[Zerogouki]

Someone telling you to hand over your wallet, the reasonable response is to either hand it over or run away.

No, the reasonable response is to say "STFU and GTFO", unless the offender is threatening you with bodily harm, in which case the reasonable response is to inflict some bodily harm in return.

[Dr House]

Trying to disarm or disable a robber holding a gun is inadvisable unless you have reason to believe he's gonna kill you anyway. For one thing, doing so is extremely risky even if you're an expert martial artist. For another, if the gun discharges in the struggle and kills or injures someone you may be legally liable if you didn't have reasonable cause to believe not disarming your opponent would inevitably result in your death.

If they threaten you with a knife or fists then you should of course just laugh in their face and pull out your big-ass gun though.

[Huck]

Trying to disarm or disable a robber holding a gun is inadvisable unless you have reason to believe he's gonna kill you anyway. For one thing, doing so is extremely risky even if you're an expert martial artist. For another, if the gun discharges in the struggle and kills or injures someone you may be legally liable if you didn't have reasonable cause to believe not disarming your opponent would inevitably result in your death.

Criminals are notoriously bad shots. To simply run away from them even if they have a gun is better than say getting into a car with said gun-toting scum-bag. If you run, each step you get away without getting shot further guarantees your safety. I can't remember the statistics from the professor, but every five feet you put between the shooter of a handgun and yourself lowers your chances of getting struck by that bulllet and at ten yards the number drops to near zero. Most silhouette targets at shooting ranges (the ones shaped like a person's head and torso) are no more than twenty feet away at the farthest and they are sitting still. Most people can't hit them at the back of the range and would have a very slim chance of hitting a moving target at that distance. Someone who had never been to a range might get lucky, but the danger is pretty low that you'll get hit if you run off in a safe direction (towards more people or law enforcement) statistically, they will run away rather than shoot at you at all. They just want your valuables, usually. If the gun is on you and you can't get three steps (as the song says) leeway, then it is better to give up the wallet or purse and be left unharmed. Still, if you fear for your life or safety, grab some "yonder" and you will probably be okay.

[Zerogouki]

Your chance of getting hit is virtually zero if the other guy is dead, though.

[Huck]

^Point taken, but your chance of killing an innocent bystander IS zero if you run. If you have no gun, what then?

[Wolfman]

Z, refer to the post Doc made. Also, there is plenty of legal precedence in the US concerning the reasonable use of force in self defense.

[Zerogouki]

your chance of killing an innocent bystander IS zero if you run

Fuck the innocent bystanders. I'm not giving anyone my wallet.

[Godstud]

My wallet cost 10$ and I never carry cash so they can have it. The only thing I'd be sure to ask for is the Quiznos card with 8 stamps on it! at 10 I get a free sub!
Whatever is in your wallet is just not worth getting shot & dying for, is it?

[Huck]

I generally don't have anything in my wallet that I can't replace. Driver's license, insurance cards, pistol permit, pictures of my family...my folding money is always in my pocket. Of course, the thought of standing in line at the DMV to get another license alone is enough to make you want to charge a gun-wielding lunatic with your bare hands, but I don't think it is enough to actually cause you to do it. Here's the headline: "Man found shot dead in alley, no identification found". After they shoot you , they will probably take the wallet, if they were serious about wanting it. I'm inclined to agree with House on this particular digression.

[Watermoon]

Once my uncle was robbed by a black man, my uncle carried a wallet of tissue. And soon that guy found out and came back and beated my uncle.

[Potemkin]

Once my uncle was robbed by a black man, my uncle carried a wallet of tissue. And soon that guy found out and came back and beated my uncle.

Putting tissue paper inside the wallet was a mistake. A mugger is risking jail time whenever he mugs someone, so if he gets nothing he's going to be very angry. This is a bad thing, for obvious reasons. It's better to leave $10 or $20 inside the wallet but keep the rest of your money in a money clip or in your belt. Let the mugger take something. Also, if he finds money in your wallet, he's not going to think that you're hiding any more money, since most people keep all their money in their wallet.

[Watermoon]

Smart idea.

[Dave]

Better idea: carry a gun and shoot down anyone who fucks with you

[Huck]

Better idea: carry a gun and shoot down anyone who fucks with you

"Hey you, accross the street, just what do you think you are looking at?"

In reality. That only works when you are a really good draw and better shot than the guy who got the drop on you. As i said before, criminals are bad shots, in general. If they get you in front of a barrel, though, there is not anything you can really do to turn that around in your favor. Go for your gun while one is against your head and they'll get your wallet and your gun.
How do you feel about mandatory armament? Requiring people to carry guns in the street might just do away with crime in general.

[Godstud]

Mandatory armament? retarded. Crimes would only be more violent as they'd shoot you first then rob your corpse, or make sure they had the jump on you as a gun to your head isn't going to allow you to go for yours. "They got the drop on you, Tex!" Also, when people are in danger most panic and you'll have people shot because they frightened someone or surprised them while only really wanting to ask the time.

I don't want to carry a gun. I don't carry enough cash to warrant anyone holding me up and I don't frequent any area where that type of thing would happen anyhow. You can avoid crime by just knowing where & when not to go to certain areas/places. If all the areas where you live are like that and you don't feel safe, then it's time to move.

[Dave]

How do you feel about mandatory armament? Requiring people to carry guns in the street might just do away with crime in general.

Mandatory armament is a good idea which any free society ought to adopt, but mandatory carrying is not. Not that carrying is a bad idea, it's just an excessive imposition on personal freedom. And to be vain, certain styles do not lend themselves to armament. Formal wear has no pockets and no internal space to carry a firearm, so that means black tie events are out.

[Huck]

Mandatory armament? retarded. Crimes would only be more violent as they'd shoot you first then rob your corpse, or make sure they had the jump on you as a gun to your head isn't going to allow you to go for yours. "They got the drop on you, Tex!" Also, when people are in danger most panic and you'll have people shot because they frightened someone or surprised them while only really wanting to ask the time.

True, but consider the fact that everyone else would have guns, also. If the criminal mugger had the drop on me they could be sure everyone had the drop on them. At the very least they'd have to have some huge gonads. I don't think it could happen, anyway, the liberals would want the government to buy them guns using the tax dollars of the rich and that straw would break the camel's back. Still, when I was in college I remember my terrorism class professor talking about areas in Israel at the time where weapons were mandatory for every adult man and woman in the street. I am sure it is an isolated circumstance, but the crime rate was touted to be near zero. The down side does not escape me, but is there an up-side to it?

Mandatory armament is a good idea which any free society ought to adopt, but mandatory carrying is not. Not that carrying is a bad idea, it's just an excessive imposition on personal freedom. And to be vain, certain styles do not lend themselves to armament. Formal wear has no pockets and no internal space to carry a firearm, so that means black tie events are out.

That is a good observation. It could lead to a new fashion-defense industry with jobs galore producing matching grips and accessories for the stylish but deadly, armed and hot. May I suggest the Walther P-380. James Bond might disagree with your formal-wear style points.

[Dave]

That is a good observation. It could lead to a new fashion-defense industry with jobs galore producing matching grips and accessories for the stylish but deadly, armed and hot. May I suggest the Walther P-380. James Bond might disagree with your formal-wear style points.

James Bond is usually wearing a tux in some seedy location, not hobnobbing with the Prince of Wales. In such a situation he'd never have enough room in his jacket to pack heat.

[Huck]

James Bond is usually wearing a tux in some seedy location, not hobnobbing with the Prince of Wales. In such a situation he'd never have enough room in his jacket to pack heat.

Touche'
Of course in movies, anything is possible, but i am sure you have a point.
So I guess pissant derringers and tiny 4-shot .22 caliber revolvers don't count? Nah, silly question, I know only big powerful guns count, why else would anyone have one?

[Godstud]

If gun carrying was mandatory I am sure that some shoulder-rig would be fashionable and fashion would work around the gun.
Lingerie with an assault rifle on a sling strikes me as sort of sexy.