This is what happened to me yesterday.
While walking in our little town, holding my 6-year-old by the hand, we stopped to look at an outdoor fish pond through the hedges of one of our neighbors. Enjoying a sunny moment of watching the koi fish, or whatever they were, I became aware of three young men approaching from behind. Out of the corner of my eye I could see they were a little rough looking, perhaps 20-something immigrant-construction-worker types. The problem is although they are generally hard-working and pose no threat, they're almost indistinguishable from their Romanian or Albanian co-nationals who commit some of the violent crime we do have around here.
If I'd been armed, what would have been the proper next action? Reach under my coat to take hold the gun and prepare to draw? But even that wouldn't have been enough in the three seconds it took for them to reach us and pass on the narrow sidewalk. If they'd been predators, even with my hand on the gun, they'd easily have had the upper hand.
So, for safety's sake, should I have pulled the gun on them in a pre-emptive defensive move? No, of course not, that would have been too much, especially in hind-sight knowing they indeed meant no harm.
The point is, based on this and numerous, almost daily experiences like it, I understand that concealed carry is not the responsible, protect-your-family thing it's so often described as. In most situations the gun would do no good whatever and often great harm.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
I find it most interesting that you state that a concealed firearm would be useless against 3 people 3 seconds away yet you claim in your other most recent post that a concealed gun was effective against 4 people, at least 2 of which were in deirect physical contact with the person in question.
ReplyDeleteConcealed carry doesn't work for *all* situations. That doesn't mean it is useless. Even in the situation you describe--Do most of the Romanian or Albanian criminals attack with no warning, and so overwhelmingly that someone who practices couldn't draw? If they had intent, I would expect them to surround before they attacked, giving an alert person a few moments to respond.
ReplyDeleteIt is also likely that criminals (at least where carry is an option) will correctly interpret the beginning of a draw and will flee rather than continue the attack.
In most situations the gun would do no good whatever and often great harm.
How are you defining "great harm"? Is it "great harm" if a mugger runs when confronted by a gun? Is it "great harm" if a confirmed mugger is shot? Is it "no good" if you reach for your gun and the mugger suddenly changes directions before you touch it?
"Concealed Carry is Useless"? Well, some folks make the argument that open carry is better, because the draw tends to be quicker--I suppose you could make a case for that. It also has the advantage of letting a would-be predator know that his potential prey is not defenseless--thus possibly encouraging him (or them, in this case) to look elsewhere for a victim.
ReplyDeleteI still prefer concealed carry--but I can see the tactical reasoning behind a preference for carrying openly.
One of the most important things, whether carrying or not, is to not be in "Condition White"--thus being unaware of the approach of potential threats, until they're too close for you to have much in the way of options for neutralizing any threat, if indeed there was one.
Shooting a "confirmed" mugger would involve being clairvoyant.
ReplyDeleteMikeb30200's question is sort of academic, I don't think CCW permits are very numerous in Italy. I will stand corrected if I'm wrong on that.
Yeah--I get that, Democommie. Still, if Mikeb wants a discussion about his view that open carry is preferable to concealed (with the understanding that any discussion of legal firearm carry in Italy is largely hypothetical), that's a big improvement over the vast majority (to borrow one of his phrases) of his positions.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Sevesteen and Zorro here.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you've never actually been mugged or ganged up on but honestly most criminals do not begin with beating the holy hell out of someone and then dig for wallets. They will let you know their intentions with body language, how conversation dies down as they approach, etc. And yes, reaching to speed up your draw time absolutely sends a message in areas where concealed carry has been around for a while.
Not to mention, even if they were to begin beating you...you don't feel a responsibility to your children to harm or kill as many of them as you can before they move on to your kids? Having a gun in this situation is absolutely the correct position.
Someone made reference to open carry and perhaps you're arguing that an openly carried pistol would be better in this situation. That might perhaps be a better situation unless you're in an area where construction grade guys normally walk through. If you're in a heavy industrial area or poor area of town some dudes will absolutely target you if they know you have a gun.
Pepper spray is the preffered tool for that, since you don't mention them being armed. Of course, them not attacking is much better.
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much as a hammer being a useless tool, just that there weren't any nails.
OK, in reality you are in "Condition White" UNLESS you have a firearm at the ready. This of course is impractical in most situations save being in one where you can openly carry a loaded firearm.
ReplyDelete...and I don't mean in a holster.
My guess is that MikeB is trying to point out that you may not have enough time to properly react, or correctly react to the situation.
In other words, Jeff Cooper is describing actual combat/military situations where you can have a firearm, or some other weapon, at the ready. As are most of those other combat shooting manuals.
Cool, use a combat shooting manual, or some rinky dink school, rather than actual military training and experience.
A street fighter usually is aware of the "natural" or improvised weapons around him, that rock, my fist, and so on. Also the street fighter knows the best way to use that weapon to its best advantage. A real street fighter might be able to stick a knife in your ribs before you can unholster your gun.
So, when do you pull the gun? Are you going to brandish your weapon before anything has happened and find out that you are under arrest for brandishing? Is the perp going to pull a gun before you can unholster? Timing is everything here because it makes a difference whether you're going to be dead or alive, a free man or in the slam.
It's cool to talk all the jargon of a street fighter, but street fighting isn't about jargon. It's about acting. And it's about acting in a way that will make sure you survive.
And when I say survive, I don't just mean live. I mean that you won't find yourself where you are being cuffed and placed in a holding cell where you won't have a gun to defend yourself.
NotJadeGold
Concealed carry is actually useless in most, if not all, situations.
ReplyDeleteLook, if I'm a bad guy and I want to kill you or rob you or whatever---I'm not going to give you a chance to pull a weapon. I'm not there to have a dialogue or conversation with you. Of course, your chance of being accosted in such a manner are remotely small.
But, as we all know, concealed carry isn't about self-protection.
--JadeGold
If I'd been armed, what would have been the proper next action? Reach under my coat to take hold the gun and prepare to draw?
ReplyDeleteUmm... no. Were they approaching you, or just walking down the street, or walking in your general direction? Was it a public place with other people around? The right reaction is highly circumstantial, but putting your hand on your pistol in preparation to draw, under any circumstance like this I can imagine, would not be the appropriate response.
But even that wouldn't have been enough in the three seconds it took for them to reach us and pass on the narrow sidewalk. If they'd been predators, even with my hand on the gun, they'd easily have had the upper hand.
You should be able to draw and get a shot placed on a target at 7 yards in under two seconds. Jeff Cooper demanded two shots on target in under 1.5 (though for some that's tough). If you can't do that you need to practice more, or reconsider your method of carry. But reality is that things don't often go down that fast. Because a gun might not be useful in all situations you can imagine doesn't mean it's useless in no situations.
"Gimme your stuff or I'll hurt you" is a pretty good confirmation that it is a mugger, and sometimes even leaves time for a successful counterattack.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was trying to get at though--In cases where it can be confirmed (even after the fact) that it was an attempted mugger who was shot--is that good, bad or neutral?
democommie said, "I don't think CCW permits are very numerous in Italy. I will stand corrected if I'm wrong on that."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're not wrong on that. One of the great things about living here is you don't have to worry about guns.
I hadn't even thought of making this a discussion of open carry vs. concealed. My entire point was captured in the title of the post, and nothing anyone has said has changed my opinion about that. Believe it or not, I have an open mind.
ReplyDeleteI believe what JadeGold said, that concealed carry is not about personal-protection.
Zorro, Do you think I was in Condition White? Doesn't my awareness of the approaching young men itself put me in Condition Yellow?
ReplyDeleteSo, Mikeb, by this . . . exotic theory of yours and JadeGold's, what is concealed carry about, if not personal protection?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it does sound to me as if Condition White accurately describes you at the time. If you were not aware of their presence until they were within 3 seconds of you, that sounds like rather minimal awareness.
MikeB raises a good point, one doesn't need a firearm to be in one of Jeff Cooper's codes, you only need to be able to defend yourself. That act can be with whatever tool is available.
ReplyDeleteThe big key is it needs to be readily available, not that you dig it out of a holster concealed or otherwise.
As Kevin said, Pepper spray would be the best weapon in this case. You can have it in your hand and at the ready.
Having used it to defend myself a couple of times, I find non-lethal methods are far preferable to carrying a gun.
NotJadeGold
Theory confirmed:
ReplyDeleteMikeB raises a good point, one doesn't need a firearm to be in one of Jeff Cooper's codes, you only need to be able to defend yourself. That act can be with whatever tool is available.
The big key is it needs to be readily available, not that you dig it out of a holster concealed or otherwise.
As Kevin said, Pepper spray would be the best weapon in this case. You can have it in your hand and at the ready.
Having used it to defend myself a couple of times, I find non-lethal methods are far preferable to carrying a gun.
NotJadeGold
NotJadeGold is Laci the Chinese Crested's sockpuppet, evidently. A dog's sockpuppet--what a proud identity.
As for pepper spray--sure, it has its place--which is why cops often carry it, along with their firearm (and often a concealed backup firearm). It's not all that great for asthmatics, though, or when one's assailant attacks from upwind. Oh, and if, the need to "dig (a gun) out of a holster . . . " makes a gun useless for self-defense, but pepper spray is great--are you suggesting that the spray be in hand at all times, so you wouldn't have to dig it out of wherever it's kept? Seems kinda awkward, doesn't it?
By the way, I seem to remember that it was I who first mentioned that situational awareness is important--whether armed or not--rather than Mikeb.
Finally, in response to Mikeb's:
No, you're not wrong on that. One of the great things about living here is you don't have to worry about guns.
I trust you're not claiming that the dramatic expansion of right to carry laws in the United States has led to more need to "worry about guns," since that dramatic expansion occurred concurrently with a dramatic decline in so-called "gun violence." I harbor some skepticism about John Lott's claim that there's a direct causal relationship between those two trends, but they pretty handily debunk any notion that expanded concealed carry has led to more violence.
Believe it or not, I have an open mind.
ReplyDeleteOh man, thanks for the laugh MikeB.
Also, good to know that the anonymous "notjadegold" is in fact Laci the Dog. I'm not surprised.
You also display terrible logic as usual. Because in this particular situation you don't believe carrying a gun would have been beneficial you proclaim that "CCW is useless."
That has as much basis in reality as saying that condoms are useless, since you forgot to use one once and the girl didn't get knocked up.
"You should be able to draw and get a shot placed on a target at 7 yards in under two seconds. Jeff Cooper demanded two shots on target in under 1.5 (though for some that's tough). "
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is all fantasy nonsense from Sebastian.
Who says you should be able to draw in what time and hit the target from what range?
In reality, this comes from clowns who sell techniques and methods to do such things. You spend your money, you get a genuine powerpoint certificate.
__JadeGold
No, that was no clown. That's called a "Tueller Drill" Taught by Col. Jeff Cooper. He revolutionized the entire concept of how to use a handgun at all, and the reason nobody "spray fires" "from the hip" as the Bradys would say.
ReplyDeleteZorro said, "I harbor some skepticism about John Lott's claim that there's a direct causal relationship between those two trends, but they pretty handily debunk any notion that expanded concealed carry has led to more violence."
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to hear you're not a blind supporter of Prof. Lott.
About the debunking, I'd say it's a bit premature to call it either way. After the Chicago law is overturned later this year, and you pro-gun guys continue expanding your rights even further, it'll become clear.
Umm Mike CCW has become commonplace all over most of the U.S. in the last 25+ years and we have NOT seen the "blood in the streets" problems your ilk screamed would come to fruition.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not clear to you now I don't see how McDonald will make it suddenly crystal.
Better than nothing at all.
ReplyDelete