Man Legally Open Carrying Gun Robbed at Gunpoint

[RamboLiberal]

MILWAUKEE - A Milwaukee man found out the hard way that carrying a gun for protection doesn't always keep you safe. In fact, it may have made him a target.

The 34-year-old man legally owned a handgun and carried it out in the open in his holster for protection.

Neighbors say they knew he was always armed.

"It was kind of scary to just see him walking around all the time with that gun kind of just out in the open," said Shambria Mayham Autman. She lives near Teutonia and Good Hope and said they called him "The guy with the gun."

But it wasn't scary for at least one person who robbed "The guy with the gun" at gunpoint.

-----

Clark agrees. "By and large it is a significant deterrent, open carry is, but I think it really does make the point that Wisconsin should have concealed carry along with open carry so that people who live in a very high crime neighborhood where criminals aren't deterred by firearms would have the ability to conceal carry to protect themselves. The two really work hand in hand," Clark said.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

On edit should've pointed out Wisconsin doesn't allow concealed carry. Advocates are trying to get law passed to allow.

[mikelgb]

1. lul

:popcorn: yawn

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Nothing is absolute...

Carrying a gun openly does not deter everyong and can make you a target. Here is proof.
Although, this event doesn't support the argument to BAN OC, I think everyone aggrees CCW is wiser.

[theoldman]

3. I am sure this is not the first case of this happening.

I have a friend who is a member of the NRA and even he believes that it is better to hide your gun. If your gun is in a holster it is useless. The guy who draws and shoots first is the winner.

[provis99]

6. CCW is useless for deterring a crime, since the criminal doesn't know you have a gun!

Geez, the NRA is stupid.

[TPaine7]

40. All the criminal has to know is that some proportion of the population is carrying. n/t

[spin]

11. Your comment, "If your gun is in a holster it is useless"...

is confusing me.

I carry concealed and always use a holster, either a pocket holster or an inside the waistband holster. Commonly only criminals carry firearms without a holster as they can dump the handgun if chased and not have to explain why they have an empty holster.

It is necessary to practice situational awareness and not be caught off guard if at all possible. If anything, open carry requires even more alertness as you are displaying an object that would be very valuable to an attacker. You can bet that if a bad guy sees you, they size up their chances at taking your weapon from you. In most cases, if you are alert and notice their interest, they will avoid a confrontation. Some may decide that you are a challenge and try anyway.

You also state that "The guy who draws and shoots first is the winner." Accuracy is far more important than speed. A hit with a .22 is far more effective than a miss with a .44 magnum. As Bill Jordan said, Speed's fine but accuracy is final." Also handguns are not as lethal as portrayed in the movies. You can be shot and still be able to return fire effectively.

The only way to immediately incapacitate a person or animal is to damage or disrupt their central nervous system (CNS) to the point of paralysis, unconsciousness, or death. Bullets can achieve this directly or indirectly. If a bullet causes sufficient damage to the brain or spinal cord, immediate loss of consciousness or paralysis, respectively, can result. However, these targets are relatively small and mobile, making them extremely difficult to hit even under optimal circumstances.

Bullets can indirectly disrupt the CNS by damaging the cardiovascular system so that it can no longer provide enough oxygen to the brain to sustain consciousness. This can be the result of bleeding from a perforation of a large blood vessel or blood-bearing organ, or the result of damage to the lungs or airway. If blood flow is completely cut off from the brain, a human still has enough oxygenated blood in their brain for 10–15 seconds of willful action<1>, though with rapidly decreasing effectiveness as the victim begins to lose consciousness.

Unless a bullet directly damages or disrupts the central nervous system, a person or animal will not be instantly and completely incapacitated by physiological damage. However, bullets can cause other disabling injuries that prevent specific actions (a person shot in the femur cannot walk) and the physiological pain response from severe injuries will temporarily disable most individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power

[PavePusher]

37. It's the first confirmed one anyone can find. n/t

[Euromutt]

44. Not the first, but it's pretty damn rare all the same

I think there was a case in Virginia maybe two years ago where a guy OCing on a rather ill-lit street at night was robbed. Still, as far as I can tell, it's extremely infrequent.

[PavePusher]

61. Was that one ever confirmed?

Also, I thought that there was a question (if it actually occured) as to whether the "victim" was a legal owner/carrier.

[Euromutt]

46. "The guy who draws and shoots first is the winner." Rubbish.

That's never been the case except in Hollywood. What makes the largest difference is being the first to actually hit the other guy, preferably in the upper chest or the head, and blazing away from the hip is not the recommended way of achieving that result. Wyatt Earp already asserted that in his memoirs, almost a century ago.

Shot placement is key. A 9mm Parabellum in your lungs is going to do more to take you down than a .45 ACP in your arm or leg.

[napi21]

4. They have an open carry in Tx. I lived in San Antonio for 6+ years and

NEVER heard of anything like this attack.

I rememer hen we first moved there, I was quite shocked whwen I entered a store and saw several guys walking around with a revolve on each hip! It didn't take long to just accept that this is Tx. What I DID find though is that the majority, if not all, of the open carry folks were, #1-male, and #2-egotistical showoffs. I'm not even sure they could shoot what they were carrying ith any accuracy, but 90% wore a black shirt, black pants, and rovolvers with pearl grips. HA! Paladin they weren't, but they thought they wee!

[Travis Coates]

14. Bullshit NT

[Katya Mullethov]

16. Wow

Pearl ? LOL . What a complete and utter fabrication .


Surely you meant ivory ,as only a pimp in a New Orleans whorehouse or a tin-horn gambler would carry a pearl-handled pistol.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. Texas does NOT allow open carry.

Both open and concealed carry were banned in the 1870s during the reconstruction period following the Civil War. The law was not enforced in those days, but is enforced in modern times. Concealed carry became legal in 1995.

[napi21]

27. well, I never checked the laws, but I can tell you, while I lived in San Antonio

from 1992 to 2000, we visitd a number of stores, like Big Lots, HEB on 281, Tom's Ribs, etc. and I got to justsmiling at the men dressed in all black and wearing a black double holster gun belt with revolvers with either pearl or carved bone grips. If it was illegal, nobody seemedto care or do aything about it. As I said, everyone else around appeard comfortable with this and I was new to the state so I just assumed it must still belegal there. Oh, and no it wasn't the same guy in all the different places. Sometmes there were 3 or 4 at the same place and in all different kinds of store from retail to restaurants.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. I was born and raised in Texas.

All black clothes with a double gun holster belt with revolvers? You have been watching too many movies. I have never seen an openly armed civilian in Texas, and I am now a senior citizen.

[napi21]

32. I'm a senior citizen too now. (67). You may neer have seen

an openly armed citizen, but I DID. Sorry you don't believe me. That's your problem not mine.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. What make your story unbelievable is the way you describle them.

As being dressed all in black with a double gun style rig with revolvers. Of course one would assume those to be Peacemaker style guns. Sorry, anybody whom I know who would carry openly if allowed would be packing a semi-auto. If there was a second gun, it would be a concealed back-up gun.

[Katya Mullethov]

31. Double points for spotting EAKWMs

Epic AK Waving Man . And quadruple points if you ever saw one whip out his Walkers and shoot them at the floor until his feet left the ground .

[SteveM]

62. Maybe in the store, but out in the open?

Not sure if you realize that open-carry is NOT legal in Texas. This may skew your "data" about "#1-male, and #2-egotistical showoffs."

Try visiting a shooting range; here in Austin, the firing line is populated by many women, Hispanics, blacks, Gays, Asians -- even a few Crackers. I can't vouch for their "egotism," however.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. And he is claiming that the OC guys were all wearing cowboy style..

...dual gun rigs with old west style revolvers. And he wonders why I don't believe him.

[safeinOhio]

5. Just like wearing a sheet and hood

he was making a statement and exercising his Constitutional rights.

[PavePusher]

33. Wow. Comparing a legal, non-threatening (to non-criminals) Civil Right to open (if legal) bigotry.

Do you get extra Brady Points for that?

[safeinOhio]

42. Nope

or points with the teabaggers that open carry at Obama events.

Both are civil rights and I think there are plenty of non-criminals that feel threatened by open carry too. Unlike you I'm against both. Not to be made illegal so much as to just thinking both are uncivil and stupid, as the person involved has shown.

To mistakenly think I am in anyway involved with or approve of the Brady Org is no more valid than to place your opinions with scrotum lickers. I'm sure both assumptions are false, unless you want to comment.

[nichomachus]

7. Everyone in the US should be allowed to carry concealed and unconcealed

Just let me get the fuck out first, to go to a sane country, so I can pop some popcorn and watch the idiots slaughter each other from a safe distance.

[spin]

12. Most gun owners would disagree that everybody should be allowed to carry ...

The current laws for "shall issue" concealed carry appear to work rather well. As a sub group of gun owners, those who have concealed carry permits are the most law abiding and least likely to misuse their firearms.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Mass slaughter hasn't happened yet.

You anti-RKBA folks keep predicting that carrying guns will lead to more shootings, but the reality is that shootings are down, even as gun ownership and CCW permits are up.

[nichomachus]

50. Have you compared the rate of handgun deaths in the US against sane countries?

[PavePusher]

34. I'll help you pack, and wave from the pier. n/t

[Euromutt]

43. Mass carnage hasn't happened yet in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Virginia, Vermont...

...or any of the other states that haven't outlawed open carry (see here: http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html). Thus, the evidence indicates you are engaging in hyperbole, or possibly "pants-shitting hysteria."

[nichomachus]

51. Compared to sane countries, it's been underway for years

[X_Digger]

52. Apples, compared to Oranges, are very different..

However, Euromutt was talking about the same places, before and after liberalizing open carry or the growth in popularity of the practice.

That is a valid comparison, when you're actually trying to assess the impact of open carry.

[Euromutt]

58. Now you're moving the goalposts

You said:

Everyone in the US should be allowed to carry concealed and unconcealed. Just let me get the fuck out first <...>

Your use of the word "first" logically implies that you're assuming that, in the current situation, not everybody is allowed to carry openly or concealed, but that once they are, mass carnage will ensue; rush hour will be like the Wild West, people will shoot each other over fender-benders and parking spaces, blood will run in the streets, all the dire prognostications we've heard every time another state adopted a "shall issue" CCW law, or a "stand your ground" law, and which have failed to materialize every single time.

Now, when you start referring to the previously existing situation, you're talking about a different aspect of firearm laws. Yes, the United States has a markedly higher homicide rate than most other wealthy, industrialized countries (western Europe, Japan, the Antipodes). The United States, in fact, has a non-firearm homicide rate that is higher than the overall homicide rates of those countries, which rather strongly suggests that the higher US homicide rate cannot simply be attributed to "it's the guns, stupid" but rather, that there is something in the American psyche and culture make-up that makes Americans more inclined to kill others.

It's worth noting, moreover, that at least 80% (and probably more than 90%) of firearm homicides in the United States are committed from people who, if existing preconditions to firearm laws could be perfectly enforced (i.e. if everybody who commits a felony or an act of misdemeanor domestic violence could be convicted, and if every person with mental health issues that would make him "a risk to himself and others" could be adjudicated as such at the earliest opportunity) would already be legally prohibited from possessing, let alone carrying, a firearm in the first place. The notion that a majority, let alone an overwhelming majority, of homicides is carried by people "who would have been considered 'law-abiding citizes' up to the moment they pulled the trigger" is a myth, a fabrication, a lie, and the fact that the gun prohibition lobby is remarkably persistent in pushing it doesn't make it any less false.

[Callisto32]

49. The Stupid!

You know what it does.

[SteveM]

63. Crime rates have been falling for several years, now...

yet you want to leave the country. Did you prefer the higher crime rates 25 years ago when the gun-control/banners were in high-cotton?

[onehandle]

8. If I was a robber, I would exclusively hunt guys with guns strapped to them.

Bonus. Now I got two guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. You would have a short career as a robber.

You would be taking on a very dangerous prey. Within your first ten attempts, you would run into somebody that would draw and shoot you. You might get a shot into them too, but you would also catch a bullet. That would be the end of your criminal career. In fact, since you would be starting your draw from a concealed carry position, he may be able to outdraw you, shooting you first even though you started first. There is a reason why mugger love to target little old ladies.

[onehandle]

23. LOL!

You guys crack me up.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Your ignorance of guns and shooting also cracks us up.

And you NEVER attempt to argue from facts. You only use innuendo and sarcasm.

The fact is that in choosing openly armed citizens as your victims, you would be going after people that have the ability to kill you. That is a very dangerous prey.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. So you would target cops?

They are easy to spot and have guns on open display. How come real world crooks don't target them for robberies? Maybe because it is very dangerous to attack an armed person.

[onehandle]

30. Man Legally Open Carrying Gun Robbed at Gunpoint

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=321203&mesg_id=321203

[PavePusher]

35. That's the only comfirmed instance anyone can find. n/t

[onehandle]

38. Maybe it happens dozens of times a day and the gun owners are too chickenshit to admit it.

This guy was the first who wasn't.

I'm going with that theory.

Of course, maybe he made the whole thing up to promote concealed carry...

Nah, I'm sticking with the chickenshit theory.

[PavePusher]

41. You think the MSM wouldn't be on such a trend like stink on shit?

Really?

Also, thanks for the opprobrium. Sweeping attacks from a source of bigotry shore up your points so well, don't they?

P.S. Doesn't your bridge miss you? Or do you hire a temp?

[Euromutt]

59. And if my sister had a pair of 'nads, she'd be my brother

...as they say in the Netherlands.

So you've added the argument from ignorance (http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/ig.htm) to your repertoire now. That doesn't alter the fact that you seem to be singularly incapable of making a post in this forum that doesn't contain (or more usually, consist entirely of) a logical fallacy and/or some thinly veiled abuse.

So if someone were to accuse you--hypothetically speaking--of being a contemptible, bigoted troll, there would actually be some evidence to support that assertion. Which is more than you bring to the table.

[SteveM]

64. Your "chickenshit theory" is one you're "sticking with." Pleasant aroma, no? nt

[jazzhound]

69. "I'm going with that theory".

Of course you are, because that's the one that supports you're insane hatred of all things firearm-related.

[gorfle]

85. So why don't they rob chickenshit police officers?

Maybe it happens dozens of times a day and the gun owners are too chickenshit to admit it.

If it happened with such frequency, why doesn't it happen to chikenshit police officers?

[GreenStormCloud]

45. So how come cops aren't frequently robbed? The open carry guns. N/T

[safeinOhio]

66. Just saying....

many confirmed cases of police officers shot by their own gun after it was wrestled away by a bad guy.

[safeinOhio]

67. Pages of it on the googles

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=police+officer+shot+with+own+gun&i

A lot of money all so went into design and purchase of holsters to slow the trend down.

[X_Digger]

68. Did you actually look at those google results??

For comparison outside of google, see-

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/officersassaulted.html

Law enforcement agencies reported that 58,792 officers were assaulted in the line of duty.

3.8 percent of the officers were assaulted with firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/feloniouslykilled.html

41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2008.

4 officers were killed with their own weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_61.html

Accidental shootings

7 Self-inflicted, cleaning mishap (not apparent or confirmed suicide)

6 Training session

[safeinOhio]

70. Yes 4 were killed

and how many had people unsuccessfully make attempts? Most all also have to have deterrent style holster now days. Was 2008 a low or high year? I was only responding to only one citizen had his open carry gun taken.

[safeinOhio]

71. Looking back at the google list

only a few down from the top was this.

http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-combat/articles/100228-Cases-of-Officers-Killed-by-Their-O

There are no national statistics on how many times officers' guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.

[X_Digger]

72. 4.4 is the average from 1999-2008

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/data/table_14.html

[safeinOhio]

73. I think that is pretty high.

It is only the number killed of a group of trained professionals that have expensive anti-take away holsters. Does not include attempts, stolen guns or injuries short of death. The increase in open-carry will lead to greater numbers among untrained people losing their guns, being injured or shot. I don't think any states require open-carry training for it or anti take away holsters. My response was to how safe open carry is with only one reported incident. I'm just pointing out that law enforcement uses open carry, therefore showing there any many more than just one case. Open carry, in my opinion is a bad idea for gun owners. I've known many cops and have never found one that would open carry off duty. I might consider it hiking or horse back riding in the wilderness, but NEVER in an urban area.

[PavePusher]

74. Don't forget that police routinely have to seek out confrontation with criminals...

as a daily part of their job.

The job of the average Joe Open Carry (me, in this case) is to generally avoid confrontation and conflict unless someones life or health is immediately in danger. Citizens are going to wrestle with crims at a much lower frequency (both total numbers and average percentages) than police.

Also, criminals don't generally want to physically fight police unless they are trying to escape or have serious mental/chemical issues. Criminals don't normally directly attack known-armed persons.

Lastly, police, when off-duty, generally don't want to be identified as officers, and by law are allowed to carry concealed almost everywhere, unlike the general population.

[safeinOhio]

75. It is a part of their job, yet

less than 5% of them will ever fire their weapons at another human in their career. Less than 1% will ever kill some one with their gun.

"Criminals don't normally directly attack known-armed persons."
On the other hand, even armed, cops are attacked more often than others. Some people just don't like cops. If you say criminals avoid guns, why do I see gun stores and pawn shops held up. Even armored cars are robed. Why, because they have money and guns. While most criminals would not want to deal with an armed victim, others would see it as an opportunity. Those at most risk of robbery are in urban areas which would be the worst place to open carry. I have the option in my town to open or conceal carry and would never open carry, even if concealed was banned. In my life time I have been assaulted 4 times with a handgun and have survived with only a bite mark on my arm. I'm glad I didn't have a gun on each of those occasions and if I did I don't think I would have done anything different. I'm not saying that every case would be like that, but those are my personal statistics, for what it is worth. I, now, don't go to the places and do the things I did in those days. That, not carrying a concealed gun is way more important to my safety. Prevention, awareness and caution can lessen anyones chances of crime and the need for the use of deadly force.

[GreenStormCloud]

77. With one exception, I would contine to CC, even if I could OC.

That one exception would be once every two weeks when I am depositing a paycheck at night in an ATM. I would like to be able to lift my shirt and tuck it behind the gun so that I could be seen to be armed and dangerous to rob.

The way I do it now is to keep on hand in my pocket grasping another gun, and use the ATM one handed, frequently (every few seconds) looking up from the ATM between tapping the screen to look around me for anything suspicious.

After a couple of minutes at the ATM I would return to my car and drop my shirt over the gun. For the next two weeks I would CC.

Legal OC would protect me from committing a crime by accidentally allowing my gun to be seen or to print.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. Remember that this sub-thread is in response to "onehande"'s claim...

...that if he were a criminal then he would exclusively target OC people. I point out that criminals don't seek out cops to rob as that would be a guarantee of a very short criminal career. He might make a few successful robberies, but fairly soon someone would shoot him, even if they got shot themselves.

[Euromutt]

84. To my understanding, the majority of "gun grabs" from LEOs occur in the course of arrests

That is, when the LEO has already had to place himself in close physical proximity to the suspect in order to search or restrain him. This is not a circumstance that applies to private citizens carrying in public, openly or concealed.

Moreover, LEOs are known to carry handguns; it's expected that they'll have one their belts. By contrast, you might be surprised how many people don't notice an openly carried handgun on the belt of someone they're not expecting to be carrying.

[PavePusher]

86. Exactly.

Also, it seems, in my encounters, the majority of Citizens who notice an O.C. firearm are gun-owners and carriers themselves, and somewhat attuned to looking for weapons.

[GreenStormCloud]

76. Now compare that number to the number of LEO in the country.

How many of those occurances begin with a criminal attack on a police officer? I believe you will find that having a gun wrestled away from an officer is a rare occurance, given the large number of LEO in the country. Further, police officers are required to close with and capture criminals, which means that they have to get into contact range where wrestling can happen. Since there are a huge number of A civilian who is open carrying does not have to capture criminals, just defend himself against them. The civilian OCs task is much simpler.

[safeinOhio]

79. Well, if you want to compare numbers

take away all of the shootings because of lovers, drugs and ones that happen because of mental problems. Add to that all of the declining crimes, your most likely to never have to worry about gun crime. If you wish to use numbers to show how rare cops are disarmed, why not look at your odds of being a victim? I'm sure that could be used to show how little OC is needed.

If it were me, I'd wait until morning and go to the bank. If I couldn't do that, I'd go to an ATM that is well lit with lots of people around. Then there is direct deposit too. I only carry cash for gas and restaurants, perhaps once every 2 weeks. I've never made a deposit at an ATM.

[GreenStormCloud]

81. My check is DD, Wife's employer doesn't have DD.

Bank is already closed when she gets off work, so I deposit it on my way to work that same night. Waiting until morning creates a delay of several days, because of the weekend, until the funds are available. To deposit using an ATM, it has to be one at the correct bank, can't use just any ATM. Next closest correct one is 15 miles in the opposite direction. So I use that ATM. It is well-lit, with lots of open space around it so I can see anybody approaching, but it is usually deserted at 10:30PM.

I have used numbers on the probability of being a violent crime victim. Annually, it come out to about one in fifty, rough numbers. Since I try to practice safety, I figure my personal odds are somewhat better. But the downside is that if I lose that lottery, I really lose real big, possibly event fatally. Being armed changes my odds. Considering how extreme the loss is if I should be one of the victims, it is worth being armed.

[rrneck]

80. Heh.

[GreenStormCloud]

82. LOL! Love it! N/T

[gorfle]

83. So why don't robbers hunt police officers?

If I was a robber, I would exclusively hunt guys with guns strapped to them. Bonus. Now I got two guns.

So why don't robbers hunt police officers? You might bag two or even three guns, if you get his backup and whatever he has in his patrol car.

[marybourg]

9. Maybe we can all drive around in big black SUV with guys in

dark shades hanging out the back with AK-47's when we have to go somewhere. Then we *really* won't need to pay taxes, support public schools and have a civil society. We'll just have everyone who can afford it have their own army. Just like they did in the good old days in medieval Europe.

[immoderate]

10. Guns are not good defensive weapons.

Yes they are a deterrent. But if an attack is unexpected, the gun is in its holster, concealed or otherwise. In any case, a gun cannot block an attack, like say, a shield. It's just not defensive.

I tell people who feel they might be attacked to learn some form of stick fighting, and carry a cane. No holster!

--imm

[spin]

13. Even in the situation you describe ...

having a handgun is better than not having one.

I do agree that a cane can be a effective self defense weapon.

An excellent book on fighting with a cane is Raising Cane by Octavio Ramos Jr.

I have on occasion carried both a cane and a S&W .38 cal snub nosed revolver.

An excerpt of the book "Raising Cane" can be found at:

http://www.velluminous.com/Raising_Cane_Free_Excerpt.pdf

edited to add link to book

[immoderate]

26. I know that. Please see # 25 below.

--imm

[GreenStormCloud]

21. What is the range of a cane, vs the range of a .38?

What level of physical fittness is required for cane fighting vs shooting?

Most defensive gun uses do NOT involve actual shooting. The bad guy sees that the intended victim is armed and runs away - fast. Can you say the same of a cane?

How many attackers can be engaged with a cane? A gun will usually put an entire group of attackers to flight.

My wife saved herself from being murdered by having a gun. The bad guy ran away. I doubt that he would have run away from a small elderly lady with a cane.

[immoderate]

25. Yeah, that's why I have the Browning.

I'm RKBA, BTW so we'll probably agree.

What level of physical fitness is required for cane fighting vs shooting?

There is some irony here, I admit. At what level of physical fitness is a person most likely to HAVE a cane? LOL. Training makes you better no matter what shape you're in. Studying bo-jitsu couldn't hurt one's fitness.

Most defensive gun uses do NOT involve actual shooting. The bad guy sees that the intended victim is armed and runs away - fast. Can you say the same of a cane?

I agree with you 100%. I could say that about the cane, but I'd be lying.

How many attackers can be engaged with a cane? A gun will usually put an entire group of attackers to flight.

Right again. They will disperse towards the hills.
FYI though, a very skilled martial artist can fend off any number of attackers. The key number is six, or so, because only that number can get close enough to get to you. Theoretically then, if you can beat six guys, you can hold off an army. And with a cane...

My wife saved herself from being murdered by having a gun. The bad guy ran away. I doubt that he would have run away from a small elderly lady with a cane.

I'm glad our wife didn't have to shoot that guy. Unfortunately, that could lead to headaches for her. SELWAC (the lady) may not look scary, but if she's trained she can kick ass. And I hope she can get to her backup.

--imm :)

[PavePusher]

36. Oddly, ever since 9/11, I develop a severe limp whenever I have to fly...

and require the use of a cane until after collecting my luggage (and the 1911 in it)...



Hmmmm.....

[immoderate]

53. Do you declare the ..45 in your luggage?

I think you're supposed to. Don't they x-ray checked baggage?

--imm

[PavePusher]

54. Of course. I'm still here, right? n/t

[immoderate]

55. Just checking.

I used to transport my gun in my baggage in the old days. Never checked it. I don't bring it these days. Was wondering about procedure. Do you need paperwork?

--imm

[PavePusher]

56. No paperwork required.

Gun must be unloaded and in locked case (Do not use "TSA approved" locks!). Do not give the keys to anyone. Ammunition must be in original packaging, or spill-resistant containers (i.e. plastic cases such as reloaders use), some airlines let you leave magazines loaded, as long as cartridges/primers are covered. Amounts and packaging vary by airline, check their websites (and print out the page to take to the airport with you).

When you arrive at the terminal to check in, tell the clerk "I need to declare a firearm". They will give you an orange/red tag to fill out, it then goes in the gun case. Gun case goes in one of your checked bags (preferrably a hard-sided case, using a small cable lock to secure it to the inside is recommended). Suitcase will (usually) got to a TSA inspection point, often carried by an employee. TSA agent will verify firearm is unloaded, cases are then resecured, luggage goes into the system. Ensure you get the keys back if they were given to the agent.

In smaller airports the TSA agent may be at a point interior to the luggage handling facility, in which case the desk personnel may ask you to wait for 10-20 minute before going through the security check-point, in case they need you to re-open anything.

The entire procedure usually only takes 10-15 minutes of extra check-in time.



http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm


Print that page out too, TSA agents have been known to not know their own rules...


Edit: Airline example here: http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/guns.html

[immoderate]

57. Thanks, That's great information.

--imm

[Euromutt]

60. Transporting a firearm is actually a great way to prevent your luggage from being interfered with

Provided your departure point and destination are both places where you can legally possess the firearm, the law actually requires you to keep your luggage locked up in a way that baggage handlers and even TSA personnel can't get into it, and prohibits anyone (TSA included) from opening the case without you being present.

You can even pack a blank-firing starter pistol or a flare gun, as these are considered "firearms" for TSA purposes. I recommend checking out this webpage: http://deviating.net/firearms/packing/
The video presentation in particular is entertaining and informative.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Probably because you're missing 28 odd ounces from someplace on your body.

[benEzra]

15. One reason I think concealed carry is generally a much better choice...

although in this case, WI is one of only two states that doesn't issue CHL's, so it's open or nothing.

(NC CHL holder here.)

[Jumping John]

19. So the robber has 2 guns now. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

22. If he keeps it up, he will be dead. N/T

[TPaine7]

39. "A Milwaukee POLICE OFFICER found out the hard way that carrying a gun for protection

...doesn't always keep you safe."

If the newspaper were prejudiced against police carrying arms--and wanted the (old?) British system, how much do you want to bet they could have posted that headline several times?

And if they could have, what would it have proved?

[Callisto32]

48. The neighbors need a reality check.

He was always armed, never hurt anybody, but it was still scary.

People in the United States live such insulated lives, they have no idea what scary is, apparently.