= new reply since forum marked as read
and now I feel like a jackass 
Oh well. Not the first time!
Despite warnings I often see on the Net I have yet to encounter an instance in which a hold up man called the police to report his intended victim threatened to shoot him. Thugs do not want to come into contact with the police. They may already be wanted or realize chances are good they have been identified in a recent robbery. Or what ever. They are not going to call the police if you draw on them.
Supposed two guys are approaching you in a parking lot and do the classic fan out maneuver. You indicate you have a weapon by clearing your gun hand and fanning your jacket at them. They are not discouraged. DRAW!
I am not saying you should pull your gun out, assume a Weaver stance, and scream "That's close enough motherfuckers!" What I am saying is draw your gun and hold it beside your leg as you start to move to cover. I am very fond of telephone poles. Anything will do though. They will see this. They will remember they have to be somewhere else. They will not call the police.
Then you can just put your gun back in the holster and go back to whatever you were doing like nothing happened. Why? Because nothing did happen. A happening is when shots are fired.
Do not hesitate to draw. If you are somewhere you are supposed to be and someone appears who is not supposed to be there like a closed business show him the end of your gun. Could it be Mother Teresa looking for her lost cat behind your closed business? No it is some motherfucker up to no good. He won't call the police to report he was prowling a location when a guy ran him off.
When to shoot
The time to shoot is immediately upon seeing his weapon. You are not a police man who has to try to arrest the guy. No need to scream at him. No exposure while you yell for him to drop the gun.
In deer hunting the experienced hunter takes the first good shot. May not be the perfect shot but it never is. Novices pass up a doable shot waiting for a better shot and then the deer is gone. Take the first good shot you are offered. Hopefully your alertness and hostile cues will prevent you ever having to fire. But once you see his weapon, shoot.
If a guy is coming at you with a gun in his hand shoot him. Shoot him right then. If you don't shoot first you may not shoot at all. I have known more than one person who was shot and received life changing injuries and also shot their attacker. Their only regret was not shooting sooner. Like Bill Jordan said "Nothing disturbs your enemy's aim like a slug delivered to the belt buckle area".
So basically this guy tells you to put yourself in dangerous situations and escalate them without cause. Real smart. This is the type of gun nut shit that will get you a terroristic threatening, assault or manslaughter charge. Furthermore, if there are two guys and you've pulled your gun they're just as likely to shoot you because you pulled and get off on the charge.
Like I could outrun anybody.
So now I'm attacked from behind, shoved onto the ground at a high speed, and they're unhappy because I made them run before they could rob me. AND... assuming I have a gun, how the hell am I going to draw it now? Simple. I can't. So rather than confronting them from a standing position with a drawn gun, I'm face down, being kicked and robbed, and letting them steal my gun.
Not good..
Of course, if I do that, you get to say a)"See, carrying a gun didn't help you!", b)"See, you just armed another criminal", and possibly c)"See, your own gun just go turned on yourself". And if I stand up, you get to say d)"See, you're just escalating things".
But you won't say e)"Gee, it looks like you were right to be worried about being assaulted on the street".
This article ascribes motives to an "enemy" that frankly sounds like code for black and brown people in the hood. It's a work of fiction by a paranoid, possibly ex-law enforcement officer who offers no real practical solution to a problem that probably will not occur - your average white toting suburbanite being approached in formation by a group of menacing presumably dark skinned individuals. I'm sorry krispos42 but this is pure fantasy and useless given that most criminals are not going to try and rob a healthy white armed male. They're going to go after an easy target, which is exactly what rational choice theory tells us, but instead we've got this right-wing nincompoop entertaining your Dirtiest Harry fantasies. "Go ahead punk, make my day" 
It's not going to happen like that, trust me, I went to ghetto public school, my high school was like 3% white. I think I know how to deal with situations like this and pulling your gun and shooting someone in cold blood is just about the same as throwing a rock at a group of bullies - it's stupid chump move and is going to cause you nothing but trouble - flight whenever possible is preferable to conflict. I'm not saying run, I'm saying keep on fucking walking with a smile on your face, keep your distance yeah, but challenging them to a fucking duel is stupid.
I hope the asshat who wrote this got thrown off the force and stripped of his pension; ratfucker. 
I'm not saying that; I'm simply saying that if you take his own argument of criminality - it disproportionately implies minorities. That's just sociological fact. Let's not pretend the average white dude in the suburbs doesn't think dark when he reads something like that.
---------
Once a man starts armed robbing he has crossed a line most won't. Don't forget that when you are looking these bastards in the eye. Their decision to kill you is already made. Your life means nothing to him. Only his does. His sole motivation for not killing you is he doesn't want a murder case. He has already accepted he may pick one up though.
We hunt hold up men around the clock once they are identified. We send teams of fire breathing fence jumper/door kickers to find them. We will bring their mother to the office and convince her she is going to jail if we don't have Junior in our office in an hour. We have her call her son crying hysterically for him to turn himself in before she is arrested and held without bond as a material witness and her home seized for harboring him. Most of the time they won't. Fuck their own momma.
We will hit all Juniors friends and family's houses. We make it so no one will harbor him. He is so hot no one will let him in their house or even talk on the phone with him. We put money on him so he knows he is right to be betrayed and set up. We do this because of one thing.
That thing is they WILL kill someone if they keep robbing. That is why the city is willing to pay all the overtime. They don't want the murders. Think about that when you see Junior coming. The more robberies he does the closer he is to killing someone. Maybe you.
The guys who hit you on the street are gang members. They are Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, Crips, Sureonos, many others. They do not see themselves as part of society. The street is all they know. They don't expect to live long or stay out of prison. They take a delight in your fear and suffering. They are warped individuals for the most part. They can be extremely dangerous.
He all but says he's talking about dark-skinned people. It may or may not be statistically accurate, but all the dog-whistle rhetoric is there. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about your average white suburbanite toter - this whole rant is designed to play upon his fears and fantasies. It's rather pathetic.
The author is likely a racist Republican prick.
What the author is discussing is suburbanite fear and paranoia. He didn't put his name on it. This is the internet you do realize right? People make shit up all the time. Hey I know a Nigerian prince who wants to give you money
Name a white street gang that is not a White supremacist group. I think you're going to have to reconsider what is meant by "street gang" or you're just going to have to admit the terms are loaded with a sizable amount of cultural baggage.
I'm clarifying my question so you can understand it better. That's not moving the goal posts. I said street gang - most sociologists think you're talking apples and oranges when you discuss street gangs vs. biker gangs vs. drug gangs. They may all be fruit, but they're not the same. Furthermore, you're not being honest when you say that when the author uses such language he's trying to get you to imagine biker gangs or La Costra Nosa.
I'm sorry, I don't live in a post-racial world. I live in a world where the racial dimensions of culture are a social fact. "As I said before you should look up psychological projection." -
It is no coincidence the author doesn't list biker gangs or Neo-Nazi skinheads in his list:
I suggest you take some sociology courses homeboy...
...but it does immediately imply. How often do you read about White people being robbed by Skinheads?
Thank you for acknowledge that race is a social fact in any discussion of gangs.
I think that cop was yanking your chain. I think you're story actually shows why simply stating that a person by virtue of being a police officer does not make one an expert in and of itself.
Don't be such a sucker dude. 
Honestly, being shot for just wearing the wrong color is pretty rare, and for a white dude in an Air Force uniform.
It's like saying don't eat fish, you could choke on a bone.
"Most biker gangs aren't race based but their still as violent and dangerous as the ones that are."
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/10/24/mongols-indictment-details-motorcycles-gang%E2%80%99s-racism-alleged-crimes/
The Hells Angels are almost exclusively white. The Latin Kings are massively Hispanic dominated. Doesn't prove your point at all; in fact it rather proves my point that White street gangs beyond Neo-Nazis are non-existent. As soon as we start talking about street gangs in the 21st century, we are immediately talking to an extent about ethnic youth gangs. To posit anything else is to reveal a deep state of denialism about the basics of criminology. Hundreds of full length academic studies have been written that accept the basic fact that when we start talking about street gangs we are talking about ethnic youth gangs that most of the time put great importance on race.
You're so far off base I've really got to wonder. How dare you accuse me of racial bigotry when you post garbage like this OP.
Fuckin' DUH...... 
I accused the author of falling into the trap of racial rhetoric and questioned how people could not see it. I made no accusation of racism. I do not level that charge lightly. 
4 gave no-explanation. 
...and is relevant to this conversation. You then implied I was "racially biased" for seeing how many people would construe racial connotations from this article.
I even bolded some of the particular passages where racially charged language came into play. Try posting something like this is GD and see what response you get.
Done with this conversation.
That's a real high ratio. When the author ascribes street robberies to those living in slums, ghettos, and belonging to gangs he's not talking about skinheads, biker gangs, or the Russian mob.
At similar rates? If we're going to correlate street crime with gang membership, race is going to be a contingent correlative. I don't think there's any reason to believe someone who writes in such a way isn't White - he refers to street gang members as "the enemy." I'm pretty good at figuring these things out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/124019737#post63 - I'm frickin' psychic. - no but really everyone has tells in their writing style that suggest facets of identity:
The main claim of this book is that writing is an act of identity in which people align themselves with socio-culturally shaped subject positions, and thereby play their part in reproducing or challenging dominant practices and discourses, and the values, beliefs and interests which they embody. The first part of the book reviews recent understandings of social identity, of the discoursal construction of identity, of literacy and identity, and of issues of identity in research on academic writing. The main part of the book is based on a collaborative research project about writing and identity with mature-age students, providing:
• a case study of one writer’s dilemmas over the presentation of self;
• a discussion of the way in which writers’ life histories shape their presentation of self in writing;
• an interview-based study of issues of ownership, and of accommodation and resistance to conventions for the presentation of self;
• linguistic analysis of the ways in which multiple, often contradictory, interests, values, beliefs and practices are inscribed in discourse conventions, which set up a range of possibilities for self-hood for writers.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Writing-and-Identity/Roz-Ivanic/e/9781556193231/
Vitually the same in Parris Island. Our drill intructors would if necessary differentiate by shade of green. In the 1st week, our Forming phase D.I. referred to me as "light green" (white, a black Marine was "dark green"
. At first I didn't have a clue what he was talking about, so I glanced down at my utilities to check if they were a lighter shade that the others. I'm assuming it was that plus the puzzled look on my face that caused the other D.I. watching me to let out a laugh. After it was obvious I didn't understand the reference, the senior D.I. explained it to us.
They're not viewed as different despite a long history of discrimination? You're making this a more complex sociological argument than it needs to be; the basic question is are the Irish seen as a having a different social identity from the norm of Boston WASP society? You're telling me that Boston doesn't have a social hierarchy based on race and neighborhood?
Thank you. 
Short of that, escalating the situation by drawing an arm and screaming "that's close enough motherfuckers" is generally a bad idea. The goal should be to avoid conflict and until there is no choice because an imminent threat is presented should a firearm be drawn.
"The unfortunate truth is that if a robber or robbers have targeted you for a stickup, you're probably going to be the last person to know, and avoidance has a pretty good chance of being impossible."
Which just demonstrates how absurd this whole article is in presuming that criminals aren't going use the most advantageous approach possible rather giving you ample opportunity to either escape or draw a firearm. I have a lot of experience in confrontational situations and never once did I ever experience any situation in which unilateral escalation was wise. This article is a joke in my opinion.
Do you think it engages in race-baiting?
There's assaults and muggins in rural and suburban America, too, although the perception (and probably the reality) in urban areas is that the attackers are generally black or latino. Of course, urban centers are generally black and latino in general, so odds are that both the attacker(s) and the bystanders will be black or latino.
Probably the perception you're looking for is that of Suburban White Person from Mostly White Suburbia (i.e., me )who commuted to the city, or goes their for business or recreation or for medical purposes and gets targeted by the local muggers because a) SWP is not local and b) SWP looks affluent.
The side-effect of learning to carry a gun and use it in self-defense is that you retain more situational awareness in general (the weight of the gun on your hip is a constant reminder of your potential), so you would probably either not be in the situation in the first place, or be aware and ready in advance. Perhaps able to avoid being alone, moving into a store, calling the cops, grabbing a taxi or bus, etc.
And let's not forget that a lot of criminals are young and stupid. This can give you an edge in being able to dis-arm them or arm yourself. And, of course, a fair amount of crime occurs where you aren't the target, but rather on the periphery, such as a convenience-store robbery.
As to your confrontations in the past, well, without more information I can't comment, really. There's a difference between a verbal fight (perhaps political?) with a stranger, and somebody tailing you to your car in order to carjack you.
"BurnedOutLEO" - is probably not a LEO anymore. I wonder why...
I could probably dig up "seasoned street cop" saying exactly the opposite. What this guy is saying to do is unlawful.
...and then shooting a person who very well may be drawing in self-defense. But let's not let that rain on Pave's "cite please" parade.
is truly astounding, isn't it?
...so now you're the cover guy for soldier of fortune? I'm sorry but that has has nothing to do with promoting unlawful behavior *in the United States of America* - damn dude, at least I don't self-flagellate myself trying to justify pro-gun nut propaganda. You don't like it put me on ignore.
I'll keep doing this. There are enough racial dog-whistles in this post to make Newt Gingrich pant.
...there is no prohibition on the linking of right-wing material at DU.
Just goes to show the nexus of right-wing politics and the "gun rights" movement.
You don't want to provoke a confrontation with and then shoot down "the enemy" SecularMotion? What are you a commie liberal loving bigot who would make the liberty loving vanguard of the Second Amendment movement into second-class citizens? 