Yeah you see, I always saw carrying a gun making things more dangerous. For example I see three scenarios:

> You don't have a gun
> You get mugged
> They steal your wallet

> You have a gun
> You get mugged
> You go to pull your gun
> They think "Oh shit he has a gun!" and shoot you
> You die
> They steal your wallet and gun

or the fantasy roleplay
> You have a gun
> You get mugged
> You pull out your gun, Quick Draw McGraw and shoot the muggers dead before they can react
> You end up in therapy because you took a human life
> The psychiatrist steals everything in your wallet.

This assumes that you are an idiot who draws even when it is objectively retarded to do so.

A wallet will never be worth the court case, even if it is the clearest cut self defense.

A mugger with a gun is the best case scenario. Statistically, you have the highest survival chance whether or not you are armed. They would rather not shoot you and feel that they can safely make demands without further show of force. Give wallet and leave.

Muggers with lesser weapons are legitimately dangerous because they sometimes feel the need to make a further show of force by either intimidation or attack. Injuries and deaths in these situations are far more likely for both parties. Armed victims possess a small survival advantage over unarmed. Armed and dumb victims are at a survival disadvantage. Armed and smart or trained victims enjoy a huge advantage.

That guy looks a little hurt. Did anyone lend him a hand?

You're actually partially correct. The body reacts to violent amputation by doing something called shunting. Basically, the muscles surrounding the severed area spasm and construct very tightly and will control bleeding for a short time. This however does not last long and severe bleeding will start again. It's like a matter of several seconds to half a minute depending on the amputation and muscle tissue.

Maybe it was squished so hard that it clamped most of the veins.