Skip to comments.CDC: Armed Victims Less Likely to be Harmed by Attackers
Posted on 07/21/2013 7:26:46 AM PDT by KeyLargo
CDC: Armed Victims Less Likely to be Harmed by Attackers Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:24 PM
By: Greg Richter
A $10 million government report on gun violence ordered by President Barack Obama has concluded that people who are armed are less likely to be harmed by their attackers.
President Barack Obama issued an executive order in January calling for the report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"Recent, highly publicized, tragic mass shootings in Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo..; Oak Creek, Wisc. and Tucson, Ariz., have sharpened the American public's interest in protecting our children and communities from the harmful effects of firearm violence," according to the report.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Using a 911 call is just too late for many.
How would an attacker know you were armed unless you pulled your weapon? In some states that would considered “brandishing” a weapon and the perceived attacker could stop and call the cops on you for doing that. Then you’d be the one arrested. I guess you have to be actually attacked first (i.e. Zimmerman) before you could “brandish” your weapon. Anyway, just saying.
Feminism is all about being a victim. being an armed woman is all about not being a victim. I simply can’t believe it takes 10 million dollars of the taxpayers money to figure this out.
There is one major rule for weapons.
Never pull one unless you have the courage and intent to use it.
Sure, according to that picture yeah, you rightfully can. But suppose it’s all rhetoric. Suppose he had no weapon in his hand but is in your face threatening you?
10 million to come to that conclusion? Good Lord!
As I mentioned. Perp has no weapon in their hand but is in your face threatening you on what they will do. They can call the cops on you saying you brandished a weapon in their face and they didn’t do anything. Your word against theirs.
Mugger’s last words:
“P***y, I ain’t afraid of your m*****f****ing gun!!!”
bull folin sh8t
oops! so sorry read it wrong and thought it said less likely to be harmed if unarmed, my bad
That is what we all were taught however, to go along with the perp and cooperate because then he wouldn’t hurt us which is a bunch of wrong
“How would an attacker know you were armed unless you pulled your weapon? In some states that would considered brandishing a weapon and the perceived attacker could stop and call the cops on you for doing that. Then youd be the one arrested. I guess you have to be actually attacked first (i.e. Zimmerman) before you could brandish your weapon. Anyway, just saying.”
Your still better off that getting attacked. And besides, it’s the threat of bodily harm that triggers self defense... It’s what the victim perceives.
There’s a youtube security vid of a robber threatening a cashier & thrusting his coat pocket at her. He turns for a moment & she grabs a gun and shoots him.
He goes down and when the police arrive he screams “I ain’t got nothing! I ain’t got nothing!”
Since the vid showed that the cashier believed she was threatened with deadly force, she was not charged.
A situation like that would be investigated. If it is one person’s word against another, there usually is no prosecution - reasonable doubt.
If you live in a state where the DAs hate guns, move - or work to change the state’s politics. If it is NY or Conn...just move.
As I said if it is bad enough to pull the weapon, shoot the miscreant, let him tell his side to the undertaker.
A friend of my dad who works as a tow truck driver was setting up to tow a car. Owner came up and was threatening him with bodily harm. My dad’s friend pulled his gun and told the guy to back off. The guy went to the cops and the tow truck driver was arrested for brandishing a weapon. This is in Seattle.