to face additional charges and serve consecutive sentences for the gun crimes....again about enforcement of existing law.

[Jackson1999]

20. Come visit my neighborhood

My guess is that you never got out of the k st., dupont, georgetown areas. Please come visit me in SE next time. Crime in DC is very localized.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Good thing the NRA supports keeping guns away from criminals.

For the record, I'm not a member. It is good though that you and the NRA agree on something.

[Euromutt]

98. What's the proposed mechanism here?

Because, as usual, the victim didn't become a victim, because the criminal didn't have ready access to a gun.

It is over and over, and the victim doesn't even know that they avoided being a victim, all because this unknown criminal couldn't get a gun quickly without risk.

Let's analyze the credibility of this scenario.

For openers, it strikes me as a reasonable assumption, based on existing gun control regimes, that any legislation that actually makes it difficult for a would-be mugger to acquire a firearm, will also prohibit our prospective victim from carrying a firearm about his or her person. In fact, it is highly likely it also prohibits the prospective victim from being in possession in public of pepper spray, collapsing batons, most types of knives or indeed just about any defensive weapon. So our mugger knows our prospective victim is unarmed, which means that he can gain a serious advantage by arming himself with some bladed or bludgeoning implement (e.g. a knife or baseball bat), even if he can't get hold of a firearm.

So by which mechanism is this mugger deterred from committing the mugging using means other than a firearm?

[flamin lib]

16. Ya' know, it's odd.

I'm just an average fellow and have on special self defense skills. As a younger man I hung out in as many Texas honky tonks as the next guy and never once had to defend myself. On the other hand I knew several fellas with varying degrees of skill in the martial arts and they found it necessary to defend themselves quite often. Funny that.

Take the anecdote related to me by a fella during one of these discussions. He was a security guard and carried a pistol at all times. 'Twas before the days of cell phones so he had a pager. He and his wife had attended a concert at Fair Park in Dallas and as they left he got a page so he stopped to make the call at a convenience store. Now, for those who aren't familiar with the Fair Park area of Dallas let me just say it isn't the best part of town. Some say the DPD won't even answer calls there. So anyways he's making his phone call and is accosted by a seedy looking character whereupon he lifted his shirt and showed the der-do-well his pistol and avoided what might have been a serious confrontation.

I asked what happened next an' he said the fella went away and he finished his call. I proposed a what-if; what if after the guy walked away he pulled his own gun out of his belt and shot you in the head. Then he'd have his gun, your gun and your wife was sitting in the car . . .

Ya' know, he got downright angry with me.

My point is that had he not had a gun he probably would have found a more secure place to make that call and I suspect that, like my martial arts friends, people with guns all too often find themselves in need of them.

[spin]

122. I know of very few gun owners who have had to use a weapon...

for self defense. (And I know a lot of gun owners.)

My daughter was one, she stopped an intruder from breaking into our home by pointing a revolver at him.

A locksmith I used to shoot with was almost robbed by some guy with a knife but shoved a .22 mag snub nosed revolver up the attackers nose. He said that worked rather well.

Three co-workers had incidents where merely showing a firearm stopped a bad situation.

The only shooter I've know that ever shot a firearm for self defense was a WWI vet. Obviously, he used firearms in the war, but the incident he told me about occurred in a French town shortly before he was to return to the states after the war.

He foolishly went downtown alone one night, but did take a .45 auto pistol in a shoulder holster with him.

As he was walking down a street, he realized that two men were close behind. He decided to walk faster.

When that failed, he decided to run. They also ran to keep up.

He turned a corner into an alleyway and drew the .45. When they turned the corner, he fired twice. Both men fell. He walked away. (He would have been in big trouble if caught.)

He went to college under the GI bill and became an engineer. He specialized in software engineering and helped to design the program used to land and operate the Viking probes on Mars. He was one of the kindest and most gentle older men I've met. But he was still deadly accurate with a Colt .45 auto.

[villager]

17. Well, here's four who didn't, plus a 4 year old girl:

http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/four-killed-in-gwinnett-125730.html?imw=Y

And unlike your OP, this is an actual event from actual news reporting.

[gunther]

19. This Just In: Unreported Rapes on the Rise!

I think most good people would agree that rape is a horrific crime. So horrific in fact that a majority of rape victims are too humiliated event to REPORT the crime, despite they were the victim. They often will simply try to get through the trauma on their own, which in turn can be as damaging as the original act.

According to the Department of Justice, unreported rapes are valid statistics. Why would you apply different rules to thwarted crimes simply because the results displease you?

From: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/2005/pg5o.html
"In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police."


So only unarmed citizens ever encounter muggers, rapists or car jackers?

Those incidents you HEAR about, you hear about because the armed citizen was forced to actually USE the firearm. Why would I bother to make a police report that someone demanded my wallet but ran off because he saw my pistol?

Reporting a nonevent is quite sillier than estimating the number of times something happened...

[iverglas]

23. uh, hmmmmmm ............

"In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police."
So only unarmed citizens ever encounter muggers, rapists or car jackers?

So, let's put our thinking caps on, here.

The sexual asaults happened. That's the point.

The crimes allegedly averted didn't happen.

Hmm. Hmm. What could the difference be?

We can speculate about "what if" in both cases.

What if the victim of the sexual assault had not accepted the invitation, had not gone to that party, had not been born into that family?

The assault would not have happened.

What if the victim of the attempted crime had not had a gun?

WHO THE FUCK KNOWS?

Maybe they would have lost their wallet.

BIG FUCKING DEAL.


So only unarmed citizens ever encounter muggers, rapists or car jackers?

Actually, given the minute proportion of the population that actually carries firearms around, the real question is: if that segment of the population is averting crimes at the rate it reports, why isn't the hugely enormously larger segment of the population that does NOT carry firearms around reporting several hundred times more completed crimes than it actually does?


Why would I bother to make a police report that someone demanded my wallet but ran off because he saw my pistol?

Because A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. How's that? You're aware that an attempt to commit a crime is a crime?

Or how about: because you're a fine upstanding citizen who wants to avoid others being victims of crime if you can?

Nah. You're all right, Jack. If anybody else wants to avoid being a victim of crime, let 'em get guns.

[Tim01]

25. "Wanted his wallet?"

"Naw that isn't what happened. Why would I want his wallet? I just got paid. What happened was I was going to my car which happened to be near his car, and when I came up behind him he got all startled. He pulled this gun out and he's all like 'get away from me or I'll shoot you'. I backed away and told the crazy motherfucker he should try decaf.I told him I wasn't trying to rob him and he had it all wrong. It was just a misunderstanding on his part.
I couldn't believe someone that crazy could carry a gun. Shouldn't he be arrested for pointing a gun at me?"

[iverglas]

27. and there we go

Yes, the police are stupid ...

[jeepnstein]

29. Not where I live.

[iverglas]

30. you might want to direct your comment

to the poster who clearly implied that they were.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. All the more reason

to call the cops yourself. If they get the story from him, first, and you are carrying concealed, and they find you with the weapon, you're going to have a lot of 'splainin to do.

[gunther]

31. Your cap is askew

So, let's put our thinking caps on, here.

The sexual asaults happened. That's the point.

The crimes allegedly averted didn't happen.

Hmm. Hmm. What could the difference be?


Your cap is askew. It *IS* a crime to accost someone and demand their wallet. An assault does not have to end with the victim laying on the ground bleeding, for an assault to have ocurred..


Maybe they would have lost their wallet.

BIG FUCKING DEAL.


Or their life... or their child... Now you can read minds and know what the mugger will do? I do carry a firearm and also a throwaway money clip. If you mug me I will toss that money clip in one direction while I exit in another direction. At the same time I will prepare to shoot you if you come after ME and not the money clip.


So only unarmed citizens ever encounter muggers, rapists or car jackers?

Actually, given the minute proportion of the population that actually carries firearms around, the real question is: if that segment of the population is averting crimes at the rate it reports, why isn't the hugely enormously larger segment of the population that does NOT carry firearms around reporting several hundred times more completed crimes than it actually does?


You're dramatically underestimating the number of people that carry... You see far more lawfully armed civilians each day than you do police officers, unless perhaps you work in town hall. You don't don't SEE it because we generally carry concealed.


Why would I bother to make a police report that someone demanded my wallet but ran off because he saw my pistol?

Because A CRIME WAS COMMITTED. How's that? You're aware that an attempt to commit a crime is a crime?


I am aware that you missed that point above. I just finished pointing it out to you.


Nah. You're all right, Jack. If anybody else wants to avoid being a victim of crime, let 'em get guns.

Unless you are a federally prohibited person (generally speaking, a felon), you have every right to go through the licensing, training and expenses of lawfully carrying a weapon, just as many of your co-workers and fellow citizens have.

[iverglas]

34. more fans!

Every day, a new one. Today, two, even!

I don't see any "lawfully armed civilians" any day, unless I happen to be in the vicinity of an armoured vehicle transporting cash and/or valuables.


Nah. You're all right, Jack. If anybody else wants to avoid being a victim of crime, let 'em get guns.
Unless you are a federally prohibited person (generally speaking, a felon), you have every right to go through the licensing, training and expenses of lawfully carrying a weapon, just as many of your co-workers and fellow citizens have.

Bzzzzzt.

Also: non-responsive.

[gunther]

35. Lawfully Armed Civilians . . .

. . . are everywhere.

Why would you assume that since you don't SEE a weapon, none is present? No such thing as the common cold, since I can't see the germ on the guy in the next office. I suppose the Earth is flat and we never went to the moon?


As to "If anybody else wants to avoid being a victim of crime, let 'em get guns", the criminal will not give a rat's ass if *I* have a gun, if he is mugging *you*. You feel free to depend on 911 and I'll feel free to rely on myself. I would never force you to carry a gun against your wishes. You do what you want. Just keep your hands out my pants.

So to paraphrase, YOUR ACTIONS will not change the actions of "Joe Mugger". All it will change is the outcome of his interaction with you, if that ever comes to pass.

[iverglas]

41. A and B

Lawfully Armed Civilians . . .

I am not a civilian. My neighbours are not civilians. This is not a military dictatorship, and I and my neighbours do not think or refer to ourselves in terms of our relationship to the military.

To the extent that it is accurate to make a police/"civilian" distinction, it is only appropriate when actually making that distinction. Again, I and my neighbours do not think of ourselves as a "civilians" vis-à-vis the police.

I am a member of the public. We are members of the public.


. . . are everywhere.

No, I assure you, they are not.

They may be, in the uncivilized territories south of my border, or over the ocean, depending on anyone's own perspective. They are not "everywhere". They are not anywhere, where I am, and where the vast majority of the planet's population are.


As to "If anybody else wants to avoid being a victim of crime, let 'em get guns", the criminal will not give a rat's ass if *I* have a gun, if he is mugging *you*. blah blah blah

Yes, as to that ... as it what it was really about. If you actually read what I was saying, you will see that I was referring to the supreme disregard for public safety demonstrated by individuals who are victims of attempted crimes and who do nothing but flaunt their firearm and walk away -- without reporting the incident to police. Police investigate crimes, and if at some point the individual in question is apprehended, the previous report will be a tool for law enforcement, at least.

A couple of examples.

A few years ago, someone walked into my home through an unlocked door when I had come in on a quick errand and gone to the third floor without locking it, and took my purse. I reported the theft. I later learned that the kid across the street with whom I was friends, who was about 12, had seen the individual in question leaving my home. Some time later, the police apprehended the cokehead they believed was responsible for a number of similar thefts in the neighbourhood. They asked to have the neighbour kid look at a photo line-up. They would not be able to charge the cokehead with that particular theft, likely, and the kid would not have been asked to testify, but an identification would have given them some leverage. (Unfortunately, the kid's mother refused to let her participate.)

More years ago than that, I was abducted, etc. etc. Two days before, the individual in question had abducted and assaulted two young women in a single identical incident. On the intervening day, he had attempted to assault three young women, but admitted defeat when one of them pulled a hairbrush on him. Both of those incidents had been reported. In the first, the victims were young women of colour who were recent immigrants from South Africa and were very reticent about going to the police, but did. In the second, one of the intended victims tried to make an anonymous report by phone, but when the police said "yesterday it was those girls, today it was you, who will it be tomorrow?" she and her friends made formal reports. As a result, when I reported, the man was already being sought by police, and with my information, he was apprehended in a few hours. If I had not reported, who would it have been the next day? And would she/they have been as lucky/resourceful as I was and escaped what appeared to be escalating violence and likely death?

It's okay for women who have been sexually assaulted, or victims of attempted assaults, to take their troubles to the police. As I pointed out, it has been insinuated to me here that had I not done so, I would have been dishonourable.

But for toters of firearms to report crimes attempted against them? Nah, that's just too much trouble.

Ah, the law-abiding, responsible gun owners. Giving a shit about nothing and nobody but themselves, as usual.



typo fixed

[gunther]

47. Wow!!

I am not a civilian. My neighbours are not civilians. . . . Again, I and my neighbours do not think of ourselves as a "civilians" vis-à-vis the police. . . . I am a member of the public. We are members of the public.

Actually, you are a civilian, assuming you are not in the public service. It isn't an attitude or state of mind. It's a word with a specific definition, by which most people can be described...

No, I assure you, they are not. They may be, in the uncivilized territories south of my border, or over the ocean, depending on anyone's own perspective. They are not "everywhere". They are not anywhere, where I am, and were the vast majority of the planet's population are.

I live in the suburbs of Boston, not very far from Teddy Kennedy's home. I guess you could call that south of the border, if you are like... Canadian or something?

Do you really believe this? You CAN'T possibly be so blind... Tell me you are just saying that for effect. I and millions of other "members of the public" carry firearms every day and are fully in compliance with the law.


If you actually read what I was saying, you will see that I was referring to the supreme disregard for public safety demonstrated by individuals who are victims of attempted crimes and who do nothing but flaunt their firearm and walk away -- without reporting the incident to police. Police investigate crimes, and if at some point the individual in question is apprehended, the previous report will be a tool for law enforcement, at least.

Actually, I'm all for reporting the incident and would do so. If I must someday make such a report, I fully expect the information to be dutifully noted and forgotten, OR to spend several hours of my time being grilled about the incident, depending on the nature of the locality. You know, am I in "uncivilized" territory like Hyannisport or am I somewhere little more civilized like Arlington?


It's okay for women who have been sexually assaulted, or victims of attempted assaults, to take their troubles to the police. As I pointed out, it has been insinuated to me here that had I not done so, I would have been dishonourable.

Who said that? I completely understand the victim of such a crime wanting to put it behind them. We ALL deal with tragedy and personal issues in our own ways. Get through it in the way that works for you.

[iverglas]

50. "if you are like... Canadian or something?"

Got it in one, dincha? You won't pass the fan club entrance exam if you don't catch up.


I and millions of other "members of the public" carry firearms every day and are fully in compliance with the law.

And that's one reason that I and, I am quite sure, many other Canadians don't spend time where you are these days.

[gunther]

52. LMAO

Well I can't fault your sense of humor.

Yes, I am south of your border.

My winter heating bill is lower, too.

Not knowing Canadian gun law, perhaps you are correct in thinking that only police and criminals are carrying weapons in your presence.

However, a trivial google search seems to indicate that Canada does in fact allow carry concealed firearms by "the public". So your belief is incorrect after all...

[iverglas]

55. oh, dear

Me, an ignorant Canadian, being corrected by a foreigner.

Not.

Care to report the results of your trivial google search? You might want to start by actually reading the statutes and regulations ...

[gunther]

58. My sympathies to you

Me, an ignorant Canadian, being corrected by a foreigner.

I'm American! YOU'RE the foreigner! ;)

Care to report the results of your trivial google search? You might want to start by actually reading the statutes and regulations ...

I looked at it again long enough to have real sympathy for the oppression you are living under!

I see that Canada does have a very difficult to obtain concealed carry license. So you are in fact wrong, though in practice you may in fact be right.

By the experiences you related earlier, you very well could be a person that would qualify for the license. You should look into it.

Congratulations. The only guns you are likely to come in contact with are being carried by criminals and police. I wonder which crowd outnumbers the other? Sleep well.

[iverglas]

60. I'm WRONG?

I see that Canada does have a very difficult to obtain concealed carry license. So you are in fact wrong, though in practice you may in fact be right.

Do tell me what I'm wrong about.

You said, "Lawfully armed civilians are everywhere."

I said, "No, I assure you, they are not."

It is, in practice, IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Canada, UNLESS you come within a couple of very narrow categories.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1995-c-39/latest/sc-1995-c-39.html

Definitions

2. (1) In this Act,
... “authorization to carry” means an authorization described in section 20;

Carrying restricted firearms and pre-February 14, 1995 handguns

20. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun

(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or
(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/regu/sor-98-207/latest/sor-98-207.html

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT

Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

(a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;
(b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and
(c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;
(b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or
(c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

You may now retract your false assertion.


By the experiences you related earlier, you very well could be a person that would qualify for the license. You should look into it.

No, I am not a person whose life "is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals". Pretty much nobody is. There might be a brief period between the uttering of a death threat, or conduct that indicated an intent to harm, and the arrest of the person responsible, in various cases. Generally, if someone's life is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals, the individual or individuals in question are going to be arrested, charged with an offence and detained pending trial.

I have no intention of looking into anything. What utter nonsense.


Congratulations. The only guns you are likely to come in contact with are being carried by criminals and police.

Actually, I could go to the local recreational facility tomorrow and start taking the firearms safety course that would qualify me for a possession and acquisition licence. If I wanted to take up target shooting, I would join the facility. I would apply for a restricted firearm PAL if I wanted to use a handgun, along with an authorization to transport to and from the range. And a few weeks later I would go and buy a handgun. If I want to hunt, I take the course, apply for the PAL and buy a long arm. Or I could could go and visit rural friends and be in contact with guns any time I felt like it.

The likelihood that any criminal I encounter in my entire life will have a firearm is about as close to 0 as that curve can get without brushing it. I don't know why I might be concerned about police carrying firearms, but I'm not. Thanks for your concern.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. In fairness

"The likelihood that any criminal I encounter in my entire life will have a firearm is about as close to 0 as that curve can get without brushing it."

In the US, your odds of being killed by a firearm in any given year period also impact the number 0 on that curve. 4 places to the right of 0, as a matter of fact.

[gunther]

67. Wow....

Do tell me what I'm wrong about.

You are wrong that there is no civilan concealed carry in Canada. Your own posts confirm that. That it is difficult approaching impossible to get is the fault of your politicians.

If you wanted a regional qualification why didn't you just say so, instead of playing word games?

Perhaps if Canada's gun laws were more sensible, some of the women you appear concerned about could defend themselves and avoid going through what you did.

Why would you deny them that choice? You don't come across as the type of person that would WANT a woman to suffer an assault like that. I would hope not at least.


The likelihood that any criminal I encounter in my entire life will have a firearm is about as close to 0 as that curve can get without brushing it. I don't know why I might be concerned about police carrying firearms, but I'm not. Thanks for your concern.

I have no idea why you think I was saying it was bad for police to have guns?! I think it's absurd that they don't in UK (or do they now?). It was a simple statement of fact based on YOUR report that "the public" can't carry where you live. If you encounter a person carrying a concealed weapon (and you HAVE and likely do every day if you live in a city) then that person is either a criminal or a police officer. What is judgmental about that and how can you dispute it?

Neither I, nor anyone I know has ever been abducted (as you have been according to your comments). My closest brush with the criminal element was... let me think... AH! I had a trespasser a few years ago. I told him to get lost. Eventually he did.

Thank God I live in a country with *some* level of freedom intact.

[iverglas]

73. well, you'll fit right in around here, won't you?

You are wrong that there is no civilan concealed carry in Canada.

If I had said that, I'd be wrong. Let's look at what I actually said, in the very first place:

I don't see any "lawfully armed civilians" any day, unless I happen to be in the vicinity of an armoured vehicle transporting cash and/or valuables.

Those are the ONLY instances in which I, living in a city not frequented by hunters, trappers or other wilderness denizens, will encounter a non-police personnel person carrying a concealed firearm. Actually, from vague recollection, armoured vehicle personnel may wear their firearms unconcealed; I've never given it much thought.


That it is difficult approaching impossible to get is the fault of your politicians.

Man, what a big mouth, so full of crap.

The fact that it is essentially impossible to get is the choice of the public.


Perhaps if Canada's gun laws were more sensible, some of the women you appear concerned about could defend themselves and avoid going through what you did.

Perhaps - no, I apologize: certainly - that is the most ludicrous and disrespectful suggestion that can be made in this regard. And no, I am not embarking on that game all over again. Use your google.


Thank God I live in a country with *some* level of freedom intact.

There being no such animal, I simply thank my fellow members of the public for the level of both safety and freedom I enjoy. I prefer both to insecurity and freedumb.

Wanna know how close *I* have been to your George W. Bush? A whole lot closer than you'd ever get, I assure you. Shouting rude things the whole time. I know he heard me. Did he ever hear you? I mean, I'm assuming you were one of those people coralled off in an enclosure somewhere in outer nowhere when he came to town. But hey, you can take your gun along to see the current head of state. Freeeedumb.


Lovely meeting you, your work here appears to be done.

[gunther]

80. And you are the civilized one?

That it is difficult approaching impossible to get is the fault of your politicians.

Man, what a big mouth, so full of crap.

Speaking of mouths, do you kiss your mother with that potty mouth?

I've been nothing but respectful to you and you come back with "Man, what a big mouth, so full of crap."???

I truely hope you are the EXCEPTION and not the RULE in Canada. So much for being civilized. I'll take us barbarians any day - thank you very much for staying north of the border....


Perhaps if Canada's gun laws were more sensible, some of the women you appear concerned about could defend themselves and avoid going through what you did.

. . . that is the most ludicrous and disrespectful suggestion that can be made in this regard. . . .

*I'm* disprespectful for being disappointed that you would rather your public (man, woman or child) be victims of rape, murder or worse?! Please, tomorrow morning (unless in your time zone it is still light out) please step outside and report back here on the color of the sky in your world.

I will not be denied the right to defend myself. Truely. I will not. You should be ashamed of yourself for wanting to deprive others of that right. Disgusting.


Thank God I live in a country with *some* level of freedom intact.

There being no such animal, I simply thank my fellow members of the public for the level of both safety and freedom I enjoy. I prefer both to insecurity and freedumb.

That's right. Next time you are attacked, holler "My Public! Please come SAVE ME!" Next time *I* am attacked, I will exercise all lawful force in my defense.

Wanna know how close *I* have been to your George W. Bush? A whole lot closer than you'd ever get, I assure you. Shouting rude things the whole time. I know he heard me. Did he ever hear you? I mean, I'm assuming you were one of those people coralled off in an enclosure somewhere in outer nowhere when he came to town. But hey, you can take your gun along to see the current head of state. Freeeedumb.

What are you, some kind of activist? I'm not a supporter of Bush. I think he did very little of use in his 8 years, though he certainly is not the Hitler your side would make him out to be. Besides, who even mentioned him? Just looking for more fuel for your bigoted views, I suppose?


Lovely meeting you, your work here appears to be done.

Sleep tight.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. "though he certainly is not the Hitler your side would make him out to be."

Eh?

Who's side?


Canadians?

[gunther]

87. No! Just the lady with the potty mouth!

I actually kind of like Canada (and I *LOVE* Corner Gas). If it weren't for the gun control laws I'd consider buying a vacation place way out in the boonies. I don't like the city - my work keeps me here.

The somewhat less than pleasant lady asked about Bush out of the blue, whether I had ever been as close to him as she had been, did he listen to me etc. I still can't figure out the connection except she might think all gun owners are automatically Bushbots or something.

I presume from that, that she is some kind of activist. My experience is that those that see Bush as evil incarnate tend to be far left, though every so often I find myself surprised.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. I think you might understand the frustration

if you review your earlier posts, in light of the fact that Iverglas is in Canada.

Civilians (non-military, non-law enforcment) do not carry concealed in Canada. Considering their restrictions on CCW, I would guess there are probably about as many people with the license in Canada, as there are in the entire state of california. Which is not very many. For practical purposes, CCW does not exist in Canada. Pistols are INCREDIBLY controlled, and inaccessible.

Apparently, the Canadian populace is happy with that. I see what might be some grumbling about the registry (which might be faux grumbling too) and maybe some of the restrictions, but I haven't seen a push for CCW in Canada, and I'm pretty close to the border, visit from time to time, follow a bit of their news, and have relatives/friends on both sides of the border. Never much comes up in casual conversation.

[gunther]

90. The OP was regionless

if you review your earlier posts, in light of the fact that Iverglas is in Canada.

Right, but the OP was regionless. Also the implication was the OP was talking about a place where the would-be victims carried legally.

The post that I replied to talked about an incident in Atlanta Georgia. I live in the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts. Why would I not comment in the context of the OP, the post I replied to and my own home?

Canada only came into the conversation when Iverglas commented about the uncivilized ruffians "south of the border". She is entitled to her opinion, but she isn't entitled to a vote in how I lead my life or how we manage our law.

I think there is little more admirable than a victim that makes a stand and I would never deny a person the tools to defend themselves. MY opinion is that doing so is beneath contempt.

I also recognize that some wish to delegate their safety to others. She is free to do that. I won't.

Take care.

[GunGuyinPA]

72. Re: that's one reason that I and, many other Canadians don't spend time where you are these days.

Well thank you, especially if it means your ideas come with you. (ideas such as self-defense is not a basic right)

http://ccwsaveslives.blogspot.com

[iverglas]

74. three new fan club members in a single day!

And the day isn't even over yet.

We are experiencing a temporary high volume of applications. Please be patient; yours will be processed as soon as I feel like it.

Rest assured, though, that you have passed the entrance exam:

Well thank you, especially if it means your ideas come with you. (ideas such as self-defense is not a basic right)

The requirement of an offering of



has been met.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. This thread illustrates one of the difficulties of counting DGUs.

In using a gun for self defense, there is the question of, "Exactly when am I in grave danger?" If one waits until the criminal has actually begun the attack to reach for a gun, it can easily be too late. But if one brings a gun out too early, one can be over-reacting to a false reading of the situation. Those two seedy looking street guys that have altered their course to approach you after you have altered course to avoid them, may only be wanting directions to a "Lost Souls" mission, or it may be the stalking phase of an imminent attack.

What the approaching guys say is irrelevant. Street criminals will attempt to give a reason why they need to approach and talk in an attempt to delay a defensive response from the victim.

At 21 feet, a reasonably healthy person can rush to contact before an armed person can reach for and draw their gun. And that statistic is for police and others who may be carrying in an open and easy to reach holster. A CCW armed person often has to get their clothes out of the way first. Attempting to draw a gun once contact has been made runs the high risk of getting into a grapple over the gun, although at that point that would be a risk that would have to be accepted. Waiting until the assault has begun also runs the risk of being disabled in the initial attack and unable to respond.

So CCW holders have the dilemma of when to take action and what action to take.

Even displaying a gun for self-defense is a fairly rare occurance. For most CCWers, it will never happen. Extrapolating from the most favorable statistical surveys produces a once-in-a-lifetime event for about one in three CCWers. The other two spend their lives carrying around steel that they never use. (Above distribution is simplified for discussion. A real distribution would be far more complex.) It is impossible, at this time, to reliably estimate how many valid DGUs there are in the US each year.

There are tactics that we use to help clarify the situations. One is attempting to run away if possible, another is yelling, "Stay away!", and we may reach inside our clothes and put our hands on the gun, but not bring it into view. (That is an additional reason why pocket guns are so extremely popular. A hand in the pocket is not alarming to most people, but street-wise criminals will often read it as, "Gun." There is a difference in the placement of the hand if it is holding a gun in the pocket or if it is just stuck in the pocket.) If they then run to chase you, are continue to approach after you have yelled, then you may well be justified in presenting the gun, depending on many other factors. (In a mall - extremely unlikely. Leaving work in a bad part of town at 11PM and walking two blocks to the bus - much more likely.)

I completely agree that if the situation reaches the point that the gun must be presented, then after everything is over, the police absolutely should be called. A report must be made, for reasons that other posters have stated.

But when the gun hasn't been drawn, and the possible assailants have realized the danger they are in and have fled, there just isn't anything to report. (I personally know several CCWers that have been in that situation. In one of them, I am completely convinced that it was the stalking phase of an attack. She didn't present her gun, but was able to telegraph to the suspicious person that she was armed. He turned and ran away.) The most that you can say is that some suspicious persons attempted to approach but decided not to. The crime is often stopped before it becomes an actual crime. And most major metropolitan police are just too busy for something that minor. That's why so many reports aren't filed.

[spin]

83. Excellent post...

You say,

At 21 feet, a reasonably healthy person can rush to contact before an armed person can reach for and draw their gun. And that statistic is for police and others who may be carrying in an open and easy to reach holster. A CCW armed person often has to get their clothes out of the way first. Attempting to draw a gun once contact has been made runs the high risk of getting into a grapple over the gun, although at that point that would be a risk that would have to be accepted. Waiting until the assault has begun also runs the risk of being disabled in the initial attack and unable to respond.

Which is why I carry a S&W model 642 in a pocket holster in my front right pocket. If I suspect problems, I can easily reach into my pocket and place my hand on this snub nosed revolver. If attacked, I can draw the weapon and shove it into the stomach of the attacker and pull the trigger. Five rounds of 38+_P ammo can ruin his day.



You recognize this when you say,

There are tactics that we use to help clarify the situations. One is attempting to run away if possible, another is yelling, "Stay away!", and we may reach inside our clothes and put our hands on the gun, but not bring it into view. (That is an additional reason why pocket guns are so extremely popular. A hand in the pocket is not alarming to most people, but street-wise criminals will often read it as, "Gun." There is a difference in the placement of the hand if it is holding a gun in the pocket or if it is just stuck in the pocket.

And your statement,

I completely agree that if the situation reaches the point that the gun must be presented, then after everything is over, the police absolutely should be called.

is right on target.

edited to add:

Welcome to DU

[GreenStormCloud]

92. Thanks for the welcome. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Almost 10 years, I've never once had to draw my weapon for anything.

I still carry and reserve the right to continue to do so, as long as concealed carry is a legal option.


The 21 foot 'rule' you are thinking of is the Tuller Drill. I believe it was originally designed for the miltiary, but has obvious implications for military and civilian law enforcement.

[GreenStormCloud]

120. I remember when it was common for a police officer to say that.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s it was common for a small city policeman to retire from thirty years on the force and say that he had never had to draw his gun in the line of duty. Even some big city cops said that.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Enhanced and extended thoughts on your post.

I am concerned that there is at least one person in this thread who would, and also advocates others not report a DGU. It boggles my mind.

There is a threshold of readiness that is crossed when you brandish a firearm. There is a HUGE legal demarcation between your correct suggestion to 'ready', with your hand on the weapon, but not revealing it, and actually brandishing the weapon. (Which could be anything between pointing it at someones head, down to revealing it in it's formerly concealed holster, by removing the concealment, or gesturing toward it.

We should not be revealing that weapon, unless prepared to use it. If you are prepared to use it, you should be prepared to defend that use before a grand jury, if need be. If you are in the right, you should have nothing to fear. Yes, you may need a lawyer. Yes, you may need time off from work. It may get expensive. But it is legal, and right, and proper to do so. Reality works that way, even the victim may be inconvienienced, in proving that they are in fact the victim. It happens.

Always, always, always, do the right thing.

No one will ever see my firearm in a DGU, unless I am prepared to use it. Not to 'show it', to use it. The aggressors window of opportunity to correct matters and remove the threat without my needing to do so for him or her, is very, very small.

No matter what, If I ever am involved in a DGU, no matter how innocuous the event, no matter how inconvienient the paperwork, and possible arrest or investigation may be, I will do the right thing. Anything less would make ME the 'bad guy'.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Absolutely.

You said:
No one will ever see my firearm in a DGU, unless I am prepared to use it. Not to 'show it', to use it. The aggressors window of opportunity to correct matters and remove the threat without my needing to do so for him or her, is very, very small.

Absolutely true. I you are in a grave enough extreme that you need to pull the gun out, you don't have the time to waste waiting to see what the predator will do. Nor do you want to transfer the iniative over to him by pausing. That pause could get you killed.

A deputy sheriff aquaintance of mine said this about drawing a concealed weapon. (He know I carry. We were talking about steps I take to avoid confrontations.)"If you draw your weapon, one of two things is about to happen. Either you are about to shoot somebody, or you are about to get into a lot of trouble."

The saying from the days of the Old West is still true. Don't draw unless you are about to shoot.

[TPaine7]

93. If someone conviced you that what appeared to be a deadly threat

actually was not, and you and the "perpetrator" parted on amiable terms, would you still call the police?

Let's say that two agitated young men rapidly approached you with a tire iron after you exited a building (the door having locked behind you). You drew your weapon and the "armed" guy dropped the tire iron. They then convinced you that they were simply pissed off at the fact that they were late and had a flat. The flat tire confirmed their story.

Would you actually call the police?

What if you had to pull a gun in a jurisdiction where the DA was very corrupt and rabidly anti-gun? And you knew that a legal defense would ruin you financially and make it impossible to properly care for your very sick child? And you knew of similar things (financial ruin) happening to others in that jurisdiction?

The "right thing" can vary based on situations. The law itself realizes that it is sometimes trumped by reality. To escape death, I will certainly break the speed limit and run stop signs. The law is there for my sake, not the other way around.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. Absolutely I would call the police.

Make it clear to the officers that no one wants to press charges, and you're on your way.

A much better outcome than if you just go your separate ways, while the old lady across the street called the cops and gave them your description, and told them you pointed a gun at someone. That could get especially uncomfortable when they find you are carrying a gun (corroborating the witnesses perhaps incomplete or inaccurate story) and they can't find the two fellows with the tyre iron.


A DA isn't going to get involved unless a law is broken, or someone presses charges. In this situation, I would call without fear.

[TPaine7]

110. Perhaps I could have been more clear.

I follow your rationale regarding the tire iron incident.

At first, I thought you had intentionally avoided the second scenario, but I see you have apparently conflated it with the first--perhaps due to lack of clarity in my question.

What if you had to pull a gun in a jurisdiction where the DA was very corrupt and rabidly anti-gun? And you knew that a legal defense would ruin you financially and make it impossible to properly care for your very sick child? And you knew of similar things (financial ruin) happening to others in that jurisdiction?

That is a separate scenario, and I am still interested in your answer if you care to give it.

[Tim01]

102. That actually happens very frequently.

I know someone who was hiking on the Appalachian Trail carrying a gun, retired cop. Not legal, but he prefers to take his chances legally. And he is the one with the legal experience not me.
Anyway, he bumped into some guys who stopped and talked to him(interview) and then they parted. Later as he was walking past some brush they rushed him. The gun was out before they got to him. Then they were all like "oh, hey man we were just having some fun trying to scare you." Uh,huh. Just going to scare him, sure.

Another friend, Marine, in D.C. they tried to grab him, the knife came out. "Hey, man we just wanted to talk to you."

[AtheistCrusader]

104. I guess it makes more sense to ignore the law, and not report a DGU

if you're carrying illegally anyway.

[Tim01]

105. I guess it does to somebody with 20 years experience in the legal system.

You were about to say you have more real world experience than a 20 year police officer?

[AtheistCrusader]

113. Are you serious?

Do you know what a judge would probably say to someone with 20 years of law enforcement experience, that was caught committing a felony?

After all, you said: "I know someone who was hiking on the Appalachian Trail carrying a gun, retired cop. Not legal, but he prefers to take his chances legally."

That means he was somewhere the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act did not provide him the legal right to concealed carry. So he was either crossing through a state where part of the trail had CCW forbidden by state law, or he was on part of the trail that is considered a national park.

That, or he was in the clear, in a place the LEOSA granted him the right to have a CCW on his person, and his 20 years of police officer experience left him with less understanding of applicable law than I have.

He also had the moral and legal responsibility to report the assault he experienced, that caused him to feel justified in drawing his firearm. Those punks will most likely victimize someone else now.

[Tim01]

115. Do you have more experience with how the justice system ACTUALLY works?

Not what is law, or how the law is supposed to be, or some ideological fantasy of what the legal system is. But rather what really happens?

You do have more experience with the reality of that system than a 20 year police veteran, right?

I can tell you I come into contact with a lot of veteran police officers, and they don't see the legal system the way you do.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. I realize full well that many of them flaunt the law

and even get away with it, when caught in the act by other officers. Two got their walking papers not too long ago for forgetting the dash cam, and 'helping' an officer that got caught doing over 130mph on his motorcycle.

Some get caught. Some get away with it.


'what really happens' is highly subjective. Bottom line, per the information you have supplied, what your retired police veteran acquaintance is doing is illegal. He has a somewhat higher chance of getting away with it than I would, but it is still illegal. Not to mention immoral.


Some officers wonder why the police get such a bad rap. They should look to your friend. He's part of the problem.

[TPaine7]

109. "Carrying illegally"

The courts of certain jurisdictions notwithstanding, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. It outranks the petty laws of Chicago, New York, Hawaii, and other states and localities.

It is not, in reality, illegal to carry in any state or territory of the United States. Yes, you may be "convicted." Yes, you may get locked up by "law enforcement." But strength is not legitimacy. You may also be beaten up if you refuse to pay "protection money" to the mob.

Even if the Constitution wasn't there to outrank these petty and illegal laws, there is still the basic human right of self-defense--which outranks and predates the Constitution itself. Even repealing the Second Amendment to make carrying weapons "illegal" would simply make the Constitution itself wrong. Laws have been wrong before; the Constitution itself has been wrong before.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. No, illegal.

The The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act does not over-ride state and federal prohibitions on locations a police officer may conceal/carry. That means, for instance, bars in Washington State, and until the Concealed Carry In National Parks bit of the credit card bill takes effect in approximately Feb of next year, National Parks.

I consider Police Officers that do not follow the law, illegitimate. I have unwavering respect only for police officers who follow ALL valid laws.

That means, in Washington State, no sound suppressors for their firearms. Sorry, it's the law. There's no LEO exemption in the law, like there is for Select Fire weapons. The law is the law, and it must be obeyed, or fixed. Breaking it is the riskiest form of civil disobediance you could select, and I do not recommend it, in most cases. Certainly not where the risk of a felony is on the line.

[TPaine7]

116. I agree with you on suppressors and bars, but a ban on

carrying in National Parks is not a regulation--it's a ban. An illogical ban.

I have unwavering respect only for police officers who follow ALL valid laws.

Banning guns in National Parks is logically very different than banning them in prisons, bars and legislative halls. It's about as rational as banning singing a sexually explicit ditty on the Appalachian Trail. A ban on singing sexually explicit ditties in preschools, churches, and courtrooms would be rational, a ban on explicit ditties on a remote mountain trail would be unconstitutional.

[AtheistCrusader]

118. It's a federal ban, that's been tested in court.

That's why they stuffed it in the Credit Card bill. The SC either refused to hear the cases, or tossed them out, I don't know off the top of my head. I know it came up more than once.

I don't actually consider the ban in bars to be terribly logical. If someone is reckless enough to drink and wave a gun around, they are reckless enough to ignore the law prohibiting CCW in bars. It's a burden on me, because I don't drink. Therefore, when I take some friends to the bar as a designated driver, I either have to leave my gun at home for the day, or stash it in my car, inviting theft of the weapon.

I follow the law, despite the personal inconvienience.

[SteveM]

99. I can understand the reluctance to report some incidents...

Of course, here in Texas (and most states) one would probably not encounter much problem with the police should you report a crime in which a citizen brandished a gun. But in some states/localities where a gun is prohibited, and a citizen nevertheless possesses one, such reporting can land that citizen in a heap of trouble; I rather suspect hard-core crims and thugs with a penchant for recognition know this.

There should be a study on who actually buys firearms in "prohibited" areas. Certainly, thugs and other crims purchase many; but how many are purchased by otherwise law-abiding people who choose to protect themselves, but cannot obtain a firearm due to highly-discriminatory "may issue" laws (based on old Jim Crow models), or outright bans? Unfortunately, this would be a difficult study to undertake. If I lived in NYC, Chicago and some other locales, and had a high-risk business in a dangerous neighborhood, I would consider purchasing a firearm from someone, some where because my life is more important than prohibitionist law (I believe a NYC shop owner in the news recently did do just that). I shouldn't have to.

[Tim01]

106. When you are on the ground getting the shit kicked out of you, you will know you are in a gunfight.

Someone with more experience than me said that. And it is because violent attacks follow patterns that give as much advantage as possible to the badguy. The badguy does not usually step out at 25 or 30 feet and announce this is a robbery.
He will usually smile and be friendly, or maybe slightly threatening, as he talks whatever bullshit story he has cooked up. There probably won't be any real indication of trouble until he is at 3 feet or less. Try your math again at 3 feet. You didn't pull your gun because it is not polite, and not even legal. The fight starts when the bad guy nails you in the side of the head with a haymaker and his buddy hits you from behind. That was also part of their plan, and also how it goes down maybe 70% of the time.
So you've been knocked a bit senseless, you have 2 guys on you, you are trying to protect yourself, escape, and draw your gun all at the same time. And, of course, under these conditions, there is a good chance they are going to know you are going for a gun.
I train for real life scenarios like this with some folks who have been there, done that. It is really an awful feeling to have the badguy pry your gun out of your hand while his buddy has an arm around your neck. In my case it is only simunitions, which leave welts and bruises, and hurt realy bad. And the "badguys" will most certainly shoot me a few times at point blank to punish me for losing.

If somebody tries to hold you in place by chatting to you with some bullshit story, get moving. Do not allow yourself to be anchored in place. Circle right, or circle left, but do not stay put. You probably won't have time to go for your gun once the trouble starts if you stay put.

[Statistical]

107. This is why I recommend a good defensive handgun course...

for anyone that carries.

Covering things like firing into hand to hand combat. Generally you are going to need to strike or sweep the assailant in order to gain space to draw safely (without losing the weapon).

Firing at point blank range if different than firing at 20ft, 10ft or even 3ft.

You likely won't have time/opportunity for a perfect weaver stance. You may need to fire off hand, you like will need to point shoot or shoot from the hip. Weapon retention becomes a large factor is how/when you fire.

Anyone who carries (open or concealed) should take a defensive handgun course that focuses on close quarters combat. If you only keep a gun for defense in the home it is still useful but not a pressing. Most likely scenario for DGU in the home is a break-in. The noise and/or alarm should give you more time & space making close quarters combat less likely.

[Tim01]

111. Yeah, I know what you mean.

I think most people who carry don't actually get it.I know a woman who has a revolver in her huge purse, under all the other stuff in there.
When I took my first Force On Force class I suddenly came to a very unpleasant understanding that I wasn't really properly trained, in spite of a lot of training. After we ran a few scenarios where the bad guys were just as aggressive as real badguys, and armed, the whole class became kind of somber. We all got torn to pieces. The training made us have a much better chance, we would die less often. But still, in many of the scenarios the good guy just lost.Just too much violence going on for anybody to come out clean consistently. Lots of cases where nobody wins, everybody gets shot or stabbed.
We all agreed that this class showed us we all wanted to avoid a violent confrontation if at all possible. Up until this class I don't think I understood how bad it was likely to be.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Movement is your friend.

Act like you're going to go move something, or dust something off, or look closely at a sign, whatever, but yeah, if someone seems content to pin you in place with conversation, move.

How's that old saying go?

If you aren't shooting, you should be reloading. If you aren't reloading, you should be moving. If you aren't moving, someone's gonna cut your head off and plant it on a stake...


You're an easy mark in White, but a difficult problem in Orange.

[GreenStormCloud]

119. Great Post !!

So many people here don't understand the dynamics of a violent attack. If they can get close enough to you to make the first strike, you are in bad trouble. It is only in the movies that people shrug off hits to the head and gut.

A revolver in the pocket is a gun you can have your hand on and be legal. If you have to you can shoot through your clothing. (Can't do that with an autoloader. Well, you can get off one shot, but then it will jam if fired from inside a pocket.)

Be aware of your surroundings and don't let yourself get trapped between two people. Fortunately, most muggers will telegraph their intentions, if you are alert for the signs.

[Tim01]

123. You know, that's a really great point.

The revolvers strength would also be it's weakness. My auto is in holster where I can always find it. However, for me to draw it takes very deliberate and fairly obvious movement.

The revolver can already be "in action" in the pocket, even if you are still trying to figure if this is a bad situation or just something innocent. While the badguy is talking you up, you are already pointing your gun at him and he doesn't even know it.
Of course. if things go bad suddenly, it might be pretty tough to figure out where the heck your revolver actually is as it bounces around in your pocket.
Really strong argument for the revolver though. Add that one to the fact that a revolver won't jam if you fire it while it is mashed up against a coat or whatever. And if it fails, just pull the trigger again, forget jam clearing.

[Statistical]

108. Lots of very good points.

Perfectly explain why counting DGU is extremely difficult.

It also helps explain why many people are reluctant to report a DGU if shots aren't fired.

Someone who waited until attacked to draw and got into a life and death struggle before firing and wounding the suspect likely will call the Police.

Someone who drew earlier and the attacker never attacked and simply left may be concerned that by drawing "earlier" the situation doesn't meet the letter of the law. Depending on local LEO and DA responses to civil self defense he/she may not call the Police.

Anyways very nice post and welcome to DU.