Make sure you have some training. I've never taken serious training but my former martial arts instructor has. He says that if you get into a knife fight, you will get cut, period, almost regardless of how well trained you are. Also, in order to get close enough to use a knife, you have to get close enough that they can take it away from you and use it on them. If they get it from you, they'll be jacked on adrenaline and likely to really cut you up bad.

I have not read all the posts so this may be a repeat. I carry one of these (similiar at least) when I commute in well before daylight (and back home in the evening) on my Salsa Vaya - https://www.defensedevices.com/aspbaton16inch.html The 16 inch version fits in my back pocket or in the painter's pants right pocket. I also leave the tough nylon holder on the handlebars of my Mezzo folder and carry it in there when commuting on that bike. If I feel uncomfortable with a situation, like when I have left the last sidestreet far behind on our MUP and have no other options but to pass a walker or two, I put it in my right hand and keep the hand on the handlebar so it cannot be seen, but can be used in a split second. Best to learn how to use it as well.

You can always go for the Taurus Judge, it is basically a handgun but fires 410 shotgun cartridges and .45ACP rounds. What you do is alternate so the first round is the 410 to paralyze and the second a 45acp to kill.

A helmet cam or some type of video camera will defuse most road ragers. Just tell'em to smile for the camera. A camera in the back is also a good idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSiBVTtrS1w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qycF...eature=related
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/te...ents.html?_r=1
https://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/52...camcorder.html

Just curious. At what point do you determine that it is necessary to draw your gun? Say it starts with yelling and escalates to fisticuffs. Will you have time to fetch your gun? If it will it be clearly visible, like in a holster, then I can see how that will act as a deterrent. But concealed? It seems like there are practical issues with your plan.

Axiom answered your question before you asked it - life in immediate danger. I believe he's wrong to state that he'd 'shoot to kill' - the appropriate mindset is to shoot to 'stop the threat'. It's unfortunate that the most effective method to do that is to shoot center-mass (shooting for legs, weapons, and other such stuff you see in the movies are woefully unrealistic)

I've carried both open and concealed. OC isn't so much a deterrent as it is a political statement. Not that there's anything wrong with political statements, but I prefer concealed.

Drawing from concealment isn't much slower. Plus, you potentially retain the advantage of (at least tactical) surprise.

Any bullet wound is potentially lethal, practically any part of the body you shoot at. I think, maybe, that's what people mean when referring to "shoot to kill". ie, that they're prepared for that person to die if they have to shoot. At least I hope so, and it's not some cowboy gunfighter fantasy thing.

Personally I think you're a lot safer having a weapon you don't brandish.

I trust to common sense and being faster in traffic than most cars. I don't have the temperament to carry a gun and think it's more likely to get you into trouble than out of it. Gas can blow back in your face...knives are illegal at any usable length in my area, and I don't see how or where you'd safely carry it. I've had a few incidents...the worst was an attempted smash and grab. That kid got a ubolt to the face thrown at high speed. The others I was able to ride away safely.

My personal view is that the odds of needing a gun are pretty low, especially outside of rougher city neighborhoods, and that most of the folks who carry guns have fantasies about John Wayne.

I was seriously assaulted & robbed 5 years ago by a young punk at a gas station. Happened so fast there was no time to think. There seldom is. It is amazing haw much injury just the human fist can deliver. After recovering I explored my options and decide on Krav Maga training. I just accuired my black belt 3rd degree. Had I had my current training when this assault occurred I'm pretty confident the punk would have had to do the recovering.
No matter what you do or weapon you think you should carry it is mostly useless with out proper training.

No he didn't.

I am asking whether it is practical to know when deadly force is necessary.

How do you know someone's intention unless they are polite enough to announce it to you? How do you know the guy walking toward you is mad enough that you need to draw a weapon? How do you know you will have time to draw it from it's concealed location once the fur starts flying?

Guns will land you in jail, at least for a while. Knives will get you cut. Hand to hand training MIGHT possibly save you a stomping, although the time allotted to learning the art WILL cut into your riding, and rest of life, time. Wimpy assed pepper sprays will vanish in the wind.

In her truck, I give my wife a can of Wasp and Hornet spray............it shoots a powerful spray over 15 feet. It is not a nice little don't hurt the bastard formula. It WILL stop them.

Somebody mad and walking toward you probably isn't a serious threat (but: Does he have a knife in his hand? Has he made verbal threats?). Somebody beating on you might be. As Mas Ayoob says, it depends on the totality of the circumstances.

As far as how much time you have to draw from a concealed holster? If you're drawing in a situation where you need to be drawing, you've got all the time in the world - the rest of your life.

But if you want to see how long it really takes to get a gun from a concealed holster and into action, attend a local IDPA competition. You'll see everyday people using real concealed holsters, real cover garments, drawing and shooting real concealed carry guns shooting at targets in simulated defensive scenarios - and a sub 2 second time from bell to first shot on target isn't unusual. Don't assume that it takes 5 seconds to draw a gun from concealment just cause you heard it in a Jeffrey Donovan voice-over in Burn Notice.

Carrying a gun isn't for everybody. You don't want to, that's fine. Everybody makes their own choices on the amount of risk they're willing to take, and the preparations they make for unlikely circumstances.

In most places that allow concealed carry, the intent of the attacker is not a criteria when evaluating the appropriateness. Rather, it is the reasonableness of the belief of the person using lethal force as to whether they considered themselves (or someone else) to be in danger of death or serious harm. This is very similar to the situation where a police officer is found innocent of wrong doing when shooting someone brandishing a toy weapon.

In general, anyone who is about to commit a physical assault, is clearly intent on causing harm. Whether that meets the needed criteria, according to a jury, will vary according to circumstances. One common piece of advice on a related subject is that given to women when considering their safety vis-vis ****. They are told to trust their instincts. If someone makes them feel uncomfortable--avoid contact. Is it a perfect test? Of course, not. However, this is really what we are talking about. Trusting your instincts. If someones actions are causing one to feel fear, then responding in a defensive manner is likely warranted.

Interesting anecdotal evidence, is that despite several million citizens with concealed carry permits obtained with the last 18 years, there has not been a rash (nor even a statistically significant number) of unjustified uses such weapons. So it would seem that the carrying of such weapons doesn't increase the liklihood of its use. Since those with the permits actually represent a smaller than proportional use of guns in defense than their population percentage they represent.

The short answer is that you don't know. However, there are thousands of incidents where normal citizens were able to successfully deploy concealed firearms to protect themself or others.

Sorry, I agree with you but this part was funny. It's more likely to use a gun if you actually have it, than if you don't have one.

Are you saying that most incidents, both in numbers and proportion, are due to illegal guns and/or home protection, as opposed to legal concealed carry?

The vast majority of gun related deaths in the U.S. are based upon illegally owned guns--in most cases criminals shooting other criminals.

The vast majoirty of legal self-defense uses are among folks who were not carrying concealed--ie, defending their home. The percentage of legal concealed carry owners who have needed to use their weapon in self-defense is very low. The percentage that have used their legally carried weapon illegally (brandishing or actual firing) is even lower. Lower then the their relative percentage when compared to the otherwise law abiding general population (ie, remove the prior criminals).

I suspect this is because no one gets such a permit without a cursory introduction to the increase liability carrying a weapon entails; both criminally and civilly. One statement from my CHL instructor still reverberates in my memory. If you need to use your weapon, even assuming that you are found to have been justified, you can expect that you it will end up costing you between $30,000 and $50,000. These costs can vary from legal defense costs for criminal and/or civil charges. And that assumes you are found to have been justified in the use in the first place and that there is no 'political' reason for the prosecution. The anecdotal evidence is that a concealed permit makes it less likely to actually use the firearm when compared to those who don't have the permit.

I'm wary. As others have said, if I see something that doesn't seem right, I get out of there. So far, it's only applied to dogs, and so far only urban dogs. I think urban dogs are easier to deal with because they are usually alone, and usually defending a specific yard, so once you're past their turf, they leave you alone. I use a combination of avoidance, yelling (Yo Spiff taught me that) and water bottle squirting to ward them off; it's worked so far. When it comes to avoidance, I seem to have developed pretty good dog radar. I almost always see them before they see me.

When it comes to people, my defense is in trying to be unobtrusive. I don't ride fancy bikes through crappy neighborhoods. I generally stick to routes I am familiar with, and stay away from new routes after dark whenever I can. When I do pass people by, I greet them- say hi, ring my bell, smile. Even a thug usually smiles at a dork rockin' a bell on his bike. It puts them off their game.

Can you cite a source for those statements?

https://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/163496.pdf
https://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/...ce/aquired.htm
When I last looked into this subject the most recent data was from 2008. As I said, at that time, the evidence that concealed carry owners were less likely to use their weapon for self-defense was more anecdotal than causal--which is common for most statistical evidence for sociological issues.

One thing I'd like to add for those who say they've never thought about it, or in a million, billion miles of cycling nothing has ever happened. Every victim, every single one says, "I never thought it would happen to me."

For me personally, I carry a legal sized knife (for my area). I've only ever had to brandish it. Its not huge, but very intimidating. It diffused the situation quite quickly.

Dont live in a police state of mind. Take responsibility and protect yourself.

This book is a good place to start.

Remember, when seconds count, police are just minutes away.

Additionally, it's a personal choice to carry a firearm. Even though I served in the marines idk if I will ever carry as a civilian. I applaud those who do, though. Ask some of those ppl who were in that movie theater when it got shot up if they wish they were armed. Bet you'd get an almost resounding yes. A fighting chance at least.

*edit: the book title; Dial 911 and die just made me laugh. Also that was your 911 post

Just start pounding on their heads screaming at the top of your lungs;

What's The Frequency Kenneth!

Situational awareness and avoidance are the keys. Once that fails, it's up to you to do what you have to do with what you have at hand.

Just remember, when the defecation hits the oscillation, you won't "rise to the occasion," but will instead fall to the level of your training.

There are no magic talisman that ward off evil and make you a superhero. A handgun may as well be a rock if you don't know how to use it, don't train with it, and don't have it available. Actually, it's probably easier to throw the rock accurately.....

Ask some of those ppl who were in that movie theater when it got shot up if they wish they were armed. Bet you'd get an almost resounding yes.

And if several of them were, would they just start shooting in the general direction of the muzzle flashes in the dark and smoke filled room? Seems like an especially poor example of when private citizens with guns would actually be helpful rather than increasing the relative danger.

I support the right of citizens to be armed, but I don't see it as being terribly viable for self defense in many circumstances. There is often great potential danger to innocent bystanders. Where there are no other people around, there's a fair chance the criminal will use the element of surprise. The gun toter comes out ahead in those situations in the movies, but not so often in real life. There are a host of other scenarios where the concept just falls flat. Such as the group of menacing thugs 'talking' to you on the street corner. You're scared because they're trying to scare you. But is that all they're doing? You don't actually have legitimate cause to use force when you're merely being intimidated and such situations can turn from intimidation (when you can't even legally pull the weapon) to assault so quickly that when you're surrounded you may have no chance to get your piece out before being knocked out from behind. Or the situation never turns to assault - the thugs just wanted to get their jollies by intimidating someone. That's an extremely infuriating situation to be in, but it isn't justifiable cause for lethal force. Or even for brandishing the weapon.

The reality is that guns in private hands are not used to successfully thwart criminals very often. Sure, there are anecdotal cases, but the number of times where this really works is exceedingly small. As it is now, the number of people who legally carry concealed is not large. And licensing procedures tend to vet the carriers fairly well. But if it were to become commonplace, I would be much more worried about that than I am now about criminals.

Even more hypotheticals. There is annecdotal evidence that legal concealed carry holders have ended such massecres already (not many but they have happened) and with lower loss of life than others where no private citizens were armed. There is no annecdotal evidece for your scenario however...

Again there is ample annecdotal evidence that it does prove effective. And no, there are infinite hypotheticals where it wouldn't; however, the reality is that is does provide some benefit--the degree of that benefit is arguable.

There are more than 5,000,000 permits issued in the US--it is fairly common. Anyone who wants one and meets certain minimum criteria can have one. Given the small number of crimes commited on otherwise on non-criminal civilians, the use of self-defense weapons is fairly significant. What is significant is that the hypotheticals such as you postulate don't have much if any evidence, annecdotal or otherwise, to support them.

As a side note, the 'thug' as you put it may only intend intimidation (which is rarely the case), but what matters to the law is not the 'thugs' intent, but the reasonableness of the victims belief that they are about to be harmed... Which is all that is needed to justify lethal force for self-defense... Fifteen years of evidence indicates that allowing the lawful carry of concealed handguns does not increase the general level of violence/crime. In fact the evidence is the exact opposite--though the effect is small and may not be statistically significant...