A friend of mine was mugged at gun point this past weekend. I won't get into the details, but they are all fine except for losing their cell phones, wallets, etc. In hearing about this it got me to thinking about the debates about gun control laws and conceal carry laws. So I found myself wondering what would be different about this event has my friend been carrying a gun.

Basically you figure there's one of five outcomes here:

1. Friend keeps gun concealed and the situation remains as it unfolded here, a little violated, but no significant harm
2. Friend pulls out gun and wounds or kills the robber and friends remain unharmed and get to keep their phones and wallets
3. Friend pulls out gun and is himself shot, or his friends are shot and robber gets away
4. Robber gets shot and friend and his cohorts get shot.  Call this the Tarantino option. 
5. The incident never happens because the robber assumes that they are armed and leaves them alone

First of all, we can rule out #5 because where this happened is a state that permits carrying of concealed firearms. So clearly whatever deterrence value that existed has already played out before this happened. 

So moving beyond that it seems to me that you're probably better off not having a gun in this case.  The crime was a theft of property and, while that sucks, you can get a new cell phone, and wallet.  Your credit cards can be replaced.  Whatever cash you had  is lost, but in the grand scheme you can probably move on with your life. 

On the other hand, if you have a gun, it immensely complicates the situation.  First of all, even if you chose not to use it, it's possible the criminal will notice that you have one, panic, and start firing.  Furthermore, being a conceal carry state, the criminal is going to need to be all the more alert for the presence of a gun.  It also increases the likelihood that they are themselves carrying a gun because they don't want to bring a knife to a potential gun fight.

Now, to continue the scenario, if you pull the gun, it's very likely that somebody is going to get shot.  If you're lucky or talented, it's just the criminal, but if you're unlucky or untalented it's you, or your friends that get shot.  Even if you are lucky in this scenario, you still have to deal with the police investigation that comes with dead or wounded people.  If you get mugged, you're clearly the innocent party, but if there's an exchange of gunfire, you're going to get a lot more scrutiny even if you were in the right. 

So that's what happens if you're lucky, but there's a decent chance that when you go for your gun, the criminal fires, hits you, and you don't hit him.  If he's reasonably self aware then he knows he's looking at murder or at least attempted murder with multiple witnesses.  So at this point he may decide he's better off going for multiple homicides and making sure there's no witnesses. 

I suppose that, yes, there's the chance that the criminal is just bat shit crazy and will shoot you anyhow.  It seems to me though that while it might, in theory, give you a fighting chance, the risks that come attached to having the gun at all likely outweigh that fighting chance scenario.  A criminal coming to take your wallet wants your wallet, not a murder rap. 

I'm not saying this means we need to repeal the 2nd amendment or need tighter gun control laws.  But I continue to question the overall wisdom of conceal carry laws.  It seems to me that the situations where you're better off having a gun on you are relatively rare against the risks that come with having it.  Furthermore, it encourages criminals to arm themselves to insure that they can deal with people who are themselves armed.