Finally found one, though it's a secondary citation.
http://www.moccw.org/defense.htmlOver 40% of people were attacked when they made no effort to protect themselves, and 25% were injured.
Not betting odds.
Yep, I'd agree. Most of the times a mugger won't intend to do you serious harm, but resistance is sometimes necessary.
I still feel though that having a gun... well, it sortof gives you a false sense of security. You feel like you can take him on just by whipping it out (incidentally - I'm kindof curious. Would you keep your self defensive weapon in a holster or directly accessable pocket? How fast do you reckon you could get it out?) and threatening him.
You're projecting your feelings on others. That opinion is pretty common where guns are scarce, among both the criminals with guns, and people who don't have 'em. When you're the only kid on the block with a gun, maybe it
does give you a big head, I dunno.
But when everyone and their grandma has a gun, not so much. The
responsible gun owners generally say that if anything, they're
more cautious, and
more likely to try to avoid fighting altogether. Those are the people who
really hope they never have to use their gun, but carry it anyway just in case. Quoting pretty much every self-defense instructor in the country again, "never go anywhere with a gun that you wouldn't go without one." And actually, several of the ones I know pretty much only carry a gun if they're with their wife and kids; they're fairly sure they can take care of themselves, but children are small and weak and run slow.
Like I've said, it's a last resort. And actually, I do partially agree with your earlier statement. Most gun owners, even though they absolutely do not want to have to injure someone ever, also place too much faith in their gun. A gun is
one option, out of many.
A semi-skilled guy with a knife versus your averagely skilled gun-toting American with their sidearm (including cops, realistically), at any distance less than 3 meters; my money's on the knife fighter
every time. At hand-to-hand range, hand-to-hand combat skill is
the biggest determiner, with physical size a distant second (not a surprise). And gun owners usually just don't seek out that kind of training. And unfortunately, cop training doesn't cover it enough either.
However,
with decent training (I like the Filipino martial arts; the real ones, not the touristy BS), a gun has its own drawbacks and advantages, just like a knife, a club, or your fists. The
main advantage of a gun is, if you get knocked flat on your back, you can shoot your attacker without trying to get up. On the ground is the worst place to be, and a gun is far and away
the best option in that situation.
A more realistic approach than "just whip it out" would be attack the guy unarmed, hopefully immobilize his weapon arm, and
then draw and shoot
if the unarmed attack didn't give you enough of an opening to run away. And that's all
if giving him money or whatever didn't work.
Also, to answer the question, I've been timed in competition at about 1.5-2.0 seconds from buzzer to first shot, on average, with a Glock 23 and C-TAC holster. That's from concealment with regular clothes, not a speed-rig. In competition, that kind of time is on the "slightly good" side of average.
--------------
If the guy mugging you didn't intend to harm you, when you pull a weapon on him you can guarantee that he intends to harm you now.
Except in the cases where they run away, which are pretty common.
Author
Topic: I Can't Believe It's Not Legal (Read 11482 times)