When did you use your gun defensively?

I won't enumerate the dozens of times I have used my firearms to defend my farm animals against foxes, skunks, snakes, coyotes, feral dogs, etc... They are 100% defensive use of firearms though, and should count for purposes of this thread.

I carry pretty much every day, and have for 30 years. Only once have I ever had occasion to consider drawing my weapon against a human threat.

I was driving in a sketchy part of Greensboro NC when I needed fuel. I pulled into a gas station that had bars on the windows and a motley collection of loiterers drinking unknown libations from paper bags. I pulled up to a pump, and proceeded to start fueling my truck.

While I was keeping an eye on the regulars, a guy approached me from behind with his hand in his coat pocket, gesturing as if he had a gun, and demanding my wallet. He had gotten the jump on me, and my plan was to surrender my wallet and look for an opening for escape, or to draw and try to eliminate the threat, if that was my only other option.

I put my hands in the air to maybe signal a bystander or passer-by what was happening, but he demanded my wallet again. I slowly opened my coat to reach for my wallet, where my firearm was there holstered on my hip, and upon seeing it, he turned and briskly walked away not saying another word.

I never saw his weapon, if he had one, but he was definitely indicating that he did. In the end, I don't know if it saved my life, but it definitely ended the threat and saved my wallet.

 

Okay, you don't want to play. Your paranoia is showing with these stories should only be shared with an attorney or the law. As far as "ulterior motives" go I thought I made that clear, but I can go on. I think a lot of people have an inflated sense of threat and I wondered how common actual use of defensive weaponry was and it seems not very common. Most of these stories are years old and some don't fit defensive use. But I would like to thank everyone for sharing, but not you.
BTW dispatching a groundhog doesn't count.

No it's not. Use is the key word. You can walk around with a tool all day but you can't say you used it all day.

 

If it's dangerous enough to need more gun control it's dangerous enough to carry a defensive firearm.

 

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

 

I can be armed in self defense in 10 seconds, given my current juxtaposition to my safe.

How long will it take to reduce crime?

 

Crime, overall, is at a 30 year low except gun violence which has bumped up over the last 3 years. I wonder why?

 

We're told every day the threat of gun violence is -so- bad, we need to place additional unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.
If that's there case, what argument is there that the threat posed by gun violence is "inflated"?

 

Dunno. Tell us.
Support your claim.

 

Again like I said you need to define use. And how it fits in this context of this conversation.

You can demand that I use the word the same way you do but I'm not going to. So without clarification I'm going to consider just carrying it use until you specifically State what you mean by the word use what constitutes he using a gun.

 

I, too, am curious what your definition of "use" is.

 

Conservatives tend to be wary of change, mistrust and fear outsiders and generally more fearful in new situations. This graph roughly shows the difference in feeling the need for self protection.



Your hyperbole (a barrage of gun law demands) not withstanding you seem to feel laws restricting access to lethal weapons should not be on the books. They seem to work just fine in the rest of the first world countries without 2A.

What claim?

I thought I made that clear. A tool has a function, a use. In order to fulfill it's function you must use it. Passively caring it around is not fulfilling its function, unless its actual purpose is something like a metal blanky.

 

Over 20% of Democrats feel a need for protection. Over 30% of independents feel a need for protection.

Along with the 50% of the Republicans, that's likely between 50 to 100 million people who feel a need for protection which more that the entire populations of a lot of those countries.

They exist because there is no 2A in those countries.

Does a defensive gun use require:

That the attacker be killed.
That the attacker be shot.
That the attacker be shot at.

Does a display of a gun that results in the attacker retreating count as a use?
Does the appearance of being armed without the weapon being drawn that causes the attavker to retreat count as a use?

 

Yeah a concealed handgun is carried and concealed that's how it's used

I use it by carrying it.

it's use is to be carried. Many are designed specifically for that purpose.


I suppose having a fire extinguisher is like having a blanky. I keep those too.

 

Can't do that. I don't think he knows how.

 

Regardless of the definition, people with guns at home are more likely to be murdered. So whatever defensive gun use that is happening appears to be outweighed by the negative consequences of access to guns.

 

No study consting solely of non-prohibited persons in the case group has ever shown this. Everyone acknowledges that criminals with guns are dangerous to everyone around them.

Some of those studies have shown the living alone or renting have a significantly higher risk of homicide in the home than having a gun does. What laws do you want to pass to protect loners and renters?

Rights don't depend upon the actions of criminals. If you'd like to discuss the Constitutionality, efficacy and enforceability of specific gun law proposals I'm willing to engage on those.

 

I have seatbelts in almost all my vehicles. I’ve NEVER “used” one to prevent death or injury. I have numerous fire extinguishers. In 25 years I’ve used one of them once. Clearly seatbelts and fire extinguishers have no function. Hmmmm.

 

You're fully aware of the fact you didn't answer my question.
I'll ask again:
We're told every day the threat of gun violence is -so- bad, we need to place additional unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding.
If that's there case, what argument is there that the threat posed by gun violence is "inflated"?

I fully oppose each and every unnecessary and ineffective restriction placed on the exercise the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding.
Surely, you do as well. Right?

There it is - your favorite post-hoc fallacy.
Please demonstrate the necessary relationship between the gun laws in Europe and their lower rates of gun-related violence.

You asked:
Crime, overall, is at a 30 year low except gun violence which has bumped up over the last 3 years. I wonder why?
I responded:
I dunno - tell us <<< Me asking for the answer to your question
Support your claim <<< Me asking you ti support that answer
Well?

 

Not at all necessarily true.
"Use" is related directly to intended function
The function of a firearm carried for self-defense it to reduce or eliminate the potential harm to the carrier in the instance of some sort of criminal forcible action against him.
If someone predisposed to such an action sees a potential victim is armed and decides to go elsewhere, the firearm has fulfilled its function - that is, its has been used for its intent.
Thus, to use a firearm in self-defense, the carrier of the firearm may not need to do anything other than carry the firearm.

 

As I wrote conservatives "inflate" the feelings of danger society imposes on them demonstrated roughly with the amount of gun ownership. Their sense of threat is greater than the general public. That segment of the population openly opposes gun laws and thanks to 2A being misinterpreted they have gotten their way in many cases.

Defensive gun use requires the active use or the threat of active use.

 

No, to use it means to actively counter a perceived threat. Passively carrying one is not use unless you consider quelling your fears of being outside in public "use", then it is of psychological use, like having a fire extinguisher in the house in case there is a need to use it.

 

Hmmmm. They have a function and that function is fulfilled when they are used.

 

I answered the question but apparently you couldn't understand it. Conservatives have a greater perceived threat to their safety which is greater than real threat.

I am unaware of gun laws that are unnecessary and ineffective. Please fill me in.

Alabama and Ireland have an equal number of people. One had 55 total homicides in '19 and the other had 468 gun homicides in '19. Your unwillingness to believe that availability of guns themselves did not play a part in the different in rates is irrational.

Asking a question is not a claim.

 

Already said that more succinctly, but the carrier has to do more than "carry" he must convey intent.

 

Evidently the general public feels that the sense of threat is such that these laws are needed:

"Ending the Epidemic of Gun Violence Gun violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Over 100,000 people are shot and nearly 40,000 people die annually from guns—devastating countless families, friends, and communities. We can and will make gun violence a thing of the past. Addressing the gun violence crisis requires supporting evidence-based programs that prevent gun deaths from occurring in the first place, including by making mental health care more accessible and supporting suicide reduction initiatives, funding interventions to reduce homicides and gun violence in neighborhoods, and strengthening protections against domestic violence. Democrats will also ensure the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have sufficient resources to study gun violence as a public health issue, including the ongoing health care, mental health, economic, and social costs that can affect survivors and their families for years. Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal 47 background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes. And Democrats believe that gun companies should be held responsible for their products, just like any other business, and will prioritize repealing the law that shields gun manufacturers from civil liability"

Opposes unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun laws. Regarding the Second Amendment interpretation:


In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing 6manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." The decision recognized the right of two former slaves to keep a bear arms, two men who were not in the militia, would not have been allowed to be in the militia, in a state where the militia had been disbanded.
Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.
There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.
The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.

In 1982 the Senate published a bipartisan report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

In 1990 in US v Verdugo-Urquidez SCOTUS affirmed: "...it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."

The claim that Heller changed the interpretation of the right protected by the Second Amendment from a collective to an individual viewpoint simply has no merit.

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
Ohio: 1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
Indiana: 1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
Mississippi: 1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).
Missouri: 1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
The constitutions and courts of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Does the gun need to be fired in your mind to count as a DGU?