CCW rationale

[MeatAxe]

Ok guys, lets get back to the topic at hand, which is 'The rationale for CCW', not the differences in firearms 'culture' around the world.

Well, my “rationale” is the same: because sometimes trouble comes looking for you. And you may have nothing to say about it at all — aside from your response and preparation.

The only time I have yet drawn a gun on somebody was during a would-be home invasion. Somebody in my family left an exterior door unlocked, so some bleep wad walked in during the middle of the night. Mind you, I was still up and about, lights and tv were on, etc. so it was obvious that the house was occupied, but this mother bleeper came in anyway. I heard some noise in the kitchen while I was walking by and thought one of my kids was raiding the fridge, so I called out, then heard a big commotion. That wasn’t right. Fortunately, I had a pistol in my carry rig near by so I grabbed it and “pied” my way around the kitchen door in time to see a figure run out the back door. Unfortunately, he got out and away (with my wife’s purse) before I had an opportunity to shoot. But you have to wonder what sort of mentality (or lack thereof) that would motivate someone to break into an obviously occupied residence. And then I think of what could have happened if that %^* sucker had gotten in while the rest of the family and I were asleep. It was an eye opening experience, to say the least. And that sucker is probably still out there, somewhere.

However, a gun is just one layer of my security, and now, in addition to making sure all my exterior doors are locked at all times, and the burglar alarm is on at night, I have large, alert dogs about the premises - dogs that bite. Even inside the home, I’m either packing on my person or within easy reach of a hidden gun. You can never be “too prepared” when trouble comes calling.

[Kosh]

3 times. I am fortunate that I was paying close attention to my whereabouts and circumstances each time.

The way I see it, if you are carrying and a perp comes up to you and puts a gun in your face, you just lost your belongings AND your CCW gun, unless you are John Wick of course.

MEATAXE took the words right out of my mouth. SA can be taught and learned, but it's up to the individual and the extent to which they're unwilling to be a victim. It takes a little work to turn it into habit, but there are ways that don't make doing so an onerous chore. Among other things taught when learning SA is the importance of WATCHING those dark corners for "peeps" who may "aprorach" therefrom, and deciding ahead of time what one is willing to do about them.
It is almost always better to confront would-be aggressors at a distance (usually no less than 4 meters). One needn't be "John Wick" nor Chuck Norris, nor the late Bruce Lee to re-create that distance quickly, decisively, and forcefully. But obtaining the ability requires training by the right people, and should be given every bit the attention a CCW aspirant will or should devote to marksmanship and draw/shoot/reload drills.
If you insist that your view of "CCW rationale" is correct, then it IS. FOR YOU, and NOBODY ELSE.

[StarDude]

I would hope to never have to use my weapon in self defense. But your rationale seems pretty defeatist to me. Of course your life is worth more that material good. So if you are caught of guard, give them your stuff. But if you are in fear for your life, you fight without a second thought.

Personally I believe that self defense training as well as confidence in your ability with your CCW gun are must have skills. Be aware and be prepared.

  I wonder how many of the apparent many members here, that conceal carry, have actually had to use their gun in a situation where they were  “reasonably in fear for his or her physical safety and they were not able to retreat” as per CCW laws. 
  The way I see it, if you are carrying and a perp comes up to you and puts a gun in your face, you just lost your belongings AND your CCW gun, unless you are John Wick of course. It all really doesn’t make sense to me, as I am no John Wick and don’t want to lose my gun.

[Gary in Illinois]

^^^^^^^^
This! I have decided that no material goods are worth shooting someone over - I will hand over my cash, credit cards, phone, keys, etc. before shooting someone.  However, when my life or, more importantly, a family member's life, is at risk the mindset changes drastically. My friend and CCW instructor advised that the first shot (even in a justified shooting) will cost $100,000+ in legal fees and will result in a real living nightmare. His advice was that if you have to shoot, keep shooting until you hear a "click".

I personally know a young wildlife conservation officer who killed a thug trying to kick down his door at his home while defending his young family. He had 911 on his speaker phone and could be clearly heard advising the thug that he was armed, had young children in his home and that he would shoot if the thug came in. While the shooting was absolutely justified, he ended up selling his home and moving to another city just to escape the harassment that followed the shooting.

For those who would shoot to avoid loss of property, I would advise you to think long and hard before doing so; I believe you will lose far more material goods by doing so rather than hand over what the thief is demanding.

[SI VIS PACEM PARRABELLUM]

^^^^^^^^
This! I have decided that no material goods are worth shooting someone over - I will hand over my cash, credit cards, phone, keys, etc. before shooting someone.  However, when my life or, more importantly, a family member's life, is at risk the mindset changes drastically.
For those who would shoot to avoid loss of property, I would advise you to think long and hard before doing so; I believe you will lose far more material goods by doing so rather than hand over what the thief is demanding.

Everyone has to decide what parameters they think are best for them to follow. Someone wants my stuff I'll make it as hard a proposition for them as I'm able to in the moment. I didn't bust my tail for the last 40 years to hand anything over to some human trash who refuses to be a productive member of society.

[MeatAxe]

^^^^^^^^
This! I have decided that no material goods are worth shooting someone over - I will hand over my cash, credit cards, phone, keys, etc. before shooting someone.  However, when my life or, more importantly, a family member's life, is at risk the mindset changes drastically. My friend and CCW instructor advised that the first shot (even in a justified shooting) will cost $100,000+ in legal fees and will result in a real living nightmare. His advice was that if you have to shoot, keep shooting until you hear a "click".

I personally know a young wildlife conservation officer who killed a thug trying to kick down his door at his home while defending his young family. He had 911 on his speaker phone and could be clearly heard advising the thug that he was armed, had young children in his home and that he would shoot if the thug came in. While the shooting was absolutely justified, he ended up selling his home and moving to another city just to escape the harassment that followed the shooting.

For those who would shoot to avoid loss of property, I would advise you to think long and hard before doing so; I believe you will lose far more material goods by doing so rather than hand over what the thief is demanding.

In Illinois, the clown world “criminal justice” system is geared to protect the criminal. Outside of libtardia, people are encouraged to defend themselves with deadly force, as the need arises, both under the castle doctrine at home and in the street under “stand your ground.” Anyone who “harasses” or threatens someone who defends themselves is liable to be sent up the river themselves.

[crosstimbers]

^^^^^^^^
This! I have decided that no material goods are worth shooting someone over - I will hand over my cash, credit cards, phone, keys, etc. before shooting someone.  However, when my life or, more importantly, a family member's life, is at risk the mindset changes drastically. My friend and CCW instructor advised that the first shot (even in a justified shooting) will cost $100,000+ in legal fees and will result in a real living nightmare. His advice was that if you have to shoot, keep shooting until you hear a "click".

I personally know a young wildlife conservation officer who killed a thug trying to kick down his door at his home while defending his young family. He had 911 on his speaker phone and could be clearly heard advising the thug that he was armed, had young children in his home and that he would shoot if the thug came in. While the shooting was absolutely justified, he ended up selling his home and moving to another city just to escape the harassment that followed the shooting.

For those who would shoot to avoid loss of property, I would advise you to think long and hard before doing so; I believe you will lose far more material goods by doing so rather than hand over what the thief is demanding.

What I have to say here will require some tact, and I'm going to do my best.

 The legal nightmares that follow any shooting are all too real. However, the idea that a given situation might end after surrendering property, supposes many facts "not in evidence" as the courtroom expression states.

If someone is trying to take property away from you by threat of bodily harm, or even just the implied threat of bodily harm. Sometimes giving up without a fight doesn't keep you from harm, and in fact can cause the situation to escalate. One felon I interviewed admitted as much. He was burglarizing a house, the woman came home and the fact that she cooperated fully led a simple burglary to become a sexual assault..."she was like totally cowed down" or some such as he explained.

 Sure, there is a time to cooperate and we need to be mindful that even when a shooting is justified, it can still lead to legal problems no one would want. If someone were stealing property out of my garage, I wouldn't shoot them, but if anyone demands property from your person...that is a different thing. That is a threat against you personally, and given as how you may end up hurt or dead anyway- whether you cooperate or not....well every situation is different but I think if at all possible I would try to eliminate the threat.

Even in the most obviously justified shootings, there are often legal nightmares that follow. But thinking that appeasement will get you out of trouble is a gamble, and people who opt for that don't always win.

[Tinker Black]

But thinking that appeasement will get you out of trouble is a gamble, and people who opt for that don't always win.

When I hear people make the, "Just give up your stuff. Nothing you own is worth risking your life over," argument, I agree, but I also think those who make the appeasement argument are taking for granted that their hypothetical robber is a sensible, rational person.

By & large, people who commit armed robbery are not sensible and rational. They usually are impulsive and of below average intelligence. You can't depend on a robber to make good decisions, because if he were sensible & rational, he wouldn't be committing armed robbery in the first place.

Armed robbery is one of the dumbbest crimes to commit. It offers a low return for the legal risks involved. The legal system agrees that money & material possessions are no comparison to someone's life & limb. That's why smart thieves burglarize; they steal stuff when no one is present. Stupid thieves rob, which by definition involves imminently threatening their victim(s).

A decent burglar can steal a ton more than what a robber does, and if he is caught, he'll probably be released on bond in a day. At worst, he faces several months in jail. A robber who is caught faces felony charges. It's worse if he commits his crime using a gun. If he seriously injures his victim, he faces years in prison. If he kills his victim, he faces life in prison or the death penalty.

There-in lies the conundrum for the armed robber. If a robber understands the gravity of the crime he's committing and the severity of legal consequences if he's caught, then there's a good chance he'll be more motivated to leave his victim in a condition where the victim can't identify the robber. If he doesn't understand that (because again, robbers tend to be impulsive & unintelligent), then he might shoot his victim anyway, because bleep it, why not? it adds to his street cred.

[crosstimbers]

But thinking that appeasement will get you out of trouble is a gamble, and people who opt for that don't always win.

When I hear people make the, "Just give up your stuff. Nothing you own is worth risking your life over," argument, I agree, but I also think those who make the appeasement argument are taking for granted that their hypothetical robber is a sensible, rational person.

By & large, people who commit armed robbery are not sensible and rational. They usually are impulsive and of below average intelligence. You can't depend on a robber to make good decisions, because if he were sensible & rational, he wouldn't be committing armed robbery in the first place.

Armed robbery is one of the dumbbest crimes to commit. It offers a low return for the legal risks involved. The legal system agrees that money & material possessions are no comparison to someone's life & limb. That's why smart thieves burglarize; they steal stuff when no one is present. Stupid thieves rob, which by definition involves imminently threatening their victim(s).

A decent burglar can steal a ton more than what a robber does, and if he is caught, he'll probably be released on bond in a day. At worst, he faces several months in jail. A robber who is caught faces felony charges. It's worse if he commits his crime using a gun. If he seriously injures his victim, he faces years in prison. If he kills his victim, he faces life in prison or the death penalty.

There-in lies the conundrum for the armed robber. If a robber understands the gravity of the crime he's committing and the severity of legal consequences if he's caught, then there's a good chance he'll be more motivated to leave his victim in a condition where the victim can't identify the robber. If he doesn't understand that (because again, robbers tend to be impulsive & unintelligent), then he might shoot his victim anyway, because bleep it, why not? it adds to his street cred.

I agree with much of this. I would point out however that not every burglar is "smart". Those who are professional thieves, yes to some extent. But those who are stealing to help feed a drug addiction, or for some other desperate reason, can be totally unpredictable. Which again supports the idea that what some consider mere "property crimes" can quickly become something else should a homeowner return and be caught off guard....and/or unarmed.

[p09TSO]

Fair enough, and I get it. However, I'm not on European gun boards(if they even exist) preaching my ideology. For the record, telling Americans that exercising their right to bear arms is somehow misguided and even lacks intelligent consideration is never going to be well received.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

Agree.

[p09TSO]

Ok guys, lets get back to the topic at hand, which is 'The rationale for CCW', not the differences in firearms 'culture' bans around the world.

FIFY

[Grendel]

Ok guys, lets get back to the topic at hand, which is 'The rationale for CCW', not the differences in firearms 'culture' bans around the world.

FIFY

Do NOT fix anything I post in ANY thread.

[steveja]

I suggest you watch some of John Correia's Active Self-Protection vids on Youtube.  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsE_m2z1NrvF2ImeNWh84mw

Perps are often cowards, have poor firearm skills, and leave lots of openings. Complying with a perp - giving up your wallet, car & firearm doesn't mean they won't kill you anyway. 

Whether you are required to retreat or not is a matter of state law .  Still a good idea IF you can, and IF you aren't leaving others behind.  There are a lot of cases where you may retreat to a backroom or whatever, and still want your firearm in case the perps(s) proceed.

There was a survey of Rangemaster firearm instructors survey a year or two ago.  Virtually all carried.  10% had pulled their gun on at least one occasion.  None had discharged the weapon in a crisis.  Sometimes showing your firearm is sufficient to defuse the threat.

[Triax60]

https://abc13.com/robber-shot-customer-shoots-suspect-in-the-face-convenience-store-southeast-houston-shooting/11010519/

This incident happened this month. Someone dropped off the robber, he approached someone walking up to the gas station, pulled up his shirt showing a pistol and demanded the other guys belongings. The would be victim stepped back, pulled his own pistol and shot the robber in the face. The would be victim didn't have to be John Wick, he had the chance to defend himself and he did.

[CJB]

  I wonder how many of the apparent many members here, that conceal carry, have actually had to use their gun in a situation where they were  “reasonably in fear for his or her physical safety and they were not able to retreat” as per CCW laws. 

No need to be able to retreat in Fl.

The score is: CWL one, pitbull nuthin'.