I didn’t say that ... what I am saying is that one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that there is any deterrent in these situations by a lot of people carrying (concealed). We KNOW here that there are a whole lot doing so. And while it may be advantageous for a particular individual, if they happen to be aware of a developing situation ... and thus they can protect themselves ... it simply does not provide the deterrent for those who act quickly and irrationally and kill others, with their “Wild West” mentality (even if it is inadvertent) ... and even if they are quickly killed immediately following the incident.
It would seem that we’ve come to the point where everyone is willing to “take their chances” with letting bullets fly, regardless of the consequences. The protection factor may definitely be there for certain situations where someone is able to successfully defend themselves (in action) but the “deterrence factor” is not there.
So, I would tell people to not rely on the deterrence factor, but do rely on being able to defend oneself.
>>what I am saying is that one shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that there is any deterrent in these situations by a lot of people carrying (concealed).
I’m not talking about any deterrent factor. I’m talking about being the one on the scene with a gun instead of just begging for ones’s life. The whole “Wild West” lie is good for the anti-gun left, but the truth is that many of us actually practice with those guns. Many have been in dangerous sitations before and know they can keep their head. The rest might not be serious gunfighters, but any gun at close range is more accurate than you think. No one is talking about engaging at 25 meters! I’m talking about knife range. (BTW, I carry an automatic knife too.)