Grammar Liberation Army wrote:
Of course if they actually intend to fire, instead of coerce, then they'll start by eliminating anyone who might shoot back.
Oh, that's good to know. So when I get held up I should just refuse to hand over my wallet because if they were willing to use the gun I'd already be dead?
I have a different idea. If I think my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger I'll exercise any legal amount of force to protect us, including deadly force if necessary.
That being said, I don't entirely disagree with you. Every situation is different. If I'm alone and get held up for my wallet I'd probably just hand it over and avoid violence altogether, because you are actually right that most robbers don't want to kill anyone.
On the other hand, if I'm out with my wife and children and the same thing happens I would be more likely to remove the gun from the robber with my hands, assuming he has it pressed up against me. I don't want some idiot around my family with a gun and criminal intentions.
As a martial artist I have years of training and know what is legal and appropriate retaliatory force in a variety of situations. I also know that avoiding a fight is the best form of self defense. If that means giving up your wallet or allowing someone to insult you or disrespect you and not starting a fight, then that is the best way to handle that situation.
Please don't try to paint all private gun owners as tough guys who are looking for a chance to kill someone. You and others are suggesting that if I'm carrying a hammer I'll treat every problem like it is a nail. That just isn't true.