Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
In Balance Photography wrote:
I think the day that I think I need to carry a gun or mace or anything else like that to participate in photography is the day I sell my camera. You might as well stay home in bed then, as trouble can strike anywhere, even at home in bed.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
rp_photo wrote:
Maybe in the land of rainbows and unicorns. I've heard of that place. Isn't that were you eat the rainbows and poop butterflies?
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
fullmetalphotographer wrote:
I have no issue with gun ownership, but the last place a gun belongs is on a photo shoot. A right-minded CHL holder is armed whenever it is practical and legal, including photo shoots.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
Gabby57 wrote:
So, they came to shoot at the same spot, then acted restless waiting for you to finish. Granted they should have gone somewhere else to shoot or wait, but it seems a little odd for camera thieves to bring their own cameras. Makes sense to me.
Photographers aren't that great at sharing and watching out for each other, so it's easy to imagine hostility and distrust in such a situation.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
L Bass wrote:
If it's a bad neighborhood... .45 Colt 1991. If it's a REALLY bad neighborhood... I just bring an extra clip  Magazine, not clip 
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
DG at studio47 wrote:
I do inform models of anything that I carry and if they feel uncomfortable, they have the opportunity to decline the shoot. Do you offer that same option to others you meet and do business with while carrying? What makes models special?
If it's otherwise legal to carry, no one needs to be the wiser including models.
Photographer
-Ira
Posts: 2191
New York, New York, US
I simply use common sense.
Photographer
JC Strick
Posts: 713
Dalton, Georgia, US
Small Fruit Pits wrote:
Very foolish on your part, and perhaps you could use some added training?
There should be one constant for anyone who carries. If you get to the point of needing to pull, you shoot. Period.
You're lucky you didn't get into big trouble for brandishing your weapon. If you shoot someone after they give up, it is no longer a self defense shooting. It's homicide. Recent case: http://abcnews.go.com/US/defense-murder … KsfR4ZLgkM
A gun is a tool that is used to stop threats. If the threat stops after your weapon is drawn, your gun goes away. If it takes shooting them to stop the threat, that;s fine.
It's called "use of force continuum ". It's not only a training tactic and policy used by law enforcement, it's also used by DAs in court. See above linky.
Getting charged for brandishing a weapon in a self defense situation is an internet myth that started by Massad Ayoob. You know, the famous and popular expert trainer that tells gun carriers that simply pulling their pants up will get them shot by an unseen criminal.
Self defense is self defense. Rare exceptions are going to be in places like NYC or California. And even then, it's up to the DA or jury to press charges.
But given the weight of the two, I think I would rather risk a weapons charge over homicide.
YMMV, but gawd help ya if you make a hasty and wrong decision.
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
I see that none of the 'carriers' are yet to explain what they would do if the gang had more than one gun, something which, if their fear of other humanity is a reality, is more likely than their 'opponents' being unarmed.
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
David Parsons wrote:
It really isn't any worse here than anywhere else in the world. The same problems exist here as everywhere else. Precisely, so how is it that the massive majority of humanity manage to safely go about their daily life without having a gun. Some people need to remove their fixation and 'enhancement'.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
90% of the "Advice" in this thread is misinformation; inaccurate garbage. That amount of misinformation roughly corresponds to the amount of misinformation posted by uninformed persons regarding "Copyright".
Some Facts About Concealed Carry of Weapons (CCW):
In 49 states, it is possible to get a CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) permit. Of those states, 39 have "Shall Issue" laws. Shall Issue essentially means that any person who meets residency requirements, passes a background check (State & FBI), attends a course of instruction (not required in all states), and passes a proficiency test to determine that he/she is proficient in gun handling and safety (not required in all states or may be waived by some states if the applicant already holds a license in a state where the course and proficiency have been passed). Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Washington have no training/safety certification requirement.
Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island are "May Issue" states. In these states local law enforcement may decide upon who is granted and who is not granted a permit to carry concealed weapons.
Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. These states also allow the open carry of a handgun without a permit. ("A big iron on the hip")
Many states have laws setting certain areas "off limits" to carrying a concealed weapon. These may include schools, places where alcohol is served, theaters/concerts, and several other special locations. Military bases have some of the strictest laws governing carrying weapons. For the most part, those rules are the jurisdiction of the base commander.
The State of Texas conducted a study of crime(s) committed by holders of CCW permits. DUI was the most frequent offense. In general, CCW permit holders were 13 times less likely to commit a crime of any sort than the general population that did not hold CCW permits.
Should everybody carry concealed. Of course not. Some folks are just plain uncomfortable around any kind of firearms. Such individuals should not carry weapons, concealed or otherwise. Anyone who considers getting a CCW permit should give very careful consideration and be very familiar with the laws regarding concealed carry, self defense, and the use of lethal force. Even stricter consideration must be given to the moral issues regarding the use of lethal force.
Most states have held that lethal force is not justified in the protection of personal property. As more than one person has mentioned in this thread (spot on) - property can be insured and/or replaced; A human life can not be replaced.
Anyone who carries, or considers carrying, on a (photo) shoot or elsewhere should have the necessary training and skill in the use of firearms, clear knowledge of laws regarding self defense and use of force in the area where they operate, and a well thought out plan of action for situations which they might expect to encounter.
The average response time for a 911 call in the US is 4-6 min. In some areas, you can be "on hold" that long before your call is even taken. The average time for a trained, armed citizen to draw a weapon is less than 5 seconds. A person who possesses a legal weapon and the skill, knowledge and training in its use can definitely be a force for the good guys (and girls).
Photographer
JC Strick
Posts: 713
Dalton, Georgia, US
photoimager wrote:
I see that none of the 'carriers' are yet to explain what they would do if the gang had more than one gun, something which, if their fear of other humanity is a reality, is more likely than their 'opponents' being unarmed. Well, contrary to what many here seem to think; once a weapon is drawn, the criminals scatter like roaches.
We're not talking about movies with bad-assed '70s west coast biker gangs here. We're talking about common thugs and criminals.
Youtube is filled with gang shootings caught on video and they will all show this happening. Thug shoots - other thugs run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhqONyO5c24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8KmmCzcyzQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo911Me … re=related
Photographer
Retinal Candy
Posts: 135
Denver, Colorado, US
Scrap that Canon, get a Nikon. Then, you've already got a weapon in your hands... 
Photographer
JC Strick
Posts: 713
Dalton, Georgia, US
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
The average time for a trained, armed citizen to draw a weapon is less than 5 seconds Good post but I think you are mistaken with the above.
granted, I'm not sure what study you're referencing... but 5 seconds is a long time to just draw.
I thinks you're thinking about the FBI study that shows most shootings happen in under 5 seconds (or whatever the exact time is).
IDPA/USPSA shooters can average 1 to 2 seconds from draw to fire. And that's taking the time needed for scored shots. That extra pause will not happen in a close range shooting.
Photographer
Shot By Adam
Posts: 8095
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
I have a few handguns but my one of choice is my .44 magnum with the 6" barrel on it. Models always love posing with it and it's one helluva deterrent to anyone.
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
rp_photo wrote:
How did that work out as far as last year's London riots?
Had the perps know that there was a good chance citizens were armed and willing to fight back, they might not have started any trouble in the first place.
I can say with confidence that something like that would never go to far in Texas. Assuming that firearms could be legally bought and carried, the result would have been that even more people would have died because the rioters would have also come armed. Most of the 'perps' as you call them had no prior criminal records and were average citizens who suddenly decided to go and have a bit of 'fun' at the tax-payers' expense. The Court Records regarding those prosecuted for offenses committed during the riots prove this
Stupidest post I've read on this form in ages - and there are a lot of stupid posts.
Guys - you live in the US which you've all decided is so unsafe you need firearms to protect yourselves - for the most part, Europeans don't.
There it is. I make no judgements on that BTW. I nearly moved to Detroit earlier this year and I too would have armed myself, as we'd have been mostly working in the run-down parts of the city.
Because firearms are not readily available here - even to criminals, who know that using them or even carrying them will add many years to any sentence passed - most crimes are committed without firearms. Firearms are generally used when dealing with other criminals. Thieves know better (i.e. safer for them) ways of stealing. The idea is to get the loot without risking confrontation, so empty cars, houses etc offer more attractive prospects that accosting unknown people in remote places.
Theft of camera eqpt. on location - which is what we're talking about here - can be avoided by taking extra people with you. Opportunist robbers seldom travel in gangs (here) despite what you might think. In the event that they do - you have insurance.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
A person who possesses a legal weapon and the skill, knowledge and training in its use can definitely be a force for the good guys (and girls). The problem, and inherent contradiction, resides in the simple fact that - according to your long-winded factoids - there are places where skill, knowledge and training are completely irrelevant.
"Force for the good guys"? Really? Does the permit come with a cape, goggles and a booklet of snappy one-liners?
As I've already stated... I support concealed carry and gun ownership. However, I question anyone who views themselves (or others) as crusaders for the force of "good" through their concealed weapons.
Anyone, even with proper permit, who un-holsters a gun is asking for liability. Those who endorse carrying during shoots: are any of you willing to kill over camera gear? To me, it seems the line in the sand between "hero" and "deviant" is a bit muddy.
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
RKD Photographic wrote:
Guys - you live in the US which you've all decided is so unsafe you need firearms to protect yourselves - for the most part, Europeans don't. The right to bear arms is one of our founding rights. The intent behind that right has changed over the years, but I can tell you this much: I wouldn't want to live in a country where the most powerful gun I could legally own came with a pump.
RKD Photographic wrote:
criminals, who know that using them or even carrying them will add many years to any sentence passed - most crimes are committed without firearms. It's the same way here...
RKD Photographic wrote:
Firearms are generally used when dealing with other criminals. Thieves know better (i.e. safer for them) ways of stealing. The idea is to get the loot without risking confrontation, so empty cars, houses etc offer more attractive prospects that accosting unknown people in remote places. Again... it's the same way here. Professional thieves NEVER pack when they're creeping for your goodies. It's just more jail time if they get caught.
Our biggest problems with gun violence revolve around drugs and gangs.
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
William Kious wrote:
The right to bear arms is one of our founding rights. The intent behind that right has changed over the years, but I can tell you this much: I wouldn't want to live in a country where the most powerful gun I could legally own came with a pump. I understand that and despite appearances, I'm a big fan of gun-ownership - as long as the owners are honest about why they own a gun...
I 'like' shooting, but I don't 'need' a gun - especially around the house. I think a lot of gun owners excuse the purchase of firearms by citing the threat of home invasion by armed crims, or street muggings. Home invasions by armed thugs simply doesn't happen that often (though they do occur) and muggings can be avoided by not going to certain places at certain times of the day.
Guns - pistols especially - are 'shiny kit' and as men (who account for most gun ownership), we have never really needed an excuse to own shiny kit... Just buy what you want, but be honest about why you're buying - it's because you 'want' it - not because you 'need' it.
As I said earlier, I nearly moved to the US this year and already had contacted the local PD with a view to getting my firearms certification sorted out (alien workers can own firearms legally as well as long as a few requirements are met).
My 'virtual' locker contained a S&W 1911PD .45ACP, a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm and an M-4 in 5.56mm. And that was just to start with.
None of those would have been purchased with the expectation of needing to defend hearth and home, but because I 'wanted' them and was legally allowed to own them. I would probably have 'carried' to and from my place of work, but that's because I would have been working in a total shit-hole (which in other circumstances I would have avoided) and I'm not a complete idiot.
Photographer
In Balance Photography
Posts: 3378
Boston, Massachusetts, US
rp_photo wrote:
You might as well stay home in bed then, as trouble can strike anywhere, even at home in bed. That's alarmist. While trouble can strike anywhere at anytime what's the probability of it occurring ?
Manage the probabilities ....
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
In Balance Photography wrote:
That's alarmist. While trouble can strike anywhere at anytime what's the probability of it occurring ?
Manage the probabilities .... LA street gangs routinely have pitched gun-battles at the end of my bed at night... don't mock - it happens...
Photographer
Extreme Photo
Posts: 215
Des Moines, Iowa, US
rp_photo wrote:
A right-minded CHL holder is armed whenever it is practical and legal, including photo shoots. Everthing you say makes perfect sense.
I got my Concealed Carry Permit last year as soon as Iowa became a 'will issue' state, and carry my SCCY CPX2 9mm almost all the time.
Photographer
Bradley Hall
Posts: 47
Nitro, West Virginia, US
being in wv I have a carry concealed permit and I carry a 40 cal pistol 39 states will let you get permits and will honor anothers states carry permits
Photographer
In Balance Photography
Posts: 3378
Boston, Massachusetts, US
RKD Photographic wrote:
LA street gangs routinely have pitched gun-battles at the end of my bed at night... don't mock - it happens... You must have one hell of a comfy bed to warrant such competition for it! Is it a posturepedic?
Photographer
Darkroomist
Posts: 2097
Saginaw, Michigan, US
1dm wrote:
Its funny you are the last person to comment, and it happens to be about the place I was just about to talk about. I was there at the plant months ago and had an issue with the local "thugs" that wanted to cause trouble.
...
I want to say that carrying a gun in this situation stopped anything else from happening.
...
Do what you want but know that I carry, and if done correctly it's not a bad idea for you to carry either. If anyone needs help with learning how to get a concealed carry permit, along with classes to use a gun. Contact me and I will point you in the right direction. See here's the thing I worry about a little. If you were caught in the Packard Plant by the cops they *could possibly* pop you for "entering without breaking" if they were feeling mean. That would kill your CPL for 8 years. But on the plus side having a CPL card on you proves you've got a pretty clean record on the spot and there are sooo many statistics on how CCW licensees are less likely to commit a crime, they are actually less likely to be charged with one. It's like a "we're not the droids you're looking for" suggestion. Plus they know a licensee must have a fairly clean record so if they're charged with small or medium infractions they'd minimally be able to plead them down. So I suppose the net risk, even of being charged if caught urbexing is reduced.
Photographer
FullMetalPhotographer
Posts: 2797
Fresno, California, US
rp_photo wrote:
A right-minded CHL holder is armed whenever it is practical and legal, including photo shoots. Like I said, I'd send them home. I have to think about everyone's safety. Most gun owners are not combat trained. So I don't care what permit they have. I have been to shootouts and bullets don't know the good guys from the bad guys.
Photographer
JAE
Posts: 2207
West Chester, Pennsylvania, US
I use a rocket launcher as my weapon of choice.
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
JC Strick wrote:
Good post but I think you are mistaken with the above.
granted, I'm not sure what study you're referencing... but 5 seconds is a long time to just draw.
I thinks you're thinking about the FBI study that shows most shootings happen in under 5 seconds (or whatever the exact time is).
IDPA/USPSA shooters can average 1 to 2 seconds from draw to fire. And that's taking the time needed for scored shots. That extra pause will not happen in a close range shooting. By trained, armed citizen, I had in mind the average person who has had the basic training for concealed carry. Competitive shooters should have draw to fire times of 0.8 sec or less, and should not miss a close target.
Model
V Laroche
Posts: 2746
Khowmeyn, Markazī, Iran
I carry pepper spray everywhere. I have never had to use it. Did you know you can bring it on airplanes?
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 3450
Sisters, Oregon, US
William Kious wrote:
The problem, and inherent contradiction, resides in the simple fact that - according to your long-winded factoids - there are places where skill, knowledge and training are completely irrelevant.
"Force for the good guys"? Really? Does the permit come with a cape, goggles and a booklet of snappy one-liners?
As I've already stated... I support concealed carry and gun ownership. However, I question anyone who views themselves (or others) as crusaders for the force of "good" through their concealed weapons.
Anyone, even with proper permit, who un-holsters a gun is asking for liability. Those who endorse carrying during shoots: are any of you willing to kill over camera gear? To me, it seems the line in the sand between "hero" and "deviant" is a bit muddy. Well, I do have a cape, as a matter of fact, but I'm far from a "Crusader". I use the cape for shooting Vampire themed photos and movies. No goggles though, but I do have some fake vampire teeth.
Most of the people who carry concealed that I know (that's quite a few, actually) are good people. Let's call them the "Good Guys". They carry to protect themselves, friends, loved ones, family, etc from "bad guys". If you accept that set of circumstances, then the use of a weapon in self defense by a good guy is a positive stroke for good. Maybe you don't believe that there are people that are pure evil in the world. I happen to believe that and have actually met a few of them.
For sure, there are times when some good fortune is needed along with skill and training, but I don't think for a minute that skill and training are irrelevant. That's just BS.
Photographer
1dm
Posts: 28
Sylvania, Ohio, US
JMX Photography wrote:
See here's the thing I worry about a little. If you were caught in the Packard Plant by the cops they *could possibly* pop you for "entering without breaking" if they were feeling mean. That would kill your CPL for 8 years. But on the plus side having a CPL card on you proves you've got a pretty clean record on the spot and there are sooo many statistics on how CCW licensees are less likely to commit a crime, they are actually less likely to be charged with one. It's like a "we're not the droids you're looking for" suggestion. Plus they know a licensee must have a fairly clean record so if they're charged with small or medium infractions they'd minimally be able to plead them down. So I suppose the net risk, even of being charged if caught urbexing is reduced. I agree with what you have said, and understand that an officer could charge someone but the location is more of an "open" environment that is less likely to have issues with.
Photographer
In Its Own Way
Posts: 165
Fort Wayne, Indiana, US
You just have to pick the right model to shoot with, I recently read one model's port (who had been on here for less than a month) who said she didn't shoot with anyone without her "security team" being with her. She didn't specify how many traveled with her or what caliber of automatic weapons they carried. Gee, I can't imagine why she only had self shot camera phone photos in her port.
Seriously though, I agree with the others who suggested insurance for your gear.
Using Mace against a group of thugs will likely just escalate a simple robbery into a violent assault, I would not use it under those circumstances even if I had it.
Both Indiana and Florida are "shall issue" states which means it is relatively easy to get a concealed carry permit but a decision to carry a lethal weapon carries with it a whole lot more responsibility and soul searching than many people realize. It is not just a matter of buying a gun, obtaining a carry permit and learning HOW to shoot it. A person really needs to know WHEN to use it (i.e. it is not a prop that you pull on someone to scare them off). I STRONGLY encourage anyone who pursues a concealed carry permit to get properly trained before they begin carrying.
Photographer
Flex Photography
Posts: 6471
Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Let your assistant handle it...! ![https://www.freewebs.com/kazzer4u/back_off_doberman_rebel_flag.gif]()
Photographer
photoimager
Posts: 5164
Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom
photoimager wrote:
I see that none of the 'carriers' are yet to explain what they would do if the gang had more than one gun, something which, if their fear of other humanity is a reality, is more likely than their 'opponents' being unarmed. Still not had any of the 'gun toters' come back on this one, maybe because they know they would not be on the 'winning side'. It therefore confirms that, despite their protestations, in the scenario of the OP, carrying a gun will not help. Eventually some people might stop waving things around and start using their head.
This guy didn't need a gun to fend off an armed mugger:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2 … punch.html
Photographer
William Kious
Posts: 8842
Delphos, Ohio, US
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Most of the people who carry concealed that I know (that's quite a few, actually) are good people. Let's call them the "Good Guys". They carry to protect themselves, friends, loved ones, family, etc from "bad guys". If you accept that set of circumstances, then the use of a weapon in self defense by a good guy is a positive stroke for good. Self-defense that includes the self, friends, loved-ones, family... I find it interesting how you delineated those things.
Yes, carrying a weapon could, given a very specific set of circumstances, save lives. I'm not disputing that fact. However, how many people with their concealed carry permit are going to be met with those specific circumstances? OR be in the right place at the right time to pull their weapon to respond to those circumstances?
Face it... most of your "good guys" who carry guns do so for reasons other than self protection. If a bad guy's desire is to outright kill/maim, he can do so before the card carrying victim could even pull the weapon out of the holster.
Light and Lens Studio wrote:
Maybe you don't believe that there are people that are pure evil in the world. I happen to believe that and have actually met a few of them. You met pure evil and didn't kill it? Really?
Here's the thing... who are you to decide the difference between good, evil and "pure evil"? Last I checked, "identifying evil" wasn't part of the training program.
Photographer
Glenn Liam Kelly
Posts: 42
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Damn It.
Now I'm listening to Queen.
Photographer
JC Strick
Posts: 713
Dalton, Georgia, US
photoimager wrote:
Still not had any of the 'gun toters' come back on this one, maybe because they know they would not be on the 'winning side'. It therefore confirms that, despite their protestations, in the scenario of the OP, carrying a gun will not help. Eventually some people might stop waving things around and start using their head.
This guy didn't need a gun to fend off an armed mugger:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2 … punch.html Look again
Photographer
Robert Beilke
Posts: 10
Temecula, California, US
Guss W wrote:
Guss W wrote:
...
A study of those who drew a gun in defense showed that only 24 percent of them fired it. Simply displaying a weapon is usually good enough to exert a calming effect. In only about a third of the cases where a shot was fired was the aggressor wounded, so some of the 24% of shooting response may have been just warnings. So no - you should not always draw with the intent of firing. Yes, each situation is unique, but re-think your defaults. In Florida, there would not be a problem. California is a problem state. Anywhere, you don't just draw and shoot unless the situation calls for it. If you have the opportunity for controlled escalation, it's only proper to go that route. I thought that was what I said haha..you don't draw and shoot unless the situation calls for it. And you don't draw unless you shoot. Controlled escalation is fine, just don't do it with a gun. There's a reason police officers carry mace, tasers, and then guns as a last resort. What happens when the cops show up, and the guy claims you're a psycho who pulled out his gun for no reason and threatened him, or that you were the one trying to commit armed robbery on him through assault with a deadly weapon? All they really know for sure is that you have a gun, which corroborates the bad guy's story. The rest is he said she said.
Photographer
SKITA Studios
Posts: 1572
Boston, Massachusetts, US
photoimager wrote:
Precisely, so how is it that the massive majority of humanity manage to safely go about their daily life without having a gun. Some people need to remove their fixation and 'enhancement'. Why do some people have fire extinguishers in their homes when the fire department can come put it out if it happens? It's just a form of insurance for some people. Doesn't mean it's wrong or right...just preparedness "in case" because the police can't always get to you in time (in the US, it's supposedly an average of 20min after the 911 call).
Ditto mace being useless against a gang...they'll just get ticked and beat you up harder :-P
It's best to get out of range when you sense danger. Even if you had a gun and used it, you're out $100K in legal fees and months in court (something the anti-gun folks always fail to mention as a huge incentive for responsible people not to get trigger happy)...it's always a last resort...
Photographer
JQuest
Posts: 2452
Syracuse, New York, US
Why do some people have fire extinguishers in their homes when the fire department can come put it out if it happens? It's just a form of insurance for some people. Umm False equivalency much? People have fire extinguishers in their homes to deal with small residential fires so they don't need to call the fire department. People have guns in their homes because they hunt, target shoot, collect them, for protection, or any other number of reasons.
I can't think of any instance where a home owner would use a gun as an "insurance policy" where the authorities would still not be called, preferably before, but most definitely after.
As to the OP, I have to believe the best offense in the posited situation would have been dial 911. I personally would have had to assume if I had a gun with me that the gang would have have had a minimum of one and probably more. The problem with concealed carry in public, is that they're concealed, and once they start getting pulled it could be difficult to discern who the antagonists are, especially if you pull yours first.
|
