I served in the Army. During my time as a soldier, I engaged in violence, and much of it involved the use of firearms. In the decades since I left the Army, I’ve been involved in several tense situations which could have escalated to violence but did not. In each case, the threat was terminated when the other party or parties realized that I was armed, and that the cost/benefit ratio of engaging with me was less favorable than had been expected. My having a gun resulted in non-violent ends to those encounters.
Not every bad guy will weigh the odds the same way, sometimes deterrence will fail, and force will have to be met with force, but so far, deterrence has worked for me.
Being armed isn’t for everyone, but it has its advantages for those willing to undertake the responsibility.
Since you’ve mentioned you welcome typo corrections: in “sometimes deference will fail” I think you meant deterrence rather than deference.
Also, excellent point that many people forget. Since incidents where the won’t-be* victim had a gun and therefore no violence happened almost never make the news, few people are fully aware of how often that happens.
* As opposed to the “would-be” victim.
Thanks for the proofreading. Corrected.
I hate autocorrupt—especially when it mangles words inconsistently.
I visited IL for the 4th. Since IL does not have CCL reciprocity with MI, I mde the hard decision to be unarmed for the first time in many years. At a home with family and at a party with 35-40 friends I still felt naked. It was just weird.