I’m sorry, but I hate this argument… because it’s crock.
Attackers generally do not telegraph their intentions. They often come on suddenly and unexpectedly. I’ve been assaulted before and could not have defended myself even if I wanted to. I was caught too off-guard. Having a gun would not have helped me in any of those situations.
It’s a “I am very badass!”-solution often from folks that have never been in that vulnerable kind of position before, because if they have, they would know that it cannot be reliably executed.
The presence of a firearm itself may have been enough to make them think twice. I mean, do you normally try to assault someone who’s visibly carrying?
A gun that can be seen is a gun that can be wrestled away from you, especially if you are physically smaller or weaker than your assailant. It’s also an item of value begging to be stolen the second you’re not completely in command of your surroundings.
It’s also a good way to get shot pre-emptively by a cop who actually does have adequate gun safety training but no morality to go along with it, simply because he’s a hunter and your open carry visible weapon made you fair game. “I feared for my life” is all he will have to say, and you will just be one more statistic without ever even having drawn it, especially if you are a minority or a member of some other group they don’t like.
That kind of firearm-as-fashion-deterrent only appeals to LARPers. People who take gun ownership with the absolute seriousness it requires do not open carry casually, nor do they pull out a gun unless they are about to fire it. This is casual, ignorant, deadly irresponsibility and a big part of why we have the firearm problems we do in this country right now.
The presence of a firearm itself may have been enough to make them think twice. I mean, do you normally try to assault someone who’s visibly carrying?
You can get arrested for threatening someone with a firearm too. It wouldn’t have helped.
Get assaulted, raped, possibly killed? Or deal with the arrest and after math of having defended yourself from such. I know which one I’d choose.
I’m sorry, but I hate this argument… because it’s crock.
Attackers generally do not telegraph their intentions. They often come on suddenly and unexpectedly. I’ve been assaulted before and could not have defended myself even if I wanted to. I was caught too off-guard. Having a gun would not have helped me in any of those situations.
It’s a “I am very badass!”-solution often from folks that have never been in that vulnerable kind of position before, because if they have, they would know that it cannot be reliably executed.
Isn’t this what gun rights people say to women who then become statistically more likely to be shot by their own weapon?
A gun that can be seen is a gun that can be wrestled away from you, especially if you are physically smaller or weaker than your assailant. It’s also an item of value begging to be stolen the second you’re not completely in command of your surroundings.
It’s also a good way to get shot pre-emptively by a cop who actually does have adequate gun safety training but no morality to go along with it, simply because he’s a hunter and your open carry visible weapon made you fair game. “I feared for my life” is all he will have to say, and you will just be one more statistic without ever even having drawn it, especially if you are a minority or a member of some other group they don’t like.
That kind of firearm-as-fashion-deterrent only appeals to LARPers. People who take gun ownership with the absolute seriousness it requires do not open carry casually, nor do they pull out a gun unless they are about to fire it. This is casual, ignorant, deadly irresponsibility and a big part of why we have the firearm problems we do in this country right now.
The majority of people likely would have a difficult time pulling the trigger even if they did brandish a gun. Possibly more so with women.
So now you have any escalated situation with a much higher chance of death for the person holding the gun.