We often hear the expression “lethal threat” in gun discussions. Almost everyone seems to agree that “lethal threat” is the major criterion, among others, for determining whether a defensive gun use is justified. But, how frequent do these occur? My contention is they are not frequent at all, and here’s how I arrived at that . . .

My personal experience. I’ve lived in a number of places, some of them not so savory. I’ve associated with many different types of people, some of them not so savory. I’ve been in some of the most dangerous places in North America, Harlem, Newark and Tijuana, some of them on a regular basis. I’m 58 years old, and looking back, do you know how many incidents of lethal threat to myself or someone in my vicinity I’ve seen? None, not a single one.

The problem is however, I have experienced first-hand about 10 or 20 situations that could have been interpreted as such. If I had always carried a concealed weapon and had always been prepared to protect myself and others from serious danger, there would have been bloodshed on a number of occasions, not one of which, I now see, truly merited that response.

This is the problem with concealed carry permits: the folks who have them, for the most part are not capable of making the lightning fast decisions which are necessary in a critical situation. They will err on the side of caution, not wanting to endanger their own lives. They will shoot and they will get away with it especially if the only other witness is a wounded or dead criminal.

A good example is Caleb who writes Gun Nuts Media. When confronted with a knife-bearing criminal a couple years ago, he diverted the man’s attention, drew his gun and the would-be mugger ran off. My hat’s off to Caleb for demonstrating exactly the restraint and cool-headed response that was called for, nothing more. But how many gun owners can do that? What if the threat had been slightly greater? What if Caleb had shot the guy dead?

So, my conclusions are these: DGUs are rare. Legitimate DGUs are even rarer. Most people with concealed carry permits are not capable of doing the right thing when they occur. Most people should not have a CCW license. Am I wrong?

[Click here to visit MikeB302000’s site.]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

149 COMMENTS

  1. I believe you are completely wrong, and your example proves it. Do you believe that without Caleb’s possession of a gun the attacker with a knife would have run instead of continuing the attack? Having a deadly weapon used against you is a legitimate DGU situation, peeriod! The fact that the presence of a defensive gun defused a situation (I’m sure Caleb is glad he did not have to shoot another human being) does not change the legitimancy. The attacker could just as easily have continued the attack. There was a similar situation in Connecticut this year and the presence of a gun changed the whole situation without anyone being shot. Having visited your blog, it is clear you do not believe in private ownership of guns in any case. The fact that you hold your fellows in such low regard that they “can’t be trusted” to be responsible for their actions is unfortunate. I consider myself a bleeding heart liberal, and as such I believe everone has the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the duty to not abuse those rights.

  2. Mike:

    I think there is ample statistical evidence that private citizens, whether carrying concealed or not, make good decisions about the use of force. Most attackers are driven off at the sight of a gun which is why most DGUs are brandishments and not use. After all crime is a business that is hard to conduct if you are dead. You don’t carry a gun because you expect to use it. You carry on the off chance that your life will be in danger someday. Carrying a gun is neither irrational nor unnecessary just because the chances you will actually need to fire it in anger are small. It’s is like saying after the fact that all those nuclear weapons and delivery systems we had during the Cold War were unnecessary because we never used them.

    You are a pretty intelligent sounding guy but you are too much of a one-step ahead thinker.

  3. Of course the need for a gun is rare.

    It’s the times when that rare event occurs that matters. It only takes one.

    • That’s true Skyler, but the problem is by the time that one rare event takes place, there’ve been several mis-uses of the gun.

      Here’s another way to judge. On this blog which so many people read every day, how many reports of DGU have we seen over, say the last year? Now, it seems to me is someone had one of them they’d write it in. On the other hand getting your guns stolen or shooting yourself in the foot might not make it to be published for obvious reasons.

      • Mike, DGU’s aren’t really the primary focus of this blog (correct me if I’m wrong, Robert). Click on over to keepandbeararms.com for DGU’s. Several every day, in fact.

  4. To Op:
    1. I live in Florida. It never snows here. Therefore, I think most people should not own snow shovels, boots, hats, or warm jackets. They are unnecessary. Right?
    2. In recent history, I can think of at least 6,000,000 departed souls who might still be with us if they had been armed. Did you factor that into your estimation?

    To TTAG editors: too many posts like this and you will loose me as a reader. There is absolutely nothing new or novel about the post, it seems posted just to get a few hundred comments going, which I’m sure it will (and I got sucked into). And there will be nothing new or novel in any of the responses. What’s next? “9mm vs. .45ACP?” “Revolver vs. Semi-Auto”? Be original or be gone.

    • Only 6 million? Seriously? I can’t understand people that quote stats like that; what about the other 7 million subjects who were murdered by that regieme? What about the millions who were killed on the battlefields? What about the 20+ million soviet subjects that were murdered by their own government? What about the 20+ million Chinese who were killed by THEIR own government? What about all the Armenians killed by the Turks?

      My point is that the 20th century was a century of holocausts, both large and small; the attempted genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis is not wholly unique, and to parrot it off as the only example of genocide diminishes both it, and your argument.

      I would be surprised if the number of people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century was under 100 million; if you don’t believe that, perhaps you should watch JPFO’s video “Innocents Betrayed” and check it’s sources….

  5. Yeah because everyone’s experience is just like Mike’s perfect little world. According to the FBI there is a one in a 100 chance of being in a violent encounter

    Ever notice the antis always use feelings instead of facts?

      • Thankfully, or not, you didn’t buy the farm during any of the violent encounters you claim to have experienced. The point, Mike, is that people have the right to take whatever self-defense measures make them feel comfortable. I expect to go to my grave without ever having had to so much as brandish my weapon, but I prefer that scenario to one in which I needed my weapon just once and didn’t have it. The fact that a certain event is of low probability is little comfort should the event occur.

  6. Uhmm, a few points,
    1) My compliments to you and to this site for allowing this kind of discourse.

    2) I love theory, theories are wonderful, everybody has them and yours are just as valid as mine, i.e. they are meaningless without hard statistical valid data. Please show me the data where CCW holders have a higher than average assault/murder with a firearm (or without).

    3) I keep a fire extinguisher in my apartment and my car. Statistically I will not need either of them, but I have them because in case I need them I will not know when or whether or not they are actually needed until the incident is over. But If I do need them then they must be immediately available in order to be used. Same with firearms.

    4) Talk to any traffic safety expert they will tell you that the vast majority if not all people are not capable of driving cars safely as fast as they are able to be driven. We do not install government mandated speed controllers on cars, we standardize laws on driving, and punish people if they drive incorrectly.

    5) You say you were in situations that you might have shot someone in mistaken self defense but now you see you were wrong and are glad you did not shoot. But what if you were wrong on your reassessment and correct in your initial opinion? Individuals never have all the data and each individual perceives the situation differently. Because of this there are frequently many versions of the “truth” and the “facts”. The way we as a society chose to believe which set of fact is via the Legal System, not the media or individual recall. Please show me a study showing a higher CONVICTION rate for CCWers than the average person.

    6) Statistically the majority of Americans do not need antidiscrimination laws does that mean that they are not needed?

    7) Not everything that matters can be measured, not everything that can be measured matters. It is this concepts called “Rights”.

    These are quick off the cuff thoughts sorry, have to go to work.

    NukemJim

  7. This is like stating that the average auto driver cannot make the required quick decisions to avoid a fatal accident and therefore they should not drive.

    I love this, “If I had always carried a concealed weapon and had always been prepared to protect myself and others from serious danger, there would have been bloodshed on a number of occasions, not one of which, I now see, truly merited that response.” So as a anti-gun writer who doesn’t carry you were successfully able to sit back and critique what you did and did not do. I just love post-game quarter backing. That’s great. Since we’re playing hypothetical world, why don’t you speculate on one of those situations where the worse case scenario did happen and you were not carrying.

    CCW is just adding another tool to your belt to deal with life. It’s not the right tool all the time or even most of the time. But it is the right tool on those rare occasions.

  8. I’ve held my tongue with some of your rantings long enough. You seem to believe that only police or military should have the capability to shoot back. Horseshit, plain and simple. Few things you seem to be ignorant of with those groups. First, the police and ultimately military ARE civilians (a civilian volunteers to go to both, both are controlled by civilians as well). Thing there is the “training” that both are supposed to receive. Not so much. As a former Marine, and current police cadet, and CHL holder, I can say with authority that government mandated training is geared to the lowest common denominator. I know of a few Marines and LEO’s that should not have access to a pistol, let alone a belt fed, yet magically they have been “trained” and are somehow godlike in their discretion and abilities, according to your view. I ask this, if all they are taught are the basics of running the weapon system, and I do mean the very basics, how does that discretion and ability come to be? Further, going back to the civilian part, what happens when our military members, and law enforcers have done their time? Do they not go back into the civilian population? Does all their supposed training just disappear? Are their lives and the lives of their families somehow less important now? Why are they a protected class? I’ll stop that part there, but would love to see some answers that are not anecdotal. Speaking of that, you do have balls, coming onto a pro-gun site and espousing your views like that. Thing is all you have is anecdotal evidence that “guns are bad, we should all just sing coombyeya”, yet we offer mountains of data to support our position. In reality, you realize that neither side here is doing anything more than pissing the other off, and fanning the flames (yes, Mr. Farago you too have a hand in that as well). I’m all about the free speech, and the wisdom of presenting opposing views, but I have yet to see an anti-freedom/anti-natural order type such as yourself actually present anything but emotion, enough already, let us know when you intend to play with the adults.
    Well said, to the previous posters.

    • Mikeb – be a real man: post your home address and a picture of your wife and/or daughter as well as a listing of all of your valued possessions. Make sure you leave the front door unlocked and some snacks out with cold beers in the fridge. Nothing says true martyr like bait.

    • jlottmc, I don’t know where you got this from.

      “I’ve held my tongue with some of your rantings long enough. You seem to believe that only police or military should have the capability to shoot back. “

      I’m for strict enough gun control that it would disqualify many people who now own guns. That’s not total civilian disarmament.

      • “I’m for strict enough gun control that it would disqualify many people who now own guns. That’s not total civilian disarmament.”
        —–
        Don’t make us repost your comment which gives the lie to that statement, Mike.

        • You mean this quote?

          “All right, I was exaggerating. If you guys suddenly cooperated with the common sense gun control laws that we propose and saw a tremendous decrease in gun violence, we would naturally want stricter laws in order to lower even more the remaining gun violence. Eventually, I and most of the others would conclude that no guns at all in civilian hands is the best way to go.”

          Mike is and has always been a “gun banner” in the purest sense of that phrase.

  9. “My contention is they are not frequent at all, and here’s how I arrived at that . . .
    My personal experience.”

    As if we needed to be told.

    I’ll say it again, if you want to go unarmed then do it, just keep it to yourself. You’ve got no argument against armed citizens. Americans armed up at a feverish pace starting around four years ago and there wasn’t “blood in the streets” or rampant vigilantism.

    Now you want us to believe there isn’t any real reason to go armed to begin with. We’re not stupid, Mike. We have our own “personal experience” to draw upon. I know men and women who have been attacked in the streets or had their homes broken into by armed men. I have a family and I am not willing to say to some meth-crazed criminal “go ahead and have your way with my wife, my children and me, I can’t and won’t resist you.” Screw that, and screw anyone who would put me in that position.

    Sorry, but I do not concur. You’ve got nothing.

    • What mikeb has is security provided by the rest of us. Safety by proxy. Unless mikeb wears a shirt that says Unarmed and Proud of It. In fact I suggest he try something along those lines in Detroit or Camden while wearing nice clothes, a Rolex, and smelling like money.Note I suggested he validate his own beliefs rather than be a victim of circumstance. This leaves it up to MikeB alone.

      • better yet, since I am originally from Detroit, I can give him some places he can walk with his loved ones unarmed, making sure his daughter and/or wife have the appropriate attire. Let’s see how he feels then or if he reassesses his mantra . . . .

  10. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. I love your stuff, but to call all the concealed carry permit holders in the nation too dumb to have a permit is ridiculous.

    Except you. You are enlightened. Good for you, but sucks for us that are too dumb to protect ourselves.

  11. Thinking about this more, I’d like to know if Mike carries a pocket knife, multi-tool or any other item that could be pressed in to service to defend one’s self.

  12. Two responses to this quiry come to mind.One, regardless of how you may feel about the competence of citizens who carry they do a vastly better job of guarding against armed crime than Police who routinely miss and shoot buildings and occasionally even their own men.
    Two the Second Amendment gurantees the right the keep and bear arms as a right :to the smart and the stupid alike.Joe Moron has a right to publish a newspaper just like Jim Smartypants can.

    • Case in point. The well trained NY police officer who last year, shot, was it nine bystanders in front of the Empire State building, while apparently trying to apprehend some “perp”.

  13. Thanks for deciding most of us carry permit types are unfit to act when called upon. We’ll just turn in our guns today and put 911 or speed dial. Or maybe you can suggest something better since you’re so worldly and smart.
    You’re also lucky to not be in a situation where a firearm could save your life. Some would wish that on you, I won’t because it’s not the Christian thing to do.

  14. Mike, you are exemplary at disarming (no pun) your own arguments.

    First you make the argument that average people are not capable of making correct decisions regarding whether or not to use force:

    “This is the problem with concealed carry permits: the folks who have them, for the most part are not capable of making the lightning fast decisions which are necessary in a critical situation.”

    Then you give a textbook example of an average person making a “…Lightning fast decision…necessary in a critical situation.” , and more importantly, making the right decision.

    “…A good example is Caleb who writes Gun Nuts Media. When confronted with a knife-bearing criminal a couple years ago, he diverted the man’s attention, drew his gun and the would-be mugger ran off. My hat’s off to Caleb for demonstrating exactly the restraint and cool-headed response that was called for, nothing more.”

    Do you normally go out of your way to undermine your own arguments or is this just an early Christmas gift? (if so, then Thanks! Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to you and yours.)

    If I didn’t know better (but I think I do know better) I might think you were a plant.

    • [Note: MikeB302000 is MikeB302000. FWIW, I’ve communicated with him on the phone and via email. He’s definitely not me; his beliefs are his own.]

  15. I don’t have anything to say that the people above me haven’t already said more eloquently.

    But, show of hands, how many people clicked this link thinking they were gonna read something PTSD-related? Frankly, I feel mislead.

  16. Mike, you say that, “If I had always carried a concealed weapon and had always been prepared to protect myself and others from serious danger, there would have been bloodshed” in “10 or 20 situations” in your life.

    But you also say “do you know how many incidents of lethal threat to myself or someone in my vicinity I’ve seen? None, not a single one.”

    In other words, you are openly admitting that there were times in your life during which you felt nervous (maybe wondering if someone were following you, or surprised by someone you weren’t expecting on a dark street, etc.) and—if you’d been armed—would have been unable to resist opening fire, even though you were not seeing someone display the means, opportunity, and intent to kill or grievously injure you?

    The mind boggles.

    • That’s exactly what I’m saying. That’s why you guys who carry are dangerous. The ones of you who do end up killing someone will more likely be guilty of murder than of having committed a legitimate DGU. But then Robert can advise you about the STFU method of beating the rap.

      • There is so much projection in here that my eyes burn and my nose is running. Mike, seek help.

      • Wrong, only 2% of citizens using guns shot the wrong person. That’s much better than the cops even if most DGUs occur in a static situation. But that is the point. Armed citizens usually fire the weapons only in situations where the threat is directed at them. We don’t go blazing away at people who only look suspicious. My guess is that you are paranoid and see threats where they don’t exist. You probably have never really been in danger. However, by your own admission you are probably one of the people who shouldn’t have access to gun.

  17. The example cited contradicts his argument, ergo his hypothesis (not null-hypothesis) is invalid. Please proof read before posting.

  18. It is not the possibility the event, it is the severity of the outcome. If I followed this line of thinking, I could have saved thousands on insurance every year. Life having been what it’s been–some might say unlucky, I don’t–I’d be financially devastated. This piece is not an argument against CC so much as a worry about people making bad decisions. Maybe we can outlaw bad decisions? Which ones?

    Further, I think the responsibility of CC imparts a sobering effect on many, not the opposite.

  19. Short version of this article: “I’m ok, you’re seriously messed up”.

    Slightly longer version of this article: “Look, I’ve had 20 people look at me cross-eyed, so I know I can handle a gun in an emergency. The rest of you can’t, and I know this because I am better at this than you are. Just ask me, I’ll tell you. And even though I give a great example of someone like you who handled things correctly, he’s the exception to the rest of you brain-dead schmucks. And he’s the exception because I say so. The rest of you guys can’t handle things as well as he did. So there.”

  20. 1. There’s a fire extinguisher in my kitchen near the stove, and another in my garage near the welder. Since house fires are rare, should I just toss them?
    2. Both of my vehicles carry a spare tire. I’ve never had a flat, so should I dump the excess weight?
    3. I renew my CPR certification every two years. Since I’ve never had to use CPR, should I stop?
    4. I shoot about 500-1000 rounds a month, and make the trip to Gunsite (shameless plug) every other year. Since I’ve never been involved in a DGU, should I just stop this needless expense?

    Keep talking, MikeB. That’s all that is required for our side to win.

  21. Mikeb, you’ve been lucky.

    For those of us who aren’t willing to gamble, we’ll continue to carry.

    What more argument is there?

  22. how many incidents of lethal threat to myself or someone in my vicinity I’ve seen? None, not a single one.

    Let me get this straight. Because you never had an “incident,” then incidents don’t exist? Can you possibly be that big of an egomaniac? Oops, I think I just answered my own question.

    • I bet he wants to ban fire extinguishers too since he’s never had to put out a fire. Or airbags since he’s never been in a car accident. Or seatbelts, etc etc.

  23. Not to pick nits, but “most people” is a broad term, and being such, is likely correct. But to take it from a different direction, probably most people with proper training would be fine with concealed carry.

    In New Mexico, believe it or not, we reputedly have one of the more rigorous CCW qualifications, basically a couple days–one ground school, the other range time. Then there’s the requalification every two years. Not that this is remotely enough, but maybe it’s a good start.

    Speaking for myself, when I carry, I’m super vigilant and perfectly uncomfortable, and do everything I can to avoid trouble, including keeping my mouth shut, and not returning the occasional mad dog stare.

    So far, so good.

  24. Oh my! I thought this was Robert’s post – hence my “I love your stuff” comment.

    For the record, I DO NOT LOVE MIKE B’s stuff. But my “this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read” comments stand.

  25. Lovely! Well done. I’d read an article a few months ago (perhaps it was on JPFO?) about the psychology of those who fear guns, and the concept of “transference”. I’d had my doubts, but this pretty much makes the author’s point so well.

    MikeB has upon reflection decided that if he’d carried a weapon he’d have mis-used it. He is, of course, to be commended for thinking about this, as too few people do. He then, however, comes to the conclusion that since he cannot be trusted, nobody can.

  26. OK, I’ll take the bait. Whether anyone thinks people can or can’t make smart “go/no go” decisions under stress with a gun is beside the point. As posts on this site have mentioned time and again, blood is not running through the streets upon the passage of concealed carry laws. Most people who carry guns never shoot anyone. Most people who carry or do not carry guns are never shot. Avoiding stupid places where stupid people are doing stupid things decreases the odds even further. Concealed carry really hasn’t moved the needle, as it were, on gun deaths. The probability of that person killing or hurting someone with that gun is pretty small. If every one of 30K deaths by gun in a year were committed by concealed permit holders, in a country with 300 million people, that’s 1 in 10,000. And that’s an extreme number that has no bearing on reality. What’s the real number of people killed by permit holders per year in non-DGUs? Maybe 100, according to the VPC. What, exactly, is Mike et al. afraid of? If someone wants to carry a gun because it makes him or her feel safer, so be it. That person is not making America a more dangerous place.

  27. Finally, I begin to understand MikeB’s thought processes. By his own admission, there have been upwards of 30 situations in which he would have mistakenly murdered someone! If MikeB thinks other people are like himself, it is no wonder he is so fearful of civilian firearm ownership. Fear not MikeB, it seems as though no other firearm carries are so thoroughly wrong about the situations they find themselves in as you are, and I only say this based on the numbers. DGUs in a year? Lots according to Lott. DGUs in which a bad guy dies? Not more than 100 per year according to some.
    Unlike some posters I am not adverse to MikeB’s commentaries, I only wish he could provide a well-reasoned case for his viewpoint, his post is nothing more than the standard liberal refrain of “I feel this way, therefore that’s how it should be….”

  28. Ridiculous. If what Mike says is true, we should be hearing about a *lot* more unjustified shootings by licensed carriers. His theory makes sense, but it just doesn’t comport with the facts.

    I agree that most people can’t always make decisions fast enough, and that they tend to err on the side of caution. If anything, though, this *slows* our reaction time, causes us to hesitate, and generally makes it more likely that the gun will stay in its holster.

    Think about other critical situations you’ve seen – not necessarily life-and-death situations, but occasions that called for instant decision making. How often do you see people leap into action and do the wrong (or right) thing? On the other hand, how often to do see people just standing there with vacant expressions?

  29. Sure. Your personal anecdote is that you’ve gone through life and have never needed to use a gun to defend yourself. The problem, of course, is that the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’.

    There are millions of other people whose personal anecdotes either include times when using a gun saved them, or not being able to use a gun meant they were victimized. Rape victims, victims of assault, murder victims. I started carrying a gun because a nice, harmless man I knew only because I saw him frequently (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuba_man) was beaten and died. It happens. It happens more frequently than I thought, and it certainly happens more frequently than you think.

    And the flip side – your view that the average citizen is incapable of deciding whether to employ the gun or not, incapable of deciding whether to fire or not – isn’t supported by the statistics of defensive gun use. In every state, the move to allow concealed carry comes with dire announcements by the anti-gun crowd that the streets will run with blood, that vigilantism will become commonplace, that the average citizen cannot properly judge situations and hundreds or thousands will be needlessly slaughtered by licensed carriers of concealed weapons. And in EVERY SINGLE CASE, this has not happened. The announcement that state concealed carry laws would be extended into National parks was met with the same dire predictions: mass shootings in disagreements over camping spots, rangers gunned down by citizens in all manner of confrontations, and so on. “The parks will be rivers of blood”, the anti-gun establishment predicted. Seriously – they actually used those exact words.

    And so now I ask you: we are coming up on the second anniversary of allowing loaded (and concealed) firearms in national parks. Where is the river of blood?

    In Washington State, in a population of 6.8 million people, there are more than a third of a million people licensed to carry a loaded, concealed firearm. Something like 1 in 17 people over 21 are licensed. One in every 17 of the adults you pass on the street are licensed to carry. One in every 17 of the people seated around you in the theatre, the symphony hall, or at the mall.

    Surely, if you’re right, the streets should be littered with the corpses of miscreants, muggers, and innocent victims of misunderstanding slaughtered wholesale by licensed carriers of concealed weapons, especially since Washington State has *no training requirement whatsoever* for someone getting a CPL. Not a single second of legal training. Not a single second of gun safety training. No range qualification. All those third of a million people needed to do was pass a criminal background check, get fingerprinted, and pay $60. That’s it.

    So, Mike: where’s the river of blood? Where is it? Because if there isn’t a river of blood, it means you’re wrong.

    And if you’re wrong, you have no right to tell my 5’4″ 110 lb. daughter that she doesn’t need a gun, so she should just submit when someone tries to rape her as she walks home from work. And if you don’t think women are raped in Seattle, I urge you to get in touch with reality.

    • No, not at all. What you need to tell your petite daughter is to watch out which young men she hangs around with. Rape usually happens between acquaintances. In those cases the victim cannot get to the gun because by the time danger becomes clear the offender is too close.

      In cases of stranger rape, for every time a gun is used to save the day, you’ve got about 15 negligent discharges, 8 or 10 stolen guns and 3 or 4 innocent men shot.

      So, go ahead, teach your daughter to carry a gun. You harm her by doing so and all for what? to justify your fetish, to maintain your position at all cost that guns do more good than harm?

      • “In cases of stranger rape, for every time a gun is used to save the day, you’ve got about 15 negligent discharges, 8 or 10 stolen guns and 3 or 4 innocent men shot.”

        Where do you come up with these Bullshit statistics?

          • It doesn’t really matter whether your made up statistics are right, wrong, or wildly wrong.

            The real point is that you’ve totally failed to address any of the issues in my response, which I assume means you can’t think of any way to respond. Instead, you make up a bunch of statistics, and then assert that since “usually” female rape victims were raped by someone known to them, carefully choosing her friends will eliminate the risk of rape for my daughter. Of course, you’re ignoring the remaining 1/3rd. How many rapes were there in 2009 with female victims who did not know their rapist? Do you even know? Do you even care enough to look it up? No, of course not. When pressed you’ll just make up statistics and say “Do you think my made up statistics are wrong totally or just a little”.

            But you don’t actually address any of the questions I raised in my response. Why? Could it be that you’re wrong but have so much invested in your position that you’ll never change it? Because face it, your position stipulates that there must be a river of blood, but I’ve looked everywhere and I can’t find it.

            When sensible people figure out they’re wrong, they change their mind. That’s why I’m a former gun hater who looked at the facts, changed his mind, and now carries a gun. I looked at the statistics, carefully considered the arguments advanced by both sides, and concluded I was wrong, and then I changed my mind.

            Let me ask again, Mike. Where is this river of blood?

      • “So, go ahead, teach your daughter to carry a gun. You harm her by doing so and all for what? to justify your fetish, to maintain your position at all cost that guns do more good than harm?”

        You’re the exact same way with your son, trying like hell to keep him away from guns (and asking for our help to do it, no less) “to maintain your position at all costs” that guns do more harm than good.

        I might give your position a hell of a lot more consideration if you weren’t in a mobile ivory tower that wants stats one minute, counters it with anecdotal evidence the instant those stats are produced, and then throws both out the window the minute your arguments are debunked. As it stands, though, there’s no arguing with you. We’re not even on the same planet.

  30. What a bizarre article, yet what a perfect opportunity to raise the topic of statistical reasoning. First, I recommend to Mike “Thinking, Fast and Slow,” Daniel Kahneman’s latest book: Reading it may help. Second, what on earth does Mike’s experience have to do with anything? Does he suggest that the 2 to 2.6 million estimated annual defensive presentations of firearms in the face of a threat have no beneficial effect in short-circuiting violence? Does he think that if someone does pull the trigger on a mugger who pulls a knife at 2 meters distance, they are doing the wrong thing? LEOs reach the “shoot” conclusion frequently under the same facts. Mike’s ‘permit to write’ judgement is more in doubt than the typical CC permit holder’s shoot-don’t-shoot judgement. Mike drew and fired without realizing the illogical leap of inference he made, a Pelosi-like “I haven’t been stabbed yet so nobody needs a concealed pistol and they probably couldn’t use it responsibly because I sure couldn’t!” It is in the very nature of aggression and defensive firearms that mere presentation should end the aggression for all but the insane perp. It is a direct consequence of the economics of mugging and burglary: If the mugger gets shot the foray was not worth the possible reward. What would happen without that “mere presentation” is reasonably well known…which is why the mugger tries the knife bit to begin with.

    • “2 to 2.6 million estimated annual defensive presentations of firearms in the face of a threat”.

      I took a few minutes to stop laughing. Even many of the commenters on this most-pro of gun blogs don’t believe that nonsense anymore.

  31. All this article told me is that MikeB is incapable of doing the right thing and has a dim view of humanity, which I already knew.

    Also his argument is as valid as, “my house has never caught fire, so why do we have a fire department?”

  32. Statistically, people with driver’s licenses should be trusted far less. Guess we should ban cars.

    I’d love to know where mikey’s getting his stats on “most people.” Or is it like all his other drooling rants where he lacks any kind of stats and relies on his fantasies? Hey, watch, I can make broad accusations too. “Most gun-grabbers are immature, psychologically-underdeveloped cowards, afraid to take responsibility for their own lives and actions, fearful and daresay jealous of those that do, and should not be trusted to participate in a free society.”

    “What if Caleb had shot the guy dead?” Then there’d be one less knife-wielding criminal/would-be murderer in the world. If a knife-wielding criminal is in your face and threatening you, that IS a righteous DGU. The problem? (Notice, no mention of the bad, evil KNIFE that the criminal used or how the gun itself might’ve saved Caleb’s life. Is it just me, or did mikey’s little story actually support why you should carry?)

    • Silver, I agree. Someone who threatens another person with a deadly weapon doesn’t necessarily deserve to die, but they have certainly forfeited their right to be given the benefit of the doubt. In other words, if you give a permit carrier a reason to fear for his life, don’t be surprised if he shoots and kills you. How is that a bad thing?

  33. I think Mikeb does an excellent job articulating why HE lacks the necessary judgement and impulse control to carry a firearm. Someone that can boast that “there would have been bloodshed on a number of occasions” if only he had been armed really seems like someone who shouldn’t be out in society without supervision.

    If Mikeb really could have lost control so many times I dearly hope that he refrains from driving or being alone with small children. His, self confessed, inability to discern a threat of immediate grievous bodily harm or death would most likely effect his ability to handle other stressful events.

  34. So because you dont feel YOU are capable of making the decision to end someones life in defense of your own you feel I shouldnt be able to? You seriously would of killed 20 people who didnt deserve it if you had been carrying a gun? You are only using your limited personal experience and portraying it as fact. If my dad hadnt been carrying about 25 years ago I would of never been born because my dad would of gotten killed. But instead he drew his colt python in defense of his life, and kept the punk under gunpoint until the police arrived. My dad is very much an average gun owner. He got a ccw because he thought he would be like james bond. So you have made it clear that you lack the responsibility to carry a firearm and I am glad you make the choice not to, but I choose to carry one so my future son will have a father. To conclude, yes tou are wrong very wrong.

  35. Jesus, not this twaddle again. Did I go to sleep and wake up in the mid-90’s?

    “MikeB” – why don’t you start by reading Kleck’s book from 1991, _Point Blank_. Then read the studies, both pro and anti-gun, on DGU since then. You’ll find out that DGU’s number in at *least* the high hundreds of thousands of incidents per year.

    This is very well covered ground in statistical studies since the mid-90’s.

  36. I don’t understand why we give a worthless hazard to free society like mikey any attention at all. He’ll never convince us because he has no rational argument, and we’ll never convince him because his fragile grasp on coping with the real world is held together only by his fantasy world of rainbows.

    Let him keep talking; his arguments do more damage to his side than we could ever hope to do.

    Look at the numbers and facts out there: America is against him. The American people are growing more and more accepting and enthusiastic of guns every day, despite the mentally diseased ilk of mikey. Despite his best efforts, the Constitution is gaining ground, at least as far as the 2A is concerned. People willing to face reality and take some responsibility for their own well-being are rising up, and the wannabe-tyrants with their heads in the sand can’t hold others under any longer.

    It’s driving them nuts that they’re about to be a minority of shivering, pathetic cowards on the streets where confident Americans walk. In true form to their psychopathy, they don’t want peace; they pray every day for the rivers of blood they believe will come so they can stamp out the 2A. Except it’ll never happen.

    • I won’t pretend to speak for the TTAG crew, but I have my theory as to why Mike gets a forum here.

      We hold up the protections that the Bill of Rights offers as sacred (protections, not entitlements). The downside of that is, if we’re going to champion one freedom, we have to champion the rest. That means protecting the opinions others hold, no matter how asinine. Someone on the site once said that “reasonable restrictions” will be the next 2A battleground. Well, it’s been the 1A’s battleground for a while, and for the most part free expression was protected.

      I guess what I’m getting at is if we’re gonna protect liberties unequivocally, we have to be consistent about it. It sucks, but in the long run it’s a small price to pay.

      • Chris. You have misapplied the fundamental principles behind the First. It explains that we have a right to speak… and NOT that we have an obligation to provide a platform for someone else to speak. Mike over there can have any opinion he chooses but no one here in America is tasked to give him the means to speak it. It is totally up to Mike to find a way to express his own opinion. If TTAG chooses to give him a platform it is the CHOICE of TTAG… not an obligation or a right of Mike to demand it (or even expect it.)

        • Hmm. I hadn’t thought about it that way. You’ve forced me to rethink my opinion and caused me to learn something because of it. Thanks Jack!

          (See Mike? Was that so difficult?)

  39. Hey, Mike, why don’t you tell everyone who has ever been assaulted, robed, raped, etc how rare it is that they would have to use force to defend themselves? Tell them that you think they shouldn’t have had a firearm on them because they’re incapable.

    That point aside, it doesn’t matter one damn bit if you’re more likely to win the lottery than to have to defend yourself.

    Self defense is a fundamental human right. If you deny that, you are a fascist, and one of the bad guys, despite what you may think of yourself. And we know your true colors. Yellow, first, and then good ‘ol Nazi black and red.

    • Oh, he already did that AND took it a step farther:

      No, not at all. What you need to tell your petite daughter is to watch out which young men she hangs around with. Rape usually happens between acquaintances. In those cases the victim cannot get to the gun because by the time danger becomes clear the offender is too close.

      In cases of stranger rape, for every time a gun is used to save the day, you’ve got about 15 negligent discharges, 8 or 10 stolen guns and 3 or 4 innocent men shot.

      So, go ahead, teach your daughter to carry a gun. You harm her by doing so and all for what? to justify your fetish, to maintain your position at all cost that guns do more good than harm?

      • I have no children, so I’m not sure where the whole daughter part is. And even if I did, its not my job to arm her nor to teach her how to defend herself. Thats her own job. Some one else can never properly decide what an individual needs for their protection. Thats best left up to an individual so they can make choices that suit their life.

        • Hmm. Quotation marks got lost in translation. Sorry.

          I was trying to highlight the point that he’s already basically said that it’s pointless because those people are incapable and it would be too late to even try by the time the victim figured out what was going on.

  40. This is the problem with concealed carry permits: the folks who have them, for the most part are not capable of making the lightning fast decisions which are necessary in a critical situation. They will err on the side of caution, not wanting to endanger their own lives. They will shoot and they will get away with it especially if the only other witness is a wounded or dead criminal.

    Having lived in conservative areas with a high concentration of legal guns, I would say most gun owners are much more reluctant to shoot a criminal than an LEO would.
    Shooting people is usually a poor financial and legal choice, and legal gun owners know it.
    A lot of gun owners I know were actually in the military or police at one point in time. If you really do not trust the judgement of gun owners, then you should not trust the judgement of the police and military members either.

  41. Most people are stupid. Therefore, their opinions aren’t of high value, and they should not be allowed freedom to spread their ideas. I say that means we should curtail their freedom of speech and press.

    Why is the Second Amendment always seen as different from the rest of the Bill of Rights?

  42. “They will shoot and they will get away with it especially if the only other witness is a wounded or dead criminal.” No problem with that here.
    “DGUs are rare.” Granted
    “Legitimate DGUs are even rarer.” Not conceded here based on your personal observations. I’m wary of your “legitimate” use definition.
    “Most people should not have a CCW license.” MOST PEOPLE don’t have a CCW license.

  44. Mike, I make no bones that you feel this way, but I’d like to see some data. It should be easy. Find the number of CCW permit holders who were charged with aggravated assault or brandishing. I’d be interested in knowing the number. I’m keeping an open mind.

    • You know very well there’s no data about brandishings. That’s a good old pro-gun trick to ask for data where you know none exists and then to say that proves we’re wrong.

      • So DOJ Firearms use by felons Nov 2001 does not exist, prove it! Heres the link. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940

        So this government study does not show that felons only fired their firearm in 15% of incidents where a firearm was used in a violent crime, prove it. By the way, what is it called when shots are not fired? Oh thats right, BRANDISHING!

        So police firearm discharge studies dont show police only fired their weapons in 15% of incidents where a firearm was pulled, prove it.

        So police firearm discharge studies dont show police on average only hit their target 15% of the time shots are fired, prove it. Of course mike is the acknowledged all knowling god expert on the real facts pertaining to DGU’ so he should be able to refute this with government studies showing police DONT fire their weapons only 15% of the time in just minutes right?

        Here is a firearm discharge report from one of the anti gun fiefdoms NYC. Come on mike, do some real research here instead of dancing and repeating your masters words like a brain dead meat ppuppet on marionette strings.

        http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/analysis_and_planning/AFDR200920101101.pdf

        Here are more, 15 seconds using google. Guess I am smarter than mike being able to find such easily available data eh?

        http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm
        http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

        In fact there is a company who specializes in such studies, the Rand CO. google it einstein and look at a standard police incident report, why is it that there are other options on the report if a gun is ALWAYS fired einstein? That is not possible, since the gun must ALWAYS be fired when it is used per mike “I never met a gun control law he didnt love”.

        http://www.theppsc.org/Archives/Police-Policy/PPSC%20Weapons%20Discharge%20Report.pdf

        Maybe mike can show everyone how ANY completed police report in the ENTIRE US where a firearm was involved did not have ANY where no shots were fired eh? Again if a shot was not fired, what is that again Mike, oh yeah, that called BRANDISHING. Prove it.

        So USDOJ National Victimization report 2008 does not exist, prove it. Heres a link.ttp://explore.data.gov/Law-Enforcement-Courts-and-Prisons/National-Crime-Victimization-Survey-2008-Record-Ty/rfme-ynch

        Wow, all this GOVERNMENT data mike claims showing that guns are not fired 85% of the time they are pulled is not evidence to mike.

        Most sane people would recognize that if the firearm was not fired 85% of the time it was used that there was only one other answer, it was brandished.

        But mike is indeed a different animal, albeit an articulate but still insane animal as only a fool denies the obvious. Or should we say a fool with an agenda. Sieg Hiel Mike, Sieg Hiel Mike, or is it Dasvandanya Komrade mike?

      • Geez,DOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001, government agency known for being run by anti gun zealots isnt evidence? Oh thats right, mike only listens to the lies generated by the brady bunch.

        Anyway, you know the report, the one that clearly states out of all those felons surveyed, they identified in only 15% of the instances they used a gun in a crime did they fire a shot.

        What is that thingy they do when they dont fire a shot, oh thats right, its called BRANDISHING a weapon.

        Lets see, have you refuted the USDOJ National Victmization report 2008 to prove that 70% plus of violent crimes dont get reported, uh NOPE.

        Lets see have you refuted any of the annual police firearms discharge reports (NYC has a really nice one) where they say the same thing, in only 15% if the instances they draw a firearm are shots fired. Guess the other 85% of the time they are BRANDISHING a firearm eh mike?

        Hey maybe, you can also refute the other piece of data in all those police firearm discharge reports, you know the ones identifying only 15% of shots fired hit a target.

        Hey, you surely must have changed all that data on the FBIO UCR database, ex 2008, there were 381,000 violent crimes reported involving a firearm. Since there were only 12,252 murders and 70k injuries that year and even the criminals are not better shots than the police, mike is now claiming that in every instance a shot was fired eh?

        Lets do the math.

        381,000 violent crimes reported x 15% of times shots fired = 57,150 incidents reported where shots were fired.

        Then since the police firearm discharge studies show only 15% of the time they hit the target, mike is going to prove the criminals are better shots eh, LOL, NOT!

        sO 57,150 X 15% =8,573 total deaths and injuries that should have occurred.

        Oh wait, there were 82,252 total injuries and deaths from violent crime/firerarms in 2008.

        How can that be, oh the absurdity of the truth.

        Mike’s premise of a firearm only doing one thing killing, the moment it is pulled means there should have only been 82,252 violent crimes reported involving a firearm, uh there were 381,000 mike . You going to prove all those firearm discharge reports wrong as to % of hits and prove criminals are much better shots than police eh?

        You going to prove shots were fired in all 381,000 violent crimes involving a firearm mike?

        Dang you got lot of stuff to prove to support your fantasy, you have a long couple months ahead of ya!

        Mike can also prove that in not one single police inceident report that in every single instance a firearm was involved that shots were fired every single time!

        Yeah, while there is no COLLATED government report summarizing all those details (why would they want to anyway it proves them wrong), it is rather simple to dig this information up.

        Just further evidence of all those violent crimes not reported, all from government data and simple math which mike cant refute, but will ignore as his kind always does as he clamps his hands over his ears and says LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA to infinity to make those pesky facts go away!

      • Mike, I am not trying to trap you. Gun uses which are as you describe (inappropriate or an over-reaction) would be charged as brandishing or aggravated assault or manslaughter (or other charges if the prosecutor saw fit — I don’t know; I’m not a lawyer). The record of these charges, if they go to plea or court, would be in Lexis Nexis or other searchable databases. Certainly they would be in the mainstream media, the members of which would not hesitate to mention if the charged party had a CCW permit.

        In fact, I’d be interested to know. If it could be shown that CCW holders have a tendency to escalate instead of de-escalate, it would make a case for more training, or perhaps for more publicity on the consequences of inappropriate gun use. It would not, in my opinion, mean restricting CCW issue or adding a psych test. Most of us gun nuts embrace gun rights because we embrace personal responsibility. If I use my gun unwisely and shoot someone I should not, it is my fault and no one else’s, and I should suffer the consequences. Until that time, the state assumes I am not guilty of overreaction. We do not have “pre-crime;” quite the opposite, we have a legal concept called “no prior restraint,” which trusts neo-Nazis and the KKK to stage peaceful marches, which trusts large energy traders to operate lawfully and which trusts people with unusual sexual tastes to engage in non-coercive behavior. Only after our presumption of guilt is shown to be wrong do we act against the guilty parties, and then only against individual aggressors, not (hopefully) categories of people who have done no wrong.

        I am more concerned about CCW-holders who don’t train and obsess about DGUs than about gun nuts who read this site every day. We are the jerks who run scenarios over in our mind, who keep a mental checklist of things to do and not do in assault situations, who read about ways to de-escalate — or better, avoid — situations that could turn ugly. We are the crazies who debate the merits of lasers, lights and other tools which could prevent us from pulling the trigger. Most of all, we are the most afraid of losing our gun owner privileges due to poor judgment. Sites like this one are a balm against over-reactions because they provide a relaxed, stress-free forum to think about stressful situations. Of course, no blog or message board substitutes for training, and no training can fully prepare you for the unthinkable. But it’s better than carrying a gun and never thinking about it.

        • Dr. Glenn Meyer has done some academic research, using surveys of students who attend courses taught by various trainers (CHL and beyond), on “typical” CHL behavior. Some of the data has been published in journal articles, I know that he’s just sent out a new survey to collect data for a new study.
          http://web.trinity.edu/x7742.xml

          The doctrine that’s taught at all the big schools (beyond the local CHL class level) is to limit your use of deadly force to situations that involve you and those you know and care about, to avoid intervention in 3rd party/stranger situations because of the risks of injury, death, jail and lawsuit. One of Glenn’s research interests is in finding where that line is – what 3rd party situations cause someone to use deadly force, instead of calling 911, leaving the scene or other action.

          Lt. Col David Grossman’s Pulitzer-nominated book “On Killing” discusses willingness to use deadly force in detail. He cites data from military studies showing that many people do indeed have a great reluctance to use deadly force, but that training, particularly force on force training, can be effectively used to overcome that. Anyone with a serious interest in deadly force psychology should read “On Killing” and the follow up “On Combat” which is actually a better book.

      • Fortunately, the conventional wisdom is that our right to self-defense is best left to our perception based upon the “reasonable person” test.

        Whereupon, your argument may be clinically interesting, but literally impotent.

  45. Completely off topic, but it looks like that Sig in the picture has a squib a quarter inch away from the muzzle.

  46. Tom Givens, who teaches in Memphis, has had 56 students involved in DGUs over the past 5 years. He’s also had 2 students, who were unarmed when they were attacked, die. There are documented cases of CHL holders in Texas who were killed when they were unarmed as well, including a often-cited one involving a Christian musician who was mugged and killed coming out of a recording studio in Dallas.

    If your hypothesis (which cannot be called a “conclusion”, since “conclusions” require supporting data and not just opinion) is correct, and permit holders are incapable of making appropriate decisions under stress, there would more stories of failed DGUs, with armed citizens dying, going to jail, or shooting the wrong person, than there are DGU success stories. There are over 6 million permit holders nationwide now. If you are right, find the data and back up your claims.

    You should get on YouTube and pull up the video of Suzanna Hupp’s testimony to the Texas Legislature. She watched a crazed gunman drive through the front of a Luby’s cafeteria and kill a bunch of people, including her parents. She could not fight back because her gun was locked in her truck. Texas had no CHL program until 1996, because people like you, running our state government, believed the same lie you do – that regular people are incapable of good judgment when carrying a firearm in public. 16+ years later, the data on Texas CHL holder behavior collected by the state police, to assess that very issue, shows that permit holders are 6-15x LESS likely to commit violent crime than the population as a whole.

    It’s presumptuous and arrogant of you to assume that your own life experience (a data point of one) is sufficient to allow you to understand what other people can or can’t do, in life threatening situations, and worse yet for that arrogance to lead you to believe that because you’ve never been in a situation where deadly force was truly the only survivable option, that others should be denied that fighting chance.

    Unlike you, who judges the armed citizen community based on nothing more than your own prejudices, I’ve spent the last 20 years teaching “force on force” classes where I run armed citizens through scenarios where they have to make those same critical decisions you claim they are incapable of making. Those scenarios are based on real incidents, some in which the victims lost, and some in which the intended victims fought back and lived. For the most part, armed citizens are capable of making good decisions, and the ability of most of them improves dramatically after they’ve participated in and observed multiple scenarios.

  47. MikeB302000 is trying to use first predicate logic and does it incorrectly thus his conclusion is wrong.

    “DGUs are rare. Legitimate DGUs are even rarer. Most people with concealed carry permits are not capable of doing the right thing when they occur. Most people should not have a CCW license. Am I wrong?”

    It would follow, that if his predicate where true then his conclusion must be true, but here is where he falls down

    DGUs are rare. [Define rare, this cannot be qualified as true]
    Legitimate DGUs are even rarer. [Again, based on what evidence, what is even rarer]
    Most people with concealed carry permits are not capable of doing the right thing when they occur. [Once again, what is “most people” Has he tested all CCW owners?]
    Most people should not have a CCW license [The logic does not follow, he has concluded nothing because the predicates are not valid]

    My problem with his logic is this, he takes his own experience and beliefs and projects to to be true of all other people. If that is what he believes fine, nobody is forcing him to have CCW, but do not push your belief on anyone else and do not assume things without proof or evidence from some simple cherry picked cases.

    I do not see the gun culture say, “everyone must have a gun it should be a law because this is what we believe” but MikeB302000 wants to say, this is my experience, my experience is more important than yours and thus because this is my experience, you do not need a gun and I believe nobody should have a gun.

    Believe what you want, don’t carry but stop trying to take everyones gun away because I am not trying to force one in your hand.

    I would like to ask MikeB302000 this, use your google fu skills and tell me how many provactions have been stopped by simply brandishing a gun — I will help you out — you will not be able to find it because they are rarely reported but the experience of those whom have had to do so have made them as strong of advocate as you are against guns. Do not assume all experiences are the same because pretty much that is what you are saying, “I have never needed a gun, so nobody else needs one either” — given this is the holiday season I wish much luck in the new year, but should you ever be mugged and beaten to the point where you where in inch from your life or should you ever had to fear for your life, your opinion would be different so do not assume that mine or anyone elses experience is the same as yours!

  48. What an excellent argument to disarm the police forces. They can go first as a test group as their sample size should be larger getting us more data faster on how rare is rare.

    Funny how the above is never the first proposal from those afraid of guns.

    -Gene

  49. George Burns smoked most of his adult life and lived to be 100. Thus I don’ see why all these anti-smoking groups say smoking is unhealthy.

    I’ve never had a fire in my house so why should I bother with a fire extinguisher?

    This article is what happens when you don’t teach children what logical fallacies are.

  50. >> Most people should not have a CCW license. Am I wrong?

    Yes. You are wrong.

    Caleb’s failure to shoot the knife-wielding thug preserved his life for another day, but allowed a dangerous menace to go loose in society. One might only hope that the violent criminal will restrict future carnage to Caleb and those he loves, (to help Caleb learn why he should have pulled the trigger) but such is not likely to be the case. Unfortunately, it is more likely that many others will pay the price for Caleb’s hesitation.

    About 98% of DGUs end without the gun ever being fired. But one must wonder how much better society would be if every criminal, involved in his first criminal attack, were dropped dead by an armed citizen, never to terrorize honest people again. Given that the average career criminal commits over 300 crimes at a cost of more than half a TRILLION dollars per year, the net benefit to society of dead criminals is huge.

    Consider that a worthless piece of slime who pulls a knife on you is not in the same class as the punk kid who steals candy from the corner store. The armed perp demanding your wallet is a feral animal who has graduated to threatening your life for his own benefit.

    Put this rabid animal down NOW!

    Some weepy authors will cry over the death of violent criminals at the hands of armed citizens. Better they cry over the deaths of their own families so they can understand what their betters try to prevent. Given an opportunity to execute a violent criminal caught in the act, it is duty to society that calls for one to pull the trigger.

  51. In a search of the news I found stories of 20 DGUs during November of this year. I assume if I had more time to devote to the task I could find more. Obviously there are many they go unreported to the police or are reported and don’t make the news. The ones that make the news usuaily look to be the ones where the victim defended themselves and felt the need to fire thier weapon. In the 20 stories there were 33 criminals involved ( In a majority the criminal had an extensive criminal record). Eight were killed, Nine were wounded, Three were held for police and the rest ran away. How may murders were prevented, hard to say. Looks like two rapes were prevented. Eight fewer racitivistic predators depriving honest hardworking people of life liberty and the persuit of hapiness. Should everyone carry a gun, obviously not. I would guess that 2/3rds of the population either don’t want to or are emotionally, physically or psycologically unable to. I am pretty sure there were at least 20 people that were glad they did in November. We have a ways to go to get another 15% of the population armed, trained and prepared to defend themselves and thier loved ones. No need to thank us for the resulting increased safty of the entire population.

  52. Why is there a fragmentation grenade in the image at the head of this article?

    Who chose the image?

  53. I am quite disappointed to be reading this complete moron’s rantings on this site. I have come across this idiot several times before and he has proven he is incapable of rational discourse. I am afraid I have now lost another great site because the owners “feel” they need to let a raving loon post ridiculous articles on their site for some kind of “balance”. If I see another article by Mike the imbecile on TTAG, it will be the last time I visit.

  54. Apparently, Mike hasn’t heard of the Tueller Drill. If he had, he wouldn’t have written such nonsense.

    • I think what you mean is they contain things you disagree with. That’s not exactly the same as asisine. Asinine is used for a personal attack. What I have to say, like we need stricter qualifying factors before issuing CCW permits and the private sale of guns should require a background check, are anything but asisine. You just don’t like them.

      So why don’t you say that?

      • So mike, when are you going to convince the BATF to allow civilians to access the NICS system without requiring them to be a licensed dealer?

        By the way mike, when you going to convince the BATF/government to enforce the background check more than 1% of the time?

        By the way mike, when you going to hold the BATF accountable for failing 100% of the time to catch a bad guy using a fake identification or lying on their 4473 form?

        By the way mike, when you going to actually hold the government as accountable as you lamely attempt to hold the innocent 80 mil law abiding gun owners?

  56. Mike is 90% correct. But he doesn’t go far enough. NO ONE should have a concealed carry permit. The very thought of such an onerous requirement is repugnant! Any one ( not incarcerated or assigned a permanent keeper ) that desires to carry should. Without any government may I slip. You are almost there Mike, keep going 😉

    Frank

  57. Well Mike, you don’t have to guess about how many times concealed carry licensees use their guns irresponsibly. It’s not some dirty little secret. As it turns out, the Michigan State Police publish a detailed report every year on every felony crime that every Michigan concealed carry licensee commits. It lists everything from retail fraud to animal cruelty to arson to, yes, brandishing, assaults, and murders. It is on the order of 40 pages long and available on line. I reviewed the report for 2010. Michigan concealed carry licensees, which would have averaged about 250,000 that year, committed about 2 homicides and maybe 5 attempted homicides or felonious assaults. But here’s the kicker: none of the homicides were concealed carry licensees “snapping” and killing a victim. In fact the homicides didn’t even involve a pistol. (Maybe it was a knife or their bare hands, who knows, but the reports indicate if they used their pistol in the crime and the two homicides did not involve their pistol.) I don’t recall off the top of my head how many, if any, of the non-homicidal attacks involved their pistols but I do recall that the rate of concealed carry licensees illegally shooting someone with their pistols is literally about zero in a sample size of 250,000 licensees.

    Of course no population of anything is ever perfect. So let’s say it would be statistically reasonable to figure that something like 2 people per 250,000 concealed carry licensees would shoot someone unjustifiably every year. If we extrapolate that to the roughly 6 million licensees across the entire nation, we can expect to see about 48 licensees every year firing their pistols when they shouldn’t have. You know what’s funny about that number? It is on the same order of magnitude of what the violence policy center reports in their “concealed carry killer” column. They claim that something like 280 concealed carry licensees have murdered people since 2007 based on news reports that they could find. Since it is almost the end of 2011, that means the violence policy center is claiming that about 70 concealed carry licensees per year are using their pistols irresponsibly. That is about 1 per state per year, maybe 2 on the outside.

    So no Mike, concealed carry licensees are not running around making bad judgments with their firearms thousands of times a year. It happens about once or twice a year in each state. Do you still say we should revoke everyone’s concealed carry license?

    • When I say, “Most people should not have a CCW license. Am I wrong?” does that sould to you like I said “we should revoke everyone’s concealed carry license?”

      No, of course not. Why do you find it necessary to exaggerate what I say? Isn’t the point I do make enough for you to disagree with?

      I’m not for banning all civilian guns or revoking everyone’s CCW permit. I am for much stricter standards.

      • Thank you for your reply and clarification Mike. Your article stated, “Most people with concealed carry permits are not capable of doing the right thing when they occur. Most people should not have a CCW license.” So I will concede that “most” is not “all”. That said, your article is saying that only a few select people — very few people — should have concealed carry licenses. And I don’t know any way to get from “several” to “few” without revoking most people’s licenses.

        Regardless, the data in Michigan speaks loud and clear that the people who have their licenses right now are acting within the law. And there is a simple, incredibly compelling explanation. The only people who qualify for a concealed carry license are people with squeaky clean records — or more precisely with no criminal record. People who have no criminal record are people that have maintained self control and exercised good judgment every day of their entire lives. Anyone from that subset of the population who decides to acquire a concealed carry license is deeply concerned about their personal safety. And they must feel a deep sense of vulnerability. In their minds, it is of paramount importance to carry a pistol as the best overall tool to maintain their safety. So here it is: would a person that feels vulnerable, that believes carrying a pistol is tantamount to their personal safety, who has never committed any violent crimes — even misdemeanor assaults — just “snap” some day and whip out their pistol because someone was giving them the “evil eye”? I’ll tell you why they won’t. Because if they are wrong, law enforcement will prosecute them for assault with their pistol and they will lose their concealed carry license. And that would totally defeat their personal safety strategy.

        And I personally experienced an event three months ago that illustrates that point. My white-trash piece of excrement neighbor decided it would be thrilling to expose my four year old and 10 year old child to an XXX rated dialogue. We are talking a felony obscenity act that could seriously damage the long term psychological well being of my children, especially my 10 year old. My “instinctive” response was to go over there with a baseball bat and permanently disable his jaw. However, I would see some jail time (less of a problem) and lose my concealed pistol license (a much bigger problem) for a felony assault and battery. So rather than go over and pummel my neighbor, I called the County Sheriff. They worked over the neighbor and I got to keep my clean record and concealed carry license in case someone ever presents an even greater threat to me or my family.

        So I have just explained (from a basic human behavior standpoint) why concealed carry licenses are exercising good judgment and I provided data that shows that something like one person per year per state is exercising poor judgment. It sure looks to me like the system in place right now is working very well. What other program has a 99.9992% (only 2 screw ups per 250,000) success rate?

      • If I was king. I would take Texas, Utah and a little Connecticut and put them together to have the best law possible. But I’m just a “Joe Doakes.”

  58. I just love it when people A) come up with some new bullsh#t acronym and B) say things like I’ve done ————————— a hundred times and never had anything bad happen.
    Nonsensical acronyms make you sound like an ass and B) making these fairytale blanket statements make you sound stupid. Who cares if you’ve covered yourself in beef gravy and walked across the plains of the Serengeti.
    Who really cares if you GANAESDTMNS. See, even I part of the unwashed gun carrying masses can generate an acronym.
    We are not out to be Dudley Doright or Rambo or John Wayne with an airweight .38. We are out to protect our loved ones, our hearths, our homes. That’s it.

  59. I’ve been in a bank twice during a robbery. Once was a loaded finger. The other was a “bomb” in the case. I let both go without pulling the trigger. Why? Neither chose to escalate the situation. If they decided to discharge or corral us into a smaller space, thats escalation and in that case I’ve got 7 or 15 well aimed reasons to explain to them why that is a bad idea. I did my best to provide the police with accurate descriptions and eyeballed the vehicle through the window. Both animals were caught and are now doing time.One of my primary goals is to go through my whole life and never pull the trigger in self defense.

  60. We can only feel sorry for mikeb30200, he’s locked in denial and delusion, consumed by fears of monsters that statitically don’t exist, namely, the average law abiding citizen that can’t be trusted with a lethal weapon.
    I did notice he never made a reply to the post by “facts not fantasy”, about the Michigan state police report about the incident of felonies by CCL holders. This is not just for Michigan, this is the norm for every state that has passed CC or the states that don’t require any license to carry a weapon.
    This is why 49 states now have some kind of legal recognition of carrying a weapon for self-defense. The hysterical cries of blood running in the streets after every CC law passed in the various states just never happened.
    At this point, I thank God that wiser and much more rational heads prevailed among the people and our right to defend our lives continues to expand against the irrational fears of elitists like mikeb.

    hashsshas after every CC bill has never come to pass,

  61. I think what Mike is really debating is just how many frightening situations warrant a response with a pistol. It sounds like Mike believes nearly all frightening encounters will result in no or minor bodily injury and only a few people with some kind of special training will ever be able to divine when an aggressor would actually “cross the line” and warrant lethal force.

    I have a very simple perspective. Anyone who engages me in an aggressive and/or intimidating manner is trying to force me to do something and that is a breach of my liberty. Whether it is their demeanor, verbal threats, or threatening me with a weapon, their actions show unequivocally that they have no regard for my liberty and do not live by the rules of a civilized community. Their act has already injured me emotionally and the severity of any additional injuries that the aggressor may intentionally or unintentionally inflict is anyone’s guess. I am not willing to entrust my well being to the good will of the instigator who already demonstrated their ill will toward me.

    Does everyone see the paradox? Mike is arguing that we should trust the instigator who is violating our liberty to uphold our liberty … and that anyone with a concealed carry license who doesn’t have some sort of training to know how far they can trust the instigator somehow has bad judgment.

    In my 42 years I have crossed paths with tens of thousands of people; I have upheld every citizen’s liberty. The result: not a single one of those tens of thousands of citizens whose liberty I upheld ever pointed a gun at me. What we need is an incentive for people to respect and uphold our individual liberty, not “training” so we can somehow discern how much liberty we have to yield to an aggressor before his attack escalates to some threshold.

    Until we can depend on aggressors to respect the personal liberty of all citizens, armed citizens will occasionally have to point their pistols at the aggressors to defend their personal liberty — which the aggressors already violated. I don’t like to see anyone die of “unnatural causes”. But if it is going to happen, I would rather see an aggressive person with no regard for other people’s personal liberties come away with short end of the stick, not a citizen.

    • In the end, mikes fear of a gun is a symptom of and not the cause of his fear. The root cause of his fear, like all elitists, is the fear of a mature responsible adult, able to provide for thier own self-defense, without the need of government to protect them.
      For elitists, statists, thier god is government, so when a person is able to show themselves to be a free and responsible adult, they feel absolute terror for it shakes the very foundation of their faith.
      These are the useful idiots that cheered as Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot and Hitler disarmed their people to create a utopia on earth, instead over a hundred million were killed in tis pursuit.
      Of course, these people say it could never happ

      • Oops, I hit the post comment by mistake, to finish the thought,
        they say that this could never happen in our civilized western culture, I’m the sure the law abiding German Jews were saying this to themselves as they marched obediently into the ovens.

  62. The author of this article is using the same logic Florida democrats used for decades to strike down concealed weapons permits. Civilians aren’t trained to use deadly force, blood in the streets, gunfights at redlights…bla-bla-bla.

  64. Well, Mikey, I guess that the numbers between 100,000 and 2.5 MILLION armed DGUs per year are invalid (although supported by many legitimate studies, including FBI crime reports).

    I have an idiot brother that makes the same claim(s) as you (although he carries a Phaser, no sh!t). I’ve lived overseas, in several different states, several big cities (Chicago, Dayton, Denver, Dallas, to name a few), and have witnessed, and responded to, criminal attacks. Had to fire my weapon ONCE, at a dumbass that brought a knife to a gunfight. Without the gun, I might have been dead, and my lady companion might have been raped & dead. Amazing how much difference a Beretta Bobcat .22 can make, eh? I’ve also engaged in unarmed combat with multiple assailants, and prevailed. It isn’t always the weapon; it’s the PROPER ATTITUDE.

    I might add that out of the well-documented numbers of DGUs, less than 5% resulted in a shot or shots being fired. I would postulate that this demonstrates a great deal of “restraint” on the part of the lawful citizen carrying arms. Cops mistakenly shoot 11 TIMES THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS DO.

    Don’t carry if you choose not to. Just don’t imply that others, myself included, must adopt your sheep-like attitude. I’ve been carrying a gun for well over 35 years, and with the one above-cited exception, I’ve not fired a round in anger. However, there are at least 2 individuals that spent several years in the employ of the state because of the choices they made, thank you very much. Didn’t need the cops, except to transport the criminals.

    The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution; it’s in there, look it up.

  65. I like that “what if Caleb shot the guy dead”. It’s sad but that thug with the knife gave up his right to live free and easy when he started to threaten people with a knife. If he had been shot dead I would have little sympathy for him, when you threaten another man’s life wantonly you lose the right to your own until that threat stops.

    • Matt, That’s macho crazy talk. A guy does not give up his right to live when he commits a crime.

      Your having little sympathy for crooks who end up dead is one thing, but that doesn’t mean the deserve it.

      • One’s right to life is balanced against that of another. My right to punch you ends where your nose begin. His right to stab me ends where my tender flesh begins.

        If one engages in willful violence that can be reasonably considered to be fatal towards another human, they forfeit any right to be allowed to live.

      • Matt did not say a guy gives up his right to live when he commits a crime.
        He said “…gave up his right to live free and easy when he started to THREATEN people with a KNIFE.”
        Three times in civilian life I truley believe my life was in danger. On one occasion I was with my wife. On all three occasions I was armed but managed to avoid confrontation by my actions. Still the fact that I was armed made the situations easier to handle .
        I am neither macho nor crazy. I am a Vietnam vet. who has absolutely no desire for any more killing. Nor do I want to deal with the aftermath of even a justifiable shooting.I certainly do not want to be killed or injured.
        In the event of a robbery I will willingly give up my wallet which contains $50.00 emergency gas money and nothing else. My ID and cards are carried seperately.
        If my life is threatened or that of a significant other( there will be no boubt), I will not hesitate to do all that is necessary to servive. Without the ability to be armed I may not be able to do all that is necessary. When someone threatens my life he automatically gives me the right to defend it, even if it requires my taking his life to do so. I believe this is what Mr. Gregg is saying.
        The truth is violent crime happens multiple times daily. I am not naive enough to believe that the police are able to protect anyone ( including you) from crime. If I find myself in grave danger I will protect myself. I do not know what you will do but I truly wish you luck.

  67. your stupidity knows no bounds. I have to ask you; what would have been the outcome if the mentioned individual when confronted with a knife welding assailant did not present a firearm? The only mistake that the CCW holder made is that he did not arrest and detain the assailant with a citizens arrest for the police .

Comments are closed.