Boy fatally shot trick-or-treating, police say

[Oliver]

A sad story, indeed...


Boy fatally shot trick-or-treating, police say

*snip* The family was headed home from a city-sponsored event downtown when they decided to stop at a few homes, Sumter Police Chief Patty Patterson said. The father and his four children approached a home with a porch light on about 8:30 p.m. EDT while their mother waited nearby in a vehicle. As the family was at the door, they thought they heard fireworks. The 12-year-old boy, his father and brother were all hit by the gunfire. The boy died at a hospital, Coroner Verna Moore said. The other two children were not hurt. *snip*

Full Source: http://us.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/01/halloween.slaying.ap/index.html




I assume that even if the guy didn't have a gun and second amendment rights,
the incident would've happened anyway, right? [Asking the pro-gun crowd]

[gtc]

Maybe.

There was a stabbing in Sydney, Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-probe-halloween-stabbing/2008/11/01/1224956382045.html)that might have been due to a Halloween prank going wrong.

[Oliver]

Maybe.

There was a stabbing in Sydney, Australia (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-probe-halloween-stabbing/2008/11/01/1224956382045.html)that might have been due to a Halloween prank going wrong.


That's also a sad story - but it might have been a more fatal one
if there were guns involved, don't you think? After all, the Australian
guy survived.

[paximperium]

A sad story, indeed...

I assume that even if the guy didn't have a gun and second amendment rights,
the incident would've happened anyway, right? [Asking the pro-gun crowd]
It is sad. Sadder still that someone would decide to use this incident to take pot shots at gun owners who are not involved with the incident at all.

If and when you decide to actually have a real discussion on this issue, start another thread. This thread smells.

[gtc]

That's also a sad story - but it might have been a more fatal one
if there were guns involved, don't you think? After all, the Australian
guy survived.

It have been worse but there have been fatal stabbings recently and non-fatal shootings so it might depend on the situation.

[Lonewulf]

Yet another thread baiting for a discussion that has little to do with the case involved. Disgusting.

I can pull out anecdotes too, and act as if they prove a point. But I don't, because you know what? I'm above that. I'd rather the gutter trash of the forums be cleared instead of creating it myself.

[casebro]

And even in the cited case, three out of four gunshot victims were un-injured. Care to compare that to knifing victims?

[Nogbad]

And even in the cited case, three out of four gunshot victims were un-injured. Care to compare that to knifing victims?

ergo knives are more dangerous than guns :eye-poppi

ditch your guns and get yourselves a good knife

[WildCat]

So Oliver is no longer a Libertarian?

[Nogbad]

:eek: Shome mishtake shurley - I thought Oliver was a left of centre Democrat.

[WildCat]

:eek: Shome mishtake shurley - I thought Oliver was a left of centre Democrat.
Oliver spent months here singing the praises of Ron Paul...

[tyr_13]

A sad story, indeed...




I assume that even if the guy didn't have a gun and second amendment rights,
the incident would've happened anyway, right? [Asking the pro-gun crowd]

That's right, someone did something stupid with a gun. This child would be a live if guns were illegal (or there would just be one more charge on top of homicide, etc.). Guns are evil and no one should have them because people do stupid things with them.

Same with rope.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_oth_acc_han_and_str_percap-accidental-hanging-strangulation-per-capita

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/06/child_dies_in_accidental_hangi.html

Or any of a dozen other accidental hangings.

[dudalb]

:eek: Shome mishtake shurley - I thought Oliver was a left of centre Democrat.


Since Oliver is a German Citizen who I don't think has ever been to the US, no way he can be a Democrat..or a Republican for that matter.
You were not around here last year at this time when Oliver was flooding the politics forum with "Ron Paul Is the Greatest American Of All Time" threads?

[JWideman]

What we really need is a law against _____. With a law against _____, nobody would ever ____.

[Pardalis]

That's also a sad story - but it might have been a more fatal one
if there were guns involved, don't you think? After all, the Australian
guy survived.

The American case seems to be second degree murder or manslaughter, the Australian case seems to be a first degree attempted murder. Which is worse?

In Oliver's mind, American is always the worst. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

What we really need is a law against _____. With a law against _____, nobody would ever ____.

Heh, I laughed.

[Pardalis]

BTW, what kind of an idiot is this guy?
An ex-convict who said he thought he was being robbed gunned down a 12-year-old trick-or-treater, spraying nearly 30 rounds with an assault rifle from inside his home after hearing a knock on the door, police said Saturday.

Since when burglars KNOCK?

[Magyar]

That's right, someone did something stupid with a gun. This child would be a live if guns were illegal (or there would just be one more charge on top of homicide, etc.). Guns are evil and no one should have them because people do stupid things with them.

.

No, but MAYBE just MAYBE the story illustrates that not every retard gun happy redneck with a penis inferiority complex should be able go out and buy an AK47 just because he's paranoid. Maybe just maybe a little bit more testing, licensing ceritification and mental stability checks should be in place before you hand a moron a deadly weapon or give a FULLY auto uzi to an 8 year old just because they want to shoot a big bad gun.

BUT no that would be takin a waay your wraaaiigtz

[Ausmerican]

If he was an ex con wouldn't he have had the assault rifle illegally anyway? If so gun laws have nothing to do with this case.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yes. If only there were a law against having guns.

Oh... Wait! There IS!!

....for the shooter, at least, there is.

First: Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns. It is as absolute a prohibition as any law can provide!

Second: People in general are legally prohibited from firing their guns in town. There is a provision in some places, making it allowable if their life, or the life or well being of a third party, is in imminent danger and such force is thought to be necessary to stop the assault.

The shooter was not exercising his Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. He was violating laws!

If someone cares little enough about the laws already on the books preventing him from owning a firearm and subsequent jackassulation therewith, what good will one more law do?

Laws only stop people who are interested enough in the law to obey it from violating laws. The funny thing is: None of those people shot any trick-'r-treaters on Haloween!

So, yes Oliver, unless you can find a way to somehow make all the guns... just... go away... the incident probably would've happened anyway.

[Mobyseven]

What we really need is a law against _____. With a law against _____, nobody would ever ____.

Hehe. Nom'd.

[six7s]

What we really need is a law against _____. With a law against _____, nobody would ever ____.Hehe. Nom'd.It's your fault that I'm here!

So, JWideman, waddaya got against underscores, huh?

[tyr_13]

No, but MAYBE just MAYBE the story illustrates that not every retard gun happy redneck with a penis inferiority complex should be able go out and buy an AK47 just because he's paranoid. Maybe just maybe a little bit more testing, licensing ceritification and mental stability checks should be in place before you hand a moron a deadly weapon or give a FULLY auto uzi to an 8 year old just because they want to shoot a big bad gun.

BUT no that would be takin a waay your wraaaiigtz

What kind of moronic straw man is that? Who the hell here ever said that just anyone should be able to get a gun with no background check just because he's paranoid? Who said giving an Uzi to an eight year old is a good idea? You want to lump all gun enthusiasts with "retard gun happy rednecks with a penis inferiority complex." Your bias is so dangerous that maybe that should be registered.

Grow up.

[six7s]

Grow up.Please explain (using adult terms will be fine): what are the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings
what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

Thank you

[tyr_13]

Please explain (using adult terms will be fine): what are the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings
what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

Thank you

You got that from me saying, "grow up," in response to a straw man?


You've seen these lists before, you know the standard arguments. If you really want to debate this, by all means, open another thread. It is a big enough question.

1. Please give me a list of dangerous objects (like guns or rope) that you use that you would be willing to give up, and the benefits you would give up because of it.
2. Please list other freedoms you'd give up in the name of safety.

I'll work on yours if you'll work on mine.

[Cavemonster]

I think whenever the "gun control" issue comes up, it so often quickly becomes a shouting match between those who want more legislation and those who want more freedom.

As has been stated above about this case, there are laws that would have stopped this, if only they had been enforced.

If this guy is like many many others, he didn't illegally buy his gun from the trunk of a car, he got it, directly or indirectly through an unscrupulous dealer, who we are perfectly capable of regulating if we took a little of that money we've been using to send out helicopters looking for marijuana, and applied it to something that is actually a danger.

The laws we have would be enforcable, if they were made a priority.

[six7s]

You got that from me saying, "grow up," in response to a straw man?Pretty much... or rather I assumed that, despite your reply being curt (which may well have been merited), it was coherent enough to suggest that you may well have some other critical thoughts to add

You've seen these lists before, you know the standard arguments. Actually, I haven't... so far I have merely skimmed stories on the issue of guns... I can remember a few of the hackneyed phrases and that Charlton Heston is (was?) an advocate of the 'out of my cold, dead hands' school of enlightenment but, other than that, I know SFA

If you really want to debate this, by all means, open another thread. It is a big enough question.I doubt if this needs to go on for more than a few posts... If it does, sure, a new thread :)


1. Please give me a list of dangerous objects (like guns or rope) that you use that you would be willing to give up, and the benefits you would give up because of it.I used to have a gun, when I farmed a few sheep in an area where idiots from the 'burbs sometimes (not often) dumped unwanted dogs

To own a gun AND/OR buy bullets, here in New Zealand, required me as an applicant to successfully jump through a reasonable series of bureaucratic hoops (http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/), involving attending a firearms-saftey course (approx 3 or 4 sessions of around 2 hours each), references from at least two 'respected' members of the community and a bunch of other 'safeguards'; e.g. if ONE person had objected (something that can be done if not anonymously at least 'in confidence'), then my application and subsequent licence would have been suspended immediately and possibly indefinitely

I hadn't thought of rope...and I have a few, hanging on a hook in an unlocked shed! If necessary, I wouldn't object to locking them away

I have a few axes, a nail-gun and a chainsaw out there too... but my garden (aka yard) does have a childproof fence (it has to according to a law governing swimming pools) so no kids (other than my own) can get to them

2. Please list other freedoms you'd give up in the name of safety.As someone who has trained (ie learned to communicate with) five dogs, I DO forgo the 'freedom' of walking my dogs off-the-leash in urban areas in accordance with a local-government bylaw aimed at reducing/eliminating the number of attacks by dogs on children etc

As someone who has participated in high-risk sports for many years, I DO forgo the freedom to ride my bicycle without a helmet, in accordance with a central-government law aimed at raising the awareness that cycling is a potentially dangerous activity

I'll work on yours if you'll work on mine.I think it's your turn :)

[Travis]

He had prior drug convictions and the woman in the house was caught trying to run away with $7500 in cash. My thinking is that they were overly paranoid because they were running drugs and didn't want to lose it all to some gun toting competitor. If only all drug dealers had signs out front warning everyone of that, this would never have happened.:rolleyes:

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Please explain (using adult terms will be fine): what are the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings
what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

Thank you


Ok - let me give this a try, please.

Answers:
1) It makes me happy.

I enjoy going to the range and seeing how close together I can make the little... and sometimes not so little... holes in a piece of paper at distances from 30 feet to 500 yards.

I enjoy the idea that reasonably responsible adults are allowed to try things that might make them happy, as well, and only have things taken from them after they have managed to break a law. It makes me happy to live in a country where the idea that, "having the ability to commit a crime is the same as committing the crime," hasn't gained too strong a foothold. Yet.

I enjoy being at least as well armed as any of the jackassulating soon-to-be felons that live withing driving distance of my house. With a gun, I have chance... a small chance... of defending myself, the people I love, and those near me. Without a gun, I have no chance at all.

Those Old Guys that put my nation together had just had a bit of a run in with one of your guys, and decided to put it into our constitution that we were allowed this particular bit of a thing in order to protect ourselves from a government that might take it into its head to engage in a bit of similar tyranny. Not being tyrannized makes me happy.

2) In the US, it would be very expensive.

First, you have to either change or overthrow the constitution.

The 'change' bit requires that you get a clear majority (three fourths) of the states to go along with the amendment. This seems to be somewhat like herding ferrets.

The 'overthrow' bit would entail somehow usurping control of the US military and getting them to forswear their oaths and overcome their sensitivities about shooting US citizens. This might be a bit difficult, as most of the US military are US citizens, and might consider shooting their friends and neighbors to be somewhat out of line. The also might consider that they themselves might be on the 'bang'ey end of the rifle if something else comes up that the usurping agency doesn't like.

Next, you have to approve some sort of storage method that will satisfy both the gun owners and the gun grabbers, while not inconveniencing the rest of the population too much.

Lastly, you have to get the guns away from the gun owners. There really are a lot of those, "cold dead hands," kind of guys, and there are a lot of plain folks, law abiding and respectful and honest, who have decided to say, "guns? What guns?" when the collection wagon comes around.

This might make a goodly number of citizens, both gun owners and non-gun owners, decide that someone has decided to be a bit too tyrannical for their tastes, as well. (See #1) That would tend to do away with that whole, "while not inconveniencing the rest of the population too much," because revolutionary wars tend to be messy, and the 6 o'clock news could wind up being very inconvenient.

There you go. I how this helps.

The bottom line is that our government decided to limit itself in the application of laws involving the ability of individual US citizen to resist intolerable government. They knew that there would be a price to this particular bit of freedom, but just having lost friends and family in a war to establish a number of freedoms, they knew that every freedom has a cost.

They were willing to pay that cost. I am too.

Now, it's your turn. what are the benefits of having a culture where alcoholic beverage is commonplace in residential settings what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own, store, and partake of alcoholic beverages in residential areas

Remember: Every freedom has a cost. In the US, the right to keep and bear arms costs us something like 800 lives a year. Drunk driving costs us something like 17,500. If you scale up the gun deaths (only about one US adult in 3 owns a gun) that's 2,400 gun deaths. If the population in general find that teh cost of gun ownership, which costs something like 180 young lives a year, is prohibitive, how long will it be before someone notices that drunk driving costs something like 7,400?

Stop by for a pint some day. We'll talk about guns.

[WildCat]

No, but MAYBE just MAYBE the story illustrates that not every retard gun happy redneck with a penis inferiority complex should be able go out and buy an AK47 just because he's paranoid. Maybe just maybe a little bit more testing, licensing ceritification and mental stability checks should be in place before you hand a moron a deadly weapon
Or maybe it should be illegal for a convicted felon, a drug dealer, to buy a gun. Oh, wait, it already is! :rolleyes:

or give a FULLY auto uzi to an 8 year old just because they want to shoot a big bad gun.
It wasn't FULLY auto, it was semi-auto. I wish reporters would understand the difference. I saw Matt Lauer call it a machine gun...

Yes, it's stupid to give an 8 year old a semi-auto weapon but the world is full of stupid people. Traditionally, kids learn to shoot with a single-shot or bolt action rifle.

[volatile]

You all already know what I'm thinking about this, so I shan't expend much energy repeating myself.

The scariest thing is that incidents like these don't seem to give any of the gun-toting members of this forum any pause for thought at all that, you know, maybe guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

You all already know what I'm thinking about this, so I shan't expend much energy repeating myself.

The scariest thing is that incidents like these don't seem to give any of the gun-toting members of this forum any pause for thought at all that, you know, maybe guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.


That's because the gun-toting members of this board already know, from years of having it pounded into them, that guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.

Is this a straw man argument? Can I say something like, "The scariest thing is that incidents like these don't seem to give any of the sex-organ-toting members of this forum any pause for thought at all that, you know, maybe sex organs aren't just fun toys that, eventually, make a big noise"?

Having the tools to jackassulate does not automatically make you irresponsible. At the same time that one law-breaking jackass thought it would be a good idea to shoot up anyone knocking at his door, something like 75 million reasonably responsible people in this country did not.

Also, considering that this guy was subject to the very laws you support... no guns allowed - none at all... how do you account for the fact that this tragedy happened anyhow?

[Travis]

You all already know what I'm thinking about this, so I shan't expend much energy repeating myself.

The scariest thing is that incidents like these don't seem to give any of the gun-toting members of this forum any pause for thought at all that, you know, maybe guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.

I'm not a gun supporter and I find your viewpoint to be somewhat condescending. I really fail to see how this story relates to gun control as it seems he had weapons illegally and was using them to protect, what it appears to be anyways, an illegal drug business. A much more relevant line of discussion might be about repealing drug prohibition.

[WildCat]

A much more relevant line of discussion might be about repealing drug prohibition.
Which would, IMHO, be much more effective in reducing gun violence than any gun control law could.

[volatile]

That's because the gun-toting members of this board already know, from years of having it pounded into them, that guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.

1) It makes me happy.In a culture where this attitude is common, and where guns are readily available, these types of events become much more commonplace. I do not think that's a good thing. Indeed, every time I read about something like this, it hardens my stance.

It also hardens my stance that if you want to live in a country that has legal gun ownership, gun owners should be registered and have to pass a strict training course and their guns should subject to regular checks and inspections, with a centralised database kept of their serial numbers.

This guy held a weapon illegally. But where did that weapon come from? How did he acquire it? How can such a transaction be prevented in the future? Most gun owners resist the laws and regulations that would answer those questions, and for the most part even pretend that the lack of such laws isn't a problem in the first place.

Plenty of people - too many people - are killed with illegal guns in the UK. But the difference is that we have a system of legislation and enforcement in place that puts as many hurdles between citizens and guns as possible. You don't, and that facilitates events as described in the OP.

Where's the contrition here? Where's the regret? Where's the feeling that your pro-gun attitudes are at least in some small respect responsible for this tragedy?

Also, considering that this guy was subject to the very laws you support... no guns allowed - none at all... how do you account for the fact that this tragedy happened anyhow?The gun he used - are these guns legally available to purchase in the USA? Can someone not otherwise prohibited buy one of these weapons, should they choose?

If the answer is yes - that's how I account for it, and that's the issue I'd start to address to prevent similar incidents happening in the future.

[volatile]

Which would, IMHO, be much more effective in reducing gun violence than any gun control law could.

Hey - I think we finally agree on something.

[volatile]

I'm not a gun supporter and I find your viewpoint to be somewhat condescending. I really fail to see how this story relates to gun control as it seems he had weapons illegally and was using them to protect, what it appears to be anyways, an illegal drug business. A much more relevant line of discussion might be about repealing drug prohibition.

Hey, I agree with you, in part.

But this has a great deal to do with gun control, simply because a lack of gun control and a culture of gun ownership means that there are vastly more guns washing around. No-one knows who they belong to, who is armed and who isn't, which gun belongs to who, who sold what gun to whom...

These types of events happen with more frequency in a society where guns are more prevalent. That's a simple fact, and one which is of paramount importance.

[Euromutt]

The gun he used - are these guns legally available to purchase in the USA? Can someone not otherwise prohibited buy one of these weapons, should they choose?
The CNN article describes it as an "assault rifle," specifically an AK-47. Assault rifles (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as00-e.htm), including AK-47s (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as01-e.htm), are capable of automatic fire, and have been illegal to import into the United States for sale on the civilian market since 1968 (and illegal to manufacture since 1986). The ones that were already in the United States are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

However, most journalists are woefully ignorant about firearms, and it is very possible that the weapon was a version based on the Kalashnikov design, but capable only of semi-automatic fire (one round fired with each pull of the trigger). Such weapons are classed as "assault weapons" in a number of states, and tightly regulated, but South Carolina is not one of those states. In principle, such a weapon could be purchased from a licensed dealer by anyone age 18 or over who passes a federal background check.

Strikes me that the fact that the shooter was a drug dealer played a significantly larger part in this incident than the legal availability of the firearm to persons other than the shooter. It's not like dealers in other countries don't have shootouts, quite often in public, with guns they couldn't legally own either. Fact is, where there is a criminal demand for guns, a supply will rise to meet the demand. If the guns can't be acquired domestically, they're smuggled in, which is largely what happens in western Europe. With hundreds of tonnes of heroin and cocaine being smuggled into the United States every year, bringing in a few thousand firearms shouldn't be too challenging.

[Undesired Walrus]

Oliver spent months here singing the praises of Ron Paul...

...who would be found dead before he restricted the ownership of a single gun as President? Hypocrisy, thy name is Oliver.

[Lonewulf]

Out of curiosity, and I know this is off topic, but does Paul actually draw the line anywhere when it comes to guns? I mean, would he allow gatling guns, LMGs, HMGs, chainguns, stinger missiles, RPGs, in the hands of the average citizen? Sure, they're expensive as hell, but still. I'm curious here.

I am for SOME gun control myself.

[Camillus]

First: Convicted felons are not allowed to own guns. It is as absolute a prohibition as any law can provide!

Isn't that unconstitutional? I'm genuinely curious as not being from the States I don't know the ins and outs of how the constitution works. My impression of it is that it applies, without exception, to everyone and that a right cannot be taken away because of something someone has done in the past.

I am wrong or is it common place and allowable for felons to have rights removed?

[volatile]

It's not like dealers in other countries don't have shootouts, quite often in public, with guns they couldn't legally own either. Fact is, where there is a criminal demand for guns, a supply will rise to meet the demand. If the guns can't be acquired domestically, they're smuggled in, which is largely what happens in western Europe. With hundreds of tonnes of heroin and cocaine being smuggled into the United States every year, bringing in a few thousand firearms shouldn't be too challenging.

Oh, I agree.

But the fact remains that smuggling guns into a country where they are illegal is a damned sight harder than sending your buddy to buy one for you from the corner store, for example, especially if said buddy's purchase is not logged or recorded by any angency whatsoever, and if once that gun is legally sold, it effectively becomes untraceable, disappearing into the oceans of weaopnry sloshing about the USA.

The argument you make is a rather fallacious one: you are essentially suggesting that because something cannot be prevented entirely, one should not take reasonable steps to prevent it as much as reasonable. Of course hardcore crims will be able to smuggle guns in, but they will ony be available in much fewer number, and at much greater cost (financially and in terms of risk). And if you accept that criminals having guns is a bad thing (which most of the posters in this thread seem to), then you should logically support any reasonable measures to stop them acquiring them. That patently does not happen in the USA at the moment, and thus, despite arguments to the contrary, gun control issues are pointedly relevant in cases such as these.

If you do cost/benefit analysis as to the risks vs benefits of widespread public gun ownership, do the benefits come out on top? In other words, do the "fun" or "rights" or "civillian militia" pros oughtweigh the death, misery and violence cons. I don't think so.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

In a culture where this attitude is common, and where guns are readily available, these types of events become much more commonplace. I do not think that's a good thing. Indeed, every time I read about something like this, it hardens my stance.

It also hardens my stance that if you want to live in a country that has legal gun ownership, gun owners should be registered and have to pass a strict training course and their guns should subject to regular checks and inspections, with a centralised database kept of their serial numbers.


How would this help in thw OP, seeing as how the shooter was a criminal, acting in a criminal manner to protect criminal goods? Do you suspect that he might have said to himself, "I'm gonna set up a meth lab to sell as much poison to as many suckers as I can, and I'm going to kill anyone that knocks on the door to protect it. Too bad I can't have a gun because it's be illegal?"

As for a centralized database: I oppose that because, with the speed and regularity with which the federal government has expose enough of my personal details to steal my identity (apparently, no one wants it), it would be remarkably like a shopping list.

...and I'm not worried about me, you see... I have a gun. it's the non-gun-owners that will be hit; Easy targets, you see... no guns!

While I do agree with you about the training (I got mine in the Army), I'd have to wonder about the Big Database of Guns and how that would help stop anything. It would be an annoyance to the law abiding gun owners and just another hurdle for the non-law-abiding gun owners to sidestep without slowing down in the slightest.

This guy held a weapon illegally. But where did that weapon come from? How did he acquire it? How can such a transaction be prevented in the future? Most gun owners resist the laws and regulations that would answer those questions, and for the most part even pretend that the lack of such laws isn't a problem in the first place.


He was an ex-con, so a convicted felon. He had the gun illegally because he got the gun illegally, so unless you can make all the guns disappear, there is no law that will prevent those intending to break the law from obtaining guns and... you know... breaking the law.

None of the gun owners I know resist the laws and regulations that prevent the sale of firearms to persons not allowed by law to have firearms. They resist the laws and regulations that would make it difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to obtain guns.

The way we figure, we should be allowed to be at least as well-armed as the criminals.

Plenty of people - too many people - are killed with illegal guns in the UK. But the difference is that we have a system of legislation and enforcement in place that puts as many hurdles between citizens and guns as possible. You don't, and that facilitates events as described in the OP.


In what way, please?

How does passing a law making it hard to get a gun affect someone who has already decided not to pay attention to laws? How does it effect change in the number of guns already in illegal circulation better than what's being done now?

Where's the contrition here? Where's the regret? Where's the feeling that your pro-gun attitudes are at least in some small respect responsible for this tragedy?


Are you contrite or do you regret that poor kid being killed? Neither I nor any of the firearms I have ever owned are any more responsible for that tragedy than you are. My 'pro-gun attitude' has never killed anyone, either.

Not everyone with a gun is responsible for someone's death by shooting. Not everyone with genitalia is responsible for someone's death by sexually-transmitted disease. Same deal.

The gun he used - are these guns legally available to purchase in the USA? Can someone not otherwise prohibited buy one of these weapons, should they choose?


I don't know. The description of, "spraying bullets," sort of indicates a full-auto weapon, but reporters are provably, and probably intentionally, ignorant about firearms.

If the answer is yes - that's how I account for it, and that's the issue I'd start to address to prevent similar incidents happening in the future.


Aha - if he had a drug lab and a machine gun, he couldn't possibly have told another drug-guy that he knew, "hey bud - how about snagging me an AK47 with your next load of heroine? I'll make it worth your while."

If, in fact, it's a locally-bought firearm, the someone bought it and sold it to him ILLEGALLY.

Again, how does a law limit the behavior of someone already intending to break the law?

[Amapola]

If the whole point is to stop people being killed, we should ban cars too. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/mother_and_son.html) These people also got killed trick or treating, but they were struck and killed by a car. How long are we going to tolerate this? ;)

It's no secret that I have and use guns. I live on a farm and raise animals. I actually owe my life to the fact that I was carrying my rifle with me on a day when a pack of dogs attacked my livestock and then turned on me. So there's one life saved by the guns.

But then, I don't think the issue can really be decided that way. I don't think you can say "X amount of people were killed by guns; Y amount of people were saved by guns, therefore guns should be legal/illegal". And when it comes right down to it, I wonder if that is actually the reason some people don't like guns. Can you really say "Gosh, I wish these people would have been killed instead of having their lives saved by a gun"? I think at least some people dislike guns because they don't understand them and are not used to them, so the whole idea seems outrageous to them - not because of the lives saved/lost to guns.

ETA: Yikes! I take too long to write. I need to go over what was posted in the meantime and apologize if my point had already been made.

[WildCat]

Isn't that unconstitutional? I'm genuinely curious as not being from the States I don't know the ins and outs of how the constitution works. My impression of it is that it applies, without exception, to everyone and that a right cannot be taken away because of something someone has done in the past.

I am wrong or is it common place and allowable for felons to have rights removed?
Once you are a convicted felon you lose certain rights, varying by state. But I think all states ban gun possession by convicted felons.

And obviously, prisoners in jail don't exactly have the same rights the rest of us enjoy.

[volatile]

How would this help in thw OP, seeing as how the shooter was a criminal, acting in a criminal manner to protect criminal goods? Do you suspect that he might have said to himself, "I'm gonna set up a meth lab to sell as much poison to as many suckers as I can, and I'm going to kill anyone that knocks on the door to protect it. Too bad I can't have a gun because it's be illegal?"

Not at all.

But that, in itself, is no argument at all not to make it as hard as possible for such people to acquire weapons. At the moment, it is ludicrously easy.

As for a centralized database: I oppose that because, with the speed and regularity with which the federal government has expose enough of my personal details to steal my identity (apparently, no one wants it), it would be remarkably like a shopping list.Do you oppose centralised databases of cars for similar reasons?

While I do agree with you about the training (I got mine in the Army), I'd have to wonder about the Big Database of Guns and how that would help stop anything. It would be an annoyance to the law abiding gun owners and just another hurdle for the non-law-abiding gun owners to sidestep without slowing down in the slightest.Do you feel the same about driving licenses?

In the UK, and I understand it is similar in the US, car drivers must pass a stringent test before being allowed to drive. Their car must be insured. It must be tested for mechanical safety every 12 months. Every sale and purchase must be logged with the government. All of these regulations are essentially to ensure the safety of road users.

Why can't, or indeed, why shouldn't you have the same set of laws (or stricter!) for firearms? Of course some people will break the law. But that is in itself no reason not to introduce the law in the first place. If that were true, you'd be against all laws, in principle. It's an absurd argument.

How does passing a law making it hard to get a gun affect someone who has already decided not to pay attention to laws? How does it effect change in the number of guns already in illegal circulation better than what's being done now?Are you serious? You don't understand how a law that makes gun ownership more difficult and, for example, records details of sales, would also make it more difficult for criminals (or those law-abiding citizens that become criminals at some point after buying their guns) to get them, too? Or how a law that registered gun serial numbers might help in finding out how and where this guy acquired his stash, so that the seller might themselves be prosecuted?


Are you contrite or do you regret that poor kid being killed? Neither I nor any of the firearms I have ever owned are any more responsible for that tragedy than you are. My 'pro-gun attitude' has never killed anyone, either.Yes, it has. You support the conditions that make this kind of event more prevalent than it would otherwise be. Shame on you.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Isn't that unconstitutional? I'm genuinely curious as not being from the States I don't know the ins and outs of how the constitution works. My impression of it is that it applies, without exception, to everyone and that a right cannot be taken away because of something someone has done in the past.

I am wrong or is it common place and allowable for felons to have rights removed?


While federal law prohibits the ownership of firearms by convicted felons, they can petition the Secretary of the Treasury to have their civil rights reinstated.

It's like pulling your own teeth, though, and most don't bother. With a 60% rate of recidivism, apparently most convicted felons don't even do anything about not being a criminal any more.

[WildCat]

Out of curiosity, and I know this is off topic, but does Paul actually draw the line anywhere when it comes to guns? I mean, would he allow gatling guns, LMGs, HMGs, chainguns, stinger missiles, RPGs, in the hands of the average citizen? Sure, they're expensive as hell, but still. I'm curious here.

I am for SOME gun control myself.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17

[technoextreme]

And when it comes right down to it, I wonder if that is actually the reason some people don't like guns. Can you really say "Gosh, I wish these people would have been killed instead of having their lives saved by a gun"? I think at least some people dislike guns because they don't understand them and are not used to them, so the whole idea seems outrageous to them - not because of the lives saved/lost to guns.

That is the hasty generalization fallacy and a false dichotomy if I ever heard of it. My problem is with the self defense issue because no one ever brings up the alternative scenario. It happens all the time for other reasons but I'm biding my time until it accidentally happens and someone claims they were acting out in self defense. Of course this has nothing to do with the op. It was just an insane person.

[Lonewulf]

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17

I don't have much time to read through all the links at that site.

Can you point out something more specific to my question? Notably where Ron Paul draws a limit?

[Mobyseven]

You all already know what I'm thinking about this, so I shan't expend much energy repeating myself.

The scariest thing is that incidents like these don't seem to give any of the gun-toting members of this forum any pause for thought at all that, you know, maybe guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.

See, this story doesn't particularly surprise me, but it isn't a story that speaks to tighter gun control requirements so much as one that highlights the need to crack down on the illegal weapon ownership already rampant in the USA.

Until that is clamped down on, there's no chance in hell that you'll ever get people to part with legally acquired weapons. The gun violence problem in the USA will require more than just legislation to fix -- attitudes towards guns need to change, illegal firearms need to be clamped down on as do the sources of illegal firearms...I could go on, but you get my point. The way we did things in Australia worked damn well, and despite the misconception visitors from the USA seem to have it is perfectly legal to own a firearm in Australia, but the situation is different; Australia, for one, was not as saturated with guns as the USA is.

This is a tragic situation, to be sure. But to sieze upon it as though it acts as further evidence that gun laws need to be tightened in the USA is just as disingenuous as when gun-nuts suggests that specific mass shootings can be avoided if victims had been armed. We have to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that every shooting in the USA justifies and vindicates stricter gun laws -- sometimes an illegal shooting is just an illegal shooting.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Not at all.

But that, in itself, is no argument at all not to make it as hard as possible for such people to acquire weapons. At the moment, it is ludicrously easy.

Do you oppose centralised databases of cars for similar reasons?


First of all, I see no detereant factor in owning a car, which is to say that a criminal looking at a list of available targets won't tend to think that his safety douring an assault will be challenged by someone owning a car.

Second: Everyone that sees you in a car knows that you have access to a car. Very few people know that I have a gun in my possession. Open carry just moves you to the top of the hit-list, so mine stay concealed.

You are right about it being ludicrously easy, however! The thing you miss is that it will still be ludicrously easy for a criminal to get a gun after you pass a law prohibiting any sale or transfer of any firearm.

Do you feel the same about driving licenses?

In the UK, and I understand it is similar in the US, car drivers must pass a stringent test before being allowed to drive. Their car must be insured. It must be tested for mechanical safety every 12 months. Every sale and purchase must be logged with the government. All of these regulations are essentially to ensure the safety of road users.

Why can't, or indeed, why shouldn't you have the same set of laws (or stricter!) for firearms? Of course some people will break the law. But that is in itself no reason not to introduce the law in the first place. If that were true, you'd be against all laws, in principle. It's an absurd argument.


I don't have to have a license to buy a car - just to operate it in public, so I absolutely feel that people who operate their guns in public should have licenses, and that the licenses should have training and testing requirements. I have exactly such a license, but in the state of Indiana, there is neither training nor testing requirements, which I think should change.

For what it's worth, most states that do have the training and testing requirements wave the requirements for military veterans, so I probably wouldn't have to train/test anyhow.

On the other hand, if I buy a car and keep it in the garage, I don't have to license the vehicle. If I don't drive on the public roads, I don't need a drivers' license.

As for tracking, all that is for is to show ownership if someone finds a vehicle floating loose. It doesn't help stop theft or use in felonious activities or prevent accidents.

So, any firearm in a Big Database of Guns could, at best, be used to tell who originally bought it from a dealer, or from whom it was stolen.

Seeing the downside of non-gun-owners getting rolled over v. the benefits of finding the occasional straw buyer, knowing that existing off-record firearms won't be included anyway, and seeing that it won't prevent jackasses from jackassulation nor make the foolish and careless less foolish or careless, why would anyone be willing to foot the bill for a huge central database?

I'm not averse to registering my guns so much as I'm averse to spending a lot of money and getting pretty much nothing in return.

Are you serious? You don't understand how a law that makes gun ownership more difficult and, for example, records details of sales, would also make it more difficult for criminals (or those law-abiding citizens that become criminals at some point after buying their guns) to get them, too? Or how a law that registered gun serial numbers might help in finding out how and where this guy acquired his stash, so that the seller might themselves be prosecuted?


Not really. I can see how a system like that could fall to abuse very easily, though. I can see how it could make it hard to impossible for a law abiding citizen to obtain a firearm. I can see how it might help catch a few straw buyers, but not many, and we're already catching a few... but not many.

What I can't see is taking money away from important stuff like infrastructure, education and welfare to fund something which bears so small a return, and so large a risk.

Yes, it has. You support the conditions that make this kind of event more prevalent than it would otherwise be. Shame on you.

Shame on you for spreading AIDS, then.

Shame on everyone that drives to the grocery store for car accidents. Shame on people that sell fast food for heart disease. Shame on people that have an occasional beer for drunk driving fatalities. Shame on people that dig holes for people falling to their deaths (oh yes... something like 20,000 in 2005!) .

There's enough shame for everyone, if you're going to blame attitudes for fatalities.

Everything you do has a cost. The fact that you don't see the cost doesn't mean there isn't one. If you drive, the cost is about 43,000 fatalities a year. If you heat your house, the cost is about 3,000 lives a year. If you go to the doctor or take drugs, the cost is another 3,000 lives a year.

If you shoot firearms legally, the cost is about 800 lives a year.

If you shoot illegally, it's about 29,000, but you don't care.

Me, I care about the 800. I'll even take some responsibility for them, because I couldn't get folks to be more careful, or secure their firearms, or teach their kids more about handling firearms, or just stop being jackasses.

But I tried!

I decline to accept responsibility for some guys' decisions to break the law and get people killed.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

That is the hasty generalization fallacy and a false dichotomy if I ever heard of it. My problem is with the self defense issue because no one ever brings up the alternative scenario. It happens all the time for other reasons but I'm biding my time until it accidentally happens and someone claims they were acting out in self defense. Of course this has nothing to do with the op. It was just an insane person.


Mmm... anyone that sprays bullets from inside the house at an unknown target outside the house is more stupid than insane.

Most people who have guns behave responsibly, just as most drivers behave responsibly.

But there's always a few....

[Travis]

Before my older brother was killed he was in the drug business for awhile--Crank to be specific--and part of that culture was the acquisition of guns to protect himself and his lackeys and as a result I saw all sorts of weapons, from uzi's to G3's go through his place. Where did these weapons, many of them illegal outright, come from? Mexico. They were all smuggled up from Mexico which, ironically, has stricter gun laws than the US. There's a huge underground market for these things and if you have the money you can buy damned near anything you want through it.

It was my experiences way back then that led to my cynicism about gun laws. I failed to see how they could work with literally millions of such firearms available to be brought over the border and the tens of millions of such undocumented firearms already in the country. Gun laws can work in an isolated and tightly regulated place....and Australia and the UK are pretty good examples of that...but the US is in a very different situation that probably calls for a different type of solution if any is viable at all.

[Darth Rotor]

You all already know what I'm thinking about this, so I shan't expend much energy repeating myself.

The scariest thing is that incidents like these don't seem to give any of the gun-toting members of this forum any pause for thought at all that, you know, maybe guns aren't just fun toys that make a big noise.
Dear Scarecrow farmer:

Which gun toting members of this forum think that guns are fun toys that make a big noise? I am appalled that you chose to stoop to Oliver level tripe in this thread.

As to the OP: I wasn't home Halloween evening, so it could not have been me who did that. :p

DR

[six7s]

Please explain (using adult terms will be fine): what are the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings
what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

Thank youHiHi
Ok - let me give this a try, please.OK... thanks... I think...


the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings

Answers:
1) It makes me happy.

I enjoy going to the range
You have such ranges in residential setting? WOW! You must have a very large house!

I enjoy being at least as well armed as any of the jackassulating soon-to-be felons that live withing driving distance of my house.Please tell me, if you saw smoke coming out of your TV would you:

turn off the electricity and use a CO2 extinguisher? or
crank up a flame thrower to burn up the available oxygen?


With a gun, I have chance... a small chance... of defending myself, the people I love, and those near me. Without a gun, I have no chance at all.I can't argue with this point, other than - to me - it seems both a rather circular argument and a defeatist attitude, akin to an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff - to hold in regard to the wellbeing of your nearest and dearest

Those Old Guys that put my nation together... snip/>decided to put it into our constitutionAhh... the old 'reverence for the deeds of the long-dead who didn't have crystal balls' argument

the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

2) In the US, it would be very expensive.

First, you have to either change or overthrow the constitution.Really? You couldn't start with education?

Next, you have to approve some sort of storage method that will satisfy both the gun owners and the gun grabbers, while not inconveniencing the rest of the population too much.Ummm... yeah... and the lives of your nearest and dearest are worth how much? Is a couple of hundred buck for parts and an hour or two of your time for assembly worth more or less than the'inconvenience' of having their lives prematurely terminated?


Lastly, you have to get the guns away from the gun owners. There really are a lot of those, "cold dead hands," kind of guys,...See... this is why i thought that education might be part of the solution

Now, it's your turn. what are the benefits of having a culture where alcoholic beverage is commonplace in residential settings what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own, store, and partake of alcoholic beverages in residential areasFair call. I won't pretend that I have the answers... simply because neither I nor anyone I know really understands the questions... and yes, I acknowledge that the same (or at least similar) applies to gun - or rather bullet - control


Remember: Every freedom has a cost. In the US, the right to keep and bear arms costs us something like 800 lives a year.

Are you sure about those numbers?

www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html)
gun deaths in the United States. Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)


In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths in the United States - over 80 deaths every day. (Source: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

Between 1993-1999, gun deaths in the United States have declined 27%. (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm, WISQARS, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, accessed March, 2002.)

In 2000, 75,685 people (27/100,000) suffered non-fatal firearm gunshot injuries. (SOURCE: Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States: Crime in the United States 2000: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice; 2001.)


www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7395638.html (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7395638.html)
ATLANTA --- Gun deaths in the United States dropped 21 percent between 1993 and 1997 to the lowest level in more than 30 years, and firearm-related injuries fell 41 percent, the government said Thursday.

Experts cited such reasons as tougher gun control laws, a booming economy, better police work and gun safety courses.

The study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at all gunshot wounds reported at emergency rooms, whether they were intentional, accidental or self-inflicted.

The number of fatalities dropped to 32,436 --- 12.1 per 100,000 -- - in 1997 from 39,595 --- 15.4 gun deaths per ... [100,000]

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958158,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958158,00.html)
7 Deadly Days
Monday, Jul. 17, 1989
<snip/>Events like these happen so often that Americans' sense of horror and outrage has been numbed. Death by gunfire has become nearly as banal in the U.S. as auto fatalities; shootings are so routine that they are sometimes ignored by the local news. <snip/>

The 464 people whose deaths are cited in these 28 pages are victims of an American epidemic: they were all shot in a single week, from May 1 to 7. This year more than 30,000 others will share their fate.

If the U.S. were losing this many people to a killer virus or to a war, there would be a public outcry. Yet more Americans die of gunshot wounds every two years than have died to date of AIDS. Similarly, guns take more American lives in two years than did the entire Viet Nam War. Only automobile accidents (total deaths per year: 48,700) surpass shootings as the leading cause of injury-induced fatalities. <snip/>

To attach faces to the statistics and find out where and how so many die, TIME has attempted to record every gunshot death in the U.S. in one full week. The victims on the following pages range in age from 2 to 87; they are black and white, Asian and Hispanic; they represent 42 states. <snip/>

The pattern in these 464 deaths is depressingly clear: guns most often kill the people who own them or people whom the owners know well. <snip/>




Stop by for a pint some day. We'll talk about guns.If that rifle-range accommodating house of yours has a bar to match, it might be a loooooooooooong day ;)

[qwints]

Obviously this guy broke the law both in his owning of and firing of the gun. This wasn't a regular citizen looking for a chance to legally shoot someone (e.g. Joe Horn.) This was a paranoid criminal - very possible a drug dealer. Lock him up. Lock up whoever sold him the gun.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Hi
OK... thanks... I think...


the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings


You have such ranges in residential setting? WOW! You must have a very large house!

Lol - sorry - I thought we were talking more about the culture of gun ownership then the setting.

I keep my guns at home because I don't trust anyone else to keep them. They're my responsibility, and as such, I want to know where they are pointed all the time.

Please tell me, if you saw smoke coming out of your TV would you:

turn off the electricity and use a CO2 extinguisher? or
crank up a flame thrower to burn up the available oxygen?


I would turn off the electricity. Now, your turn....

If a couple of self-powered televisions attacked you in your home, with the evident intent of killing you and your family, would you:
turn off the electricity and use a CO2 extinguisher?
crank up a flame thrower to burn up the available oxygen? or
grab your gun and shoot them?
I vastly prefer the third option. Your mileage may vary.

You see, I don't think that having a gun makes a home invasion more... I dunno... invasive, nor an attempted murder more murderous. I think that you apply a measured response to counter a threat, and if the threat involves massive force, than you should have some massive force of your own with which to counter it.

Stopping a robbery, who cares. It's stuff. I can get more stuff.

Stopping a murder, I care very much. it's not just stuff. There's no more of it to be had at any cost. Turning off the electricity has a good chance of stopping the TV from bursting into flames. Not having a gun doesn't stop guys that come through your door to do you damage.

...but again, your mileage may vary.

I can't argue with this point, other than - to me - it seems both a rather circular argument and a defeatist attitude, akin to an ambulance at the bottom of a cliff - to hold in regard to the wellbeing of your nearest and dearest


I have an ambulance at the top of the cliff, and my nearest and dearest falls off, there's a considerable delay getting the ambulance down there in a state that's adequate to the job of helping, right? There's nothing wrong with an ambulance down there if you have reason to believe that someone might wind up down there.

...and as long as it isn't costing me anything more, why not have several ambulances? I keep an... ok - lets call it an ambulance... by my bed, one by my computers, and one by the door. I keep a really BIG ambulance in my closet in case things get too serious.

I also have a spare tire and jack in my van, a first aid kit in the kitchen and the basement, an ABC fire extinguisher on every floor pf the house, three weeks of food, water, and paper goods in the pantry, and a flashlight in my pocket. I'm a regular Boy Scout.

Interestingly enough, I spent a lot of time on the rifle range at Scout camp, too.

So it's not so circular: You have a small chance to save someone's life, or you don't. If it's someone I care about, I'll take the small chance, thank you.

Ahh... the old 'reverence for the deeds of the long-dead who didn't have crystal balls' argument/


Ahh... the old 'who cares about a 200 year old constitution - it's only the law of the nation' argument.

the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

Really? You couldn't start with education?


The legal and responsible are already educated. The others can't, or won't, be educated.

Every year some yahoo leaves his loaded gun under the mattress, his kid finds it, and front page headlines once again warn people against the idea. Some equivalently yahooesque clown reads the paper and says to himself, "that'll never happen to me - I'll hide my gun real good - somewhere my kid'll never find it - I KNOW: I'll put it under the MATTRESS!"

Like it or lump it, there's about 1 person in every 10,000 that just doesn't get it. In the US, that makes something like 30,300 front page headlines just waitng to happen.

A third group, of course, is the hoodla. (Latin plural of hoodlum, right?) who are interested enough in education that about 60% of them re-matriculated at the state and federal maximum security institutes of higher learning.

The kind of education they're interested in has little to do with reasonable, safe storage and handling of firearms.

The fourth group are those people who think getting rid of the guns will solve everything. They would pass laws banning the importation, sale, and transfer of firearms, and impose heavy fines on anyone possessing a firearm.

Right. Look at how well that's working with drugs!

So: Educate away.

Tell you what: Pass two easy little laws, and I'll be happy to give up my guns. You pass one law that gets rid of all the drugs, and another law that prevents the hoodla from getting and carrying guns, and I'm your biggest disarmed fan.

Ummm... yeah... and the lives of your nearest and dearest are worth how much? Is a couple of hundred buck for parts and an hour or two of your time for assembly worth more or less than the'inconvenience' of having their lives prematurely terminated?

How would you enforce that? Periodic unannounced examinations for storage compliance? Folks over here aren't even allowed to do that to convicted felons!

...and the gun owners would probably remind you of that, rather forcefully.

That's the inconvenience I was talking about.

See... this is why i thought that education might be part of the solution


We all got advanced degrees in that kind of thing back around 1776. Any government that decides to take the guns should remember that, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots... and tyrants."

Ok - yeah - 200 year old guy. There's a lot of us that still remember why the amendment is there, however, and it'll be tough as woodpecker's lips to change their minds about it.

So, as I said, the Constitution is The Law. Changing it or overthrowing it are your two choices, because The Law says that individual US citizens are allowed to keep and bear arms. (For what it's worth, that, "individual US citizens," part was one of the things that all the Supreme Court Justices agreed on.)

Fair call. I won't pretend that I have the answers... simply because neither I nor anyone I know really understands the questions... and yes, I acknowledge that the same (or at least similar) applies to gun - or rather bullet - control


Here's the deal: Booze and guns are similar in use and practice. Reasonable, responsible and legal use of both is no problem. The problem arises when people decide to give up their reasonablity, responsibility or legality.

We already tell people of the dangers of drinking and driving. We show them the results of chronic overuse of alcohol on the body. We have them read about people who ignored the warnings... we even show them movies about it.

Some of them still drink and drive. They become the next generation's stories and movies.

Similarly, we shooters already tell people of the dangers of firearms. We show them the results of incautious use of firearms. We constantly drill the rules of shooting into them, just as they were drilled into us. We emphasize proper, safe locking and storage of firearms.

Some of them still hide the gun under the mattress.

With about 75 million gun owners in the US, a itty-bitty-teeny-tiny percentage of these yahoos means you get front page headlines about them every month.

Go figure.

Are you sure about those numbers?

www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html (http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html)

www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)

www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7395638.html (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7395638.html)

www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958158,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,958158,00.html)

Yup (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html).

I only counted the actual accidental deaths, because that's all you can hang on 'The Gun Culture'. 'The Criminal Culture' accounts for the rest.

If that rifle-range accommodating house of yours has a bar to match, it might be a loooooooooooong day ;)


Please see above for an excu... errr... explanation of a much more modest bar.

On the other hand, I do know a guy that has a 50 yard shooting range in his cellar. :eye-poppi :jaw-dropp :D

Oh - and - do you know one reason that 'The Gun Culture' is predominantly law-abiding?

If we break the law big enough, we aren't allowed to have guns any more!

[gtc]

Before Gun laws can work in an isolated and tightly regulated place....and Australia and the UK are pretty good examples of that...but the US is in a very different situation that probably calls for a different type of solution if any is viable at all.

And in Australia we still have shootings so tight rules won't eliminate the problem entirely.

[fuelair]

Out of curiosity, and I know this is off topic, but does Paul actually draw the line anywhere when it comes to guns? I mean, would he allow gatling guns, LMGs, HMGs, chainguns, stinger missiles, RPGs, in the hands of the average citizen? Sure, they're expensive as hell, but still. I'm curious here.

I am for SOME gun control myself.
Nothing more than LMGs, HMGs and chain guns (especially chain guns!) - none of that other stuff!!

[Euromutt]

But the fact remains that smuggling guns into a country where they are illegal is a damned sight harder than sending your buddy to buy one for you from the corner store, for example, especially if said buddy's purchase is not logged or recorded by any angency whatsoever, and if once that gun is legally sold, it effectively becomes untraceable, disappearing into the oceans of weaopnry sloshing about the USA.
It's not that easy in the US either. "Sending your buddy to buy one" is known as "straw purchasing," and it's hideously illegal for all parties involved. FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees, i.e. licensed gun dealers) can be investigated, and put out of business, by the BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, formerly the ATF) when there is suspicion that they sold a firearm to someone whom they might reasonably have suspected to be a straw purchaser. Every purchase from an FFL has to be logged on a BATFE Form 4473, which the FFL has to keep on file, and which can be inspected by the BATFE at practically any time. If the FFL goes out of business, his archive of 4473s goes to the ATF.

There is paperwork on every firearm that has been legally manufactured in, or imported into, the United States over the past 40 years. Even in states where private transfers of firearms are not required to be registered with the authorities (e.g. in California, all sales between private parties must go through an FFL), many gun owners keep personal records on guns they sell, just in case the police recover a gun from a crime scene and trace it to them.

If you do cost/benefit analysis as to the risks vs benefits of widespread public gun ownership, do the benefits come out on top? In other words, do the "fun" or "rights" or "civillian militia" pros oughtweigh the death, misery and violence cons. I don't think so.
I didn't use to myself. But even by the most conservative estimates, privately owned firearms are used in several hundred thousand Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs) every year, and there's solid criminological research that indicates that the number may be more like 2.0-2.5 million DGUs a year. I think it's fair to say that there's a benefit to society from having a large number of crimes--between 800,000 and 2.5 million annually--not being completed. (Note that a DGU does not require the weapon involved to be discharged. If a burglar, mugger, etc. is deterred by the display of the firearm alone, that counts as a DGU.)

Which brings me, somewhat belatedly, to:
Please explain (using adult terms will be fine): what are the benefits of having a culture where guns are commonplace in residential settings
what are the costs of depriving mature, responsible adults of the right to own and store guns in residential areas

Thank you
As I stated, the benefits are that between 800,000 and 2.5 million attempted crimes a year are prevented from being completed by display or use of privately owned firearms. Statistics compiled by the US Dept. of Justice (in its annual National Crime Victimization Survey) also indicate that private citizens who defend themselves with firearms are less likely to sustain physical injury and property loss, as the result of being the target of burglaries, robberies and assaults, than those who resist by other means or offer no resistance at all.
To provide some context, burglary rates are significantly higher in norther-western Europe than they are in the United States, and arguably more tellingly, the percentage of burglaries committed while the occupants are at home (so-called "hot" burglaries) is around three times as high in north-west European countries as it is in the United States. Interestingly, burglary rates for unoccupied commercial properties are roughly comparable.

The costs of eliminating private possession of firearms in the home are more difficult to establish, but the obvious risk is that many of these hundreds of thousands of crimes that are now not being completed, would be completed, and that even in cases where the prospective victims still managed to repel the criminal, they would be more likely to suffer physical injury in the process.

In the past twenty years or so, the annual number of gun deaths has been between 30,000 and 38,000.
More than half of these are suicides. Given that the US suicide rate is not significantly higher than those of most rich industrialized countries with restrictive gun laws, and is actually lower than that of quite a few of those countries, it is plausible that eliminating private possession of firearms in the home would not result in a reduction in the number of suicides, as those seeking to kill themselves would simply substitute other methods, as they already do in other countries.
Around 40%-45% are unlawful homicides. In an overwhelming majority of US firearm homicides, the perpetrator has a prior criminal record. In fact, quite often, the victim does as well. The overwhelming majority of homicides committed between members of one household occur after a prior history of abuse (which is why people with misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms). The number of "crime of passion" homicides, in which a previously well-behaved gun owner "just snaps" and shoots someone, are vanishingly small.
Fatal unintentional shootings generally number around 800 annually, give or take a few hundred depending on the exact year.

At the same time, going by the responses to criminological surveys on DGUs, there may be 240,000-340,000 incidents a year in which the gun owner felt he saved an innocent life by employing a gun in defense of self or others. This is almost certainly a gross overestimation, but even assuming that it's off by a factor of twenty, that would mean that private ownership of guns plays a part in saving 10,000 to 15,000 lives a year. In a typical year, that's close to the number of unlawful homicides that are committed using firearms. Admittedly, this is speculation, but it is speculation based on evidence.

All told, the available evidence suggests that, in the US, private ownership of firearms by those not barred by law from possessing may, ceteris paribus, actually provide a net societal benefit where unlawfully inflicted property loss, physical injury, and even death are concerned.

Note that I do say in the US. There are cultural factors at work that do not make this evidence necessarily applicable to other countries. Rates of firearm crime and death in most western European countries have always been lower than those in the United States, even before those countries imposed restrictions on private ownership of firearms, so we must conclude that there are other factors involved than the just the availability of firearms to private citizens.

[Leftus]

BTW, what kind of an idiot is this guy?


Since when burglars KNOCK?


Actually, it's quite common. You, that is to say if you were a burglar, knock to make sure nobody is home or to gain easy entry. The guys who killed sean Taylor, for example, knocked at his door.

[tyr_13]

Wow, a lot has happened in this thread, and many of you broke down the information in a manner that I wouldn't have had the time to. It's great to see a mostly intelligent debate on the matter for once (random extremeness aside).

If the culture and government of the US was sufficiently advanced enough to effectively enforce a total ban on weapons it would be sufficiently advanced enough not to need to.

I think that point was the only one someone else hasn't said yet that I could think of. If someone else said it already, sorry.

[Lonewulf]

The problem is, that the argument isn't necessarily "we can institute a total ban and eliminate all gun deaths", but instead, "instituting a partial ban and restricting usage even more, can prevent some gun deaths".

Personally, I swing more towards gun rights than I do gun control in general. But most of us are for SOME measure of gun control. The question generally is, how far is too far? Personally, I think that "too far" varies from country to country, and isn't something that can be scientifically validated -- at least, not in any way I can think of.

[tyr_13]

Fair enough. And I agree that some states a lax, and other restrictions are just stupid 'feel good' laws (such as those that ban parts that make a gun look scary).

I have yet to see someone arguing for no restrictions. Of course to be fair, few people are calling for a total firearm ban either.

[MattC]

Are you serious? You don't understand how a law that makes gun ownership more difficult and, for example, records details of sales, would also make it more difficult for criminals (or those law-abiding citizens that become criminals at some point after buying their guns) to get them, too? Or how a law that registered gun serial numbers might help in finding out how and where this guy acquired his stash, so that the seller might themselves be prosecuted?


You speak often of 'the law'. A criminal by definition is one who does not, in fact, obey the laws. I fail to see why a criminal would choose to obey the gun law as opposed to any other law they choose to break.

I'll take a mental leap and say that I pass these laws you suggest. The problem comes with all of the guns manufactured previously - what am I to do about them? They have not been registered under the new law, nor are they likely to be if someone intends to use them to commit a crime. Turning off or regulating this spigot of new guns still leaves an ocean of available ones that your proposed laws do not affect.

~ Matt

[Zep]

Nicely written. I would argue with some of the figures though, but I would need to re-dig out the data I compiled here a few years ago. So let me just speak to a few points.At the same time, going by the responses to criminological surveys on DGUs, there may be 240,000-340,000 incidents a year in which the gun owner felt he saved an innocent life by employing a gun in defense of self or others. This is almost certainly a gross overestimation, but even assuming that it's off by a factor of twenty, that would mean that private ownership of guns plays a part in saving 10,000 to 15,000 lives a year. In a typical year, that's close to the number of unlawful homicides that are committed using firearms. Admittedly, this is speculation, but it is speculation based on evidence.Sorry, but that last point sounds like my anti-tiger rocks I have here at home. These were sold to me by a devilishly cunning man in Singapore, and he guaranteed they keep tigers away. And since there have been no tigers here at my place, and I do check every day, they must be working. Again, that is just speculation, but it is still based on good evidence.

Note that I do say in the US. There are cultural factors at work that do not make this evidence necessarily applicable to other countries. Rates of firearm crime and death in most western European countries have always been lower than those in the United States, even before those countries imposed restrictions on private ownership of firearms, so we must conclude that there are other factors involved than the just the availability of firearms to private citizens.This is usually the point I get to in my own amateur evaluation of the situation. It is interesting to compare the USA with Canada (and for pasta's sake, don't mention Michael Moore!). The gun-ownership rate appears to be comparable, Canada is a big shootin'-huntin-fishin' place too, and yet the gun incident rates in Canada are way lower - much more comparable to Western European levels.

My conclusion has long been that it is not the guns per se in the USA that are the problem. It would seem to be the gun culture, the attitude to them that is an issue.

I'll just say that my own experience is that, outside of the USA, few other cultures except tin-pot dictatorships and mafias so revere and enshrine the gun in their society. That does not say the USA is a tin-pot dictatorship or a mafia - far from it. Just that from an outsider's point of view, it is a remarkably odd, persistent and concerning attribute of an otherwise remarkably beneficent and progressive society. Given that it is fully acknowledged as a known social ill, you do start to wonder if and when anyone will actually take the bull by the horns and make changes.

However that is a whole other discussion in itself that I suspect will never be resolved.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The problem is, that the argument isn't necessarily "we can institute a total ban and eliminate all gun deaths", but instead, "instituting a partial ban and restricting usage even more, can prevent some gun deaths".


Ummm... Do you mean, "instituting a partial ban and restricting usage even more," like they have in Chicago and Washington D.C.?

As of 2007...
Chicago (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm)
Violent Crime: 68,528 Rate per 100,000: 533.2
Murders: 752 Rate per 100,000: 5.9

Washington D.C. (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm)
Violent Crime: 8,320 Rate per 100,000: 1,414.3
Murders: 181 Rate per 100,000: 30.8


...or, "instituting a partial ban and restricting usage even more," like they have in the state of Vermont, where they are comparatively heavily armed and all you need to carry a concealed weapon is a weapon that's concealable?

As of 2007....
Vermont (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm)
Violent crimes: 772 Rate per 100,000: 124.1
Murders: 12 Rate per 100,000: 1.9

If the problem is simply guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens and the availability of firearms, and passing laws against gun possession and use is the solution, then the rates in Chicago and DC should be lower, because they have very strict laws against the possession of firearms, and very restrictive laws on their storage and use.

They, demonstrably, do not, so the problem must lie elsewhere.

I suggest that it's predominantly the criminals who are committing these crimes, and not the people whom restrictive ownership and use laws effect: The law-abiding gun owners.

Personally, I swing more towards gun rights than I do gun control in general. But most of us are for SOME measure of gun control. The question generally is, how far is too far? Personally, I think that "too far" varies from country to country, and isn't something that can be scientifically validated -- at least, not in any way I can think of.


I agree. We all want some gun control.

I, for one, don't want the guys that used to live next door to me to have anything that, if discharged in their house, would break my windows or send fragmentation into my walls. I think it's a valid concern in this sort of discussion.

:D Me: I desperately want gun control, so I use both hands. :D

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

.... Sorry, but that last point sounds like my anti-tiger rocks I have here at home. These were sold to me by a devilishly cunning man in Singapore, and he guaranteed they keep tigers away. And since there have been no tigers here at my place, and I do check every day, they must be working. Again, that is just speculation, but it is still based on good evidence. ....


Only, in the cases cited, there was a tiger, and it was acting carnivorously in the presence of the gun user. The subsequent display or use of force halted the carnivorous behavior.

Does your rock do that?

[Euromutt]

Sorry, but that last point sounds like my anti-tiger rocks I have here at home. These were sold to me by a devilishly cunning man in Singapore, and he guaranteed they keep tigers away. And since there have been no tigers here at my place, and I do check every day, they must be working. Again, that is just speculation, but it is still based on good evidence.
That's just simple application of Occam's Razor. You probably live in an area where there is no indigenous tiger population, and the chances of one escaping from a nearby zoo or circus and entering your house specifically is negligible, so the continued absence of tigers in your house can be readily explained by those facts alone, without the need to involve purportedly tiger-repellent rocks.

As opposed to tigers in your neck of the woods, however, there is violent crime in the United States, and there are numerous documented instances of private citizens using their firearms to defend themselves against would-be perpetrators. It is therefore not implausible that in certain circumstances, firearms are used to protect innocent life that might otherwise be threatened. So your analogy isn't entirely valid.

My conclusion has long been that it is not the guns per se in the USA that are the problem. It would seem to be the gun culture, the attitude to them that is an issue.
I have to disagree. There is a difference of culture, but it is not specifically gun culture. Rather, it seems to relate to homicide. There have been years that the non-gun homicide rate of the US has exceeded the overall homicide rates of several western European countries. At the same time, American violent crime rates for everything except homicide (assault, robbery, rape, etc.) tend to be lower than those of north-western European countries.

It might be tempting to conclude that Americans are less violent overall, but when they get violent, they tend to escalate to lethal levels more than other countries. But the problem with that conclusion is that if you exclude young, urban black males from the statistical population, American homicide rates are unremarkable compared to other rich industrialized countries. Lest it be thought I'm trying to imply something racist, I hasten to point out that it is young urban black males' socio-economic circumstances that tend to disproportionately place them at risk of being drawn into drug gang activity.

The United States has problems, but it's grossly oversimplifying the story to blame it entirely on American attitudes regarding firearms.

[Lonewulf]

Ummm... Do you mean, "instituting a partial ban and restricting usage even more," like they have in Chicago and Washington D.C.?


Just to let you know, I agree with you, and just because I explained the position that was being presented, does not mean I endorse it or believe it myself.

[Darth Rotor]

:D Me: I desperately want gun control, so I use both hands. :D
Yep. The careless use of "gun control" in this debate, be it public or on internet forums, on TV or in the Newspapers, is that it is a vague enough term to be granted a contextual meaning suited to the timber of argument being made.

There are plenty of gun laws. There are limits, and some reasonable constraints, on firearms ownership, usage, and sale. Punishing the law abiding gun owner is not a reasonable approach to those problems that firearms raise, in terms of risk assessment and management.

The use of this anecdote to highlight any sort of firearms policy issue is an egregious case of counting the hits and discounting the misses.

In other news, over twenty seven million gun owners didn't shoot anybody on Halloween. Should I now declare, based on that contextually ambiguous basis, that firearms safety is now a moot point? Were I to take the logic embodied in the OP, or the argument Volatile has attempted to make, I might so argue.

DR

[Damien Evans]

And in Australia we still have shootings so tight rules won't eliminate the problem entirely.

Yeah, but most of them are gangsters killing each other, at least around here anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_gangland_killings

[tyr_13]

The US is the most diverse country on earth, in the variety of ideas, cultures, sub-cultures, etc. We get some of the best and some of the worst. This is a wonderful thing, but does lead to the kinds of conflicts that are rare elsewhere. The US is also a huge market for criminal organizations. In what other country do 38th Street, Triad, and Mexican Mafia fight for territory?

It isn't the gun culture that results in the huge homicide rate. It is the conflicts in the several different criminal cultures.

[Stout]

Tell you what: Pass two easy little laws, and I'll be happy to give up my guns. You pass one law that gets rid of all the drugs, and another law that prevents the hoodla from getting and carrying guns, and I'm your biggest disarmed fan.


And therein lies the gold.

I've often wondered, sometimes out loud, sometimes just talking to the voices in my head that....were FSM to descend to Earth and wave his noodly appendage making all anti personnel firearms in the US vanish into thin air....Would the US rush to amend the constitution and join the rest of the world in thinking that having an armed society isn't maybe the best idea in the world. Or would the US crank the factories on overtime to re arm as quickly as possible ?

I can appreciate the "big picture" arguments put forth by the those living in gun controlled countries, seeing as how I live in one of those countries myself, but IMO the US is between a rock and a hard place on this issue due solely to the sheer volume of anti personnel weapons already in circulation in the country.

I'm thinking "gun culture" is more motivated out of necessity than "freedom"

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

And therein lies the gold.

I've often wondered, sometimes out loud, sometimes just talking to the voices in my head that....were FSM to descend to Earth and wave his noodly appendage making all anti personnel firearms in the US vanish into thin air....Would the US rush to amend the constitution and join the rest of the world in thinking that having an armed society isn't maybe the best idea in the world. Or would the US crank the factories on overtime to re arm as quickly as possible ?


Unless all the weapons on the world *POOF*, the criminal culture will rush to rearm, so yes, probably that whole, "crank the factories on overtime to re arm as quickly as possible," bit.

Also: You have to increase the scope of the en*POOF*ization, because people die just as well when shot with anti-material and anti-tank weaponry as well.

I can appreciate the "big picture" arguments put forth by the those living in gun controlled countries, seeing as how I live in one of those countries myself, but IMO the US is between a rock and a hard place on this issue due solely to the sheer volume of anti personnel weapons already in circulation in the country.

I'm thinking "gun culture" is more motivated out of necessity than "freedom"


When most people say, "gun culture," they think of a bunch of guys with gang colors on, dancing around pointing firearms at each other, and idiots on YouTube showing how quickly they can burn up $50 worth of ammo shooting at nothing in particular.

Those are not Gun Culture. They are, respectively, Thug Culture and Idiot Cousin Culture.

The guy that spends hours at a time teaching you how to shoot safely and accurately is Gun Culture.

The guy that sits with you and teaches you how to clean and maintain a firearm is gun culture.

The guy that, on the occasion of your first firearm purchase, celebrates it by giving you several different types of gun and trigger locks is Gun Culture.

The guy that tells you, over and over,
Always, ALWAYS assume that every firearm, at any time, is loaded.
Never point the firearm at anything you don’t intend to shoot.
Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
Know what you're shooting at, and what's behind it.
Be familiar with your firearm.
Keep your firearm unloaded and the action open when not actually shooting.and yells at you when you mess one of them up and takes the gun away from you if you mess up two at a time...

THAT's Gun Culture.

[Stout]

Hi Gagglegnash.

You figure the criminal element would be first in line at the gun shops once the factories have resumed production ? Maybe, but just say we did a worldwide poof then, what I'm interested in is would The US consider keeping those factories closed ? I dunno. It's one of those absurd hypothetical situations where I'm hoping to get some insight into just why Americans are so attached to their personal weapons.

I mean, it's understandable in reaction to the large numbers of armed criminals we're used to in these sort of discussions, and maybe, just maybe, if those criminals didn't have ready access to weapons, second amendmenters wouldn't feel "the need" so to speak.

I'm thinking of those same second amendmenters ( like the NRA ) when I mention gun culture, not the hoodla and I'm well aware that there's a huge percentage of gun owners who know and follow correct firearm handling procedures, like the gun culture you define.

Try as I might, I really can't find fault with American gun laws, they're pretty clear, it's just that as a resident of a country where i don't really have to "worry" about being a victim of gun crime ( yes, I know it's lifestyle related too...I'm a hippy ;) ) I have trouble understanding the passion with which owner's of guns for self defense use to defend their "right"

Maybe it's that...because it IS a right. and gives the freedom to choose.

Or maybe it's just kind of..normal.....to carry a gun in a wallet, keys, phone, glasses, gun kind of way.

It's just WHY Americans value this right so much when the rest of the "western" world has openly rejected "packing heat" as not being such a good idea.

Here in Canada, there's nothing stopping me from owning a home defense weapon, True I can't go out and by a AK, but I can buy a shotgun and some 00 buck, or a semi automatic ( no hi-cap mags, five shots only ) which would be more than adequate for things that go bump in the night. Heck, I can even buy a handgun and keep it ready to rock....But I can't say I want to, or know anybody who wants to either

[gumboot]

This story is a good example of why arguing about gun control laws or rates of gun ownership is a waste of time with regards to the USA. The problem is the society's general attitude towards other members of society. The example in the OP is an absolutely extreme example of course, but nonetheless it starkly highlights the critical issue the USA faces.

Incidents like the one in the OP, like the many school shootings, like other widely reported events, are not a result of a lack of gun control, or too widespread ownership, or any of those other matters. They are a result of a warped and problematic attitude towards larger society. If you addressed the real problem, all of the gun control precautions that have been suggested would be unnecessary.

[Drudgewire]

Or maybe it's just kind of..normal.....to carry a gun in a wallet, keys, phone, glasses, gun kind of way.


Is with me. When I got my CWP I figured it was something I'd take advantage of a few times a year. Now reaching for my gun is as natural as reaching for my wallet.

Man, this happened right behind one of our offices. What a scumbag. :mad:

[Lonewulf]

This story is a good example of why arguing about gun control laws or rates of gun ownership is a waste of time with regards to the USA. The problem is the society's general attitude towards other members of society. The example in the OP is an absolutely extreme example of course, but nonetheless it starkly highlights the critical issue the USA faces.

Incidents like the one in the OP, like the many school shootings, like other widely reported events, are not a result of a lack of gun control, or too widespread ownership, or any of those other matters. They are a result of a warped and problematic attitude towards larger society. If you addressed the real problem, all of the gun control precautions that have been suggested would be unnecessary.I don't think it's a good idea to use this example as "society's general attitude towards other members of society". In this case, you are talking about members of the drug trade, who live in a whole other world as many other individuals in the united states.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Hi Gagglegnash.

You figure the criminal element would be first in line at the gun shops once the factories have resumed production ? Maybe, but just say we did a worldwide poof then, what I'm interested in is would The US consider keeping those factories closed ? I dunno. It's one of those absurd hypothetical situations where I'm hoping to get some insight into just why Americans are so attached to their personal weapons.


No - the criminal element doesn't worry much about retail sales. They just offer another criminal money to get them one... from where ever they are currently available. That's why I mentioned that, "whole world," en*POOF*ment.

If all the weapons suddenly disappeared, I think there would still be a demand for firearms in the US. I don't think there would be the same mad-dash-arms-race that might otherwise ensue, but shooting is fun, and when done right, more shooters die in car wrecks getting to the shooting ranges than are shot.

I keep a bunch of stuff available, true, but I also have a rifle that I was setting up to shoot eggs at 500 yards, a .22LR target pistol (not Olympic grade, but still, fun to try to get those holes really close together), a collector's piece, and a two-gun rig and matched single action .45's from when I thought I was going to do some cowboy action shooting (http://www.sassnet.com/). (Talking about tough rules: ONE screw up and you're out of the contest. Two and you're off-site. No arguments. Just gone.)

It may be hard to imagine from a no-guns point of view, but there's lots of stuff you can do with guns besides kill stuff. Just ask your local Olympic shooting team.

I mean, it's understandable in reaction to the large numbers of armed criminals we're used to in these sort of discussions, and maybe, just maybe, if those criminals didn't have ready access to weapons, second amendmenters wouldn't feel "the need" so to speak.


The whole reason for the Second Amendment was to assure that the states could remain armed to prevent overt jackassulation by a central government that decided to get tyrannical. Those Founding Fathers and the populace around them had just come off a bit of a cock-up with King 'Thick as a Whale Omelet' George of England, and wanted to have something in place to make the central government pay heed to the lesson.

They're not talking about hunting arms, there. They're talking about standard issue infantry arms, or better!

As a side point, in the state of Indiana, where I live, if you're 18 or older, you are in the state militia! Ok - the, "sedentary," militia, but still... if the Governor calls, you're required by law to go (unless you are otherwise forbidden or excused form bearing arms).

People have guns for lots of reasons, and not just for home defence.

My Junior High School librarian had a gun collection because her Dad had a gun collection. My godfather kept a single-shot .22 by the back door to keep the number of squirrels in his back yard down. The guy I used to work for on a farm (he was a lawyer before he decided to go into cattle ranching) kept long arms in a rack in the back window of his truck and a handgun in his glove compartment to discourage wild dogs and coyote from killing the calves.

The thing to note is that all of these guys were stodgy, older, old-fashioned, law-abiding folks.

Is it anywhere close to fair to punish them (and yes - taking away our guns IS a punishment - it's one of the things we do to convicted felons) because someone else decided that he just couldn't stand not killing someone?

I'm thinking of those same second amendmenters ( like the NRA ) when I mention gun culture, not the hoodla and I'm well aware that there's a huge percentage of gun owners who know and follow correct firearm handling procedures, like the gun culture you define.

Try as I might, I really can't find fault with American gun laws, they're pretty clear, it's just that as a resident of a country where i don't really have to "worry" about being a victim of gun crime ( yes, I know it's lifestyle related too...I'm a hippy ;) ) I have trouble understanding the passion with which owner's of guns for self defense use to defend their "right"


Partly, it's because pf the passion with which the anti-gun factions (yes - more than one) attack the right. An impassioned plea of, "think of the children," trumps all the hard data anyone can put out.

Partly, it's because it's our favorite hobby. Think of your favorite hobby: One that millions of people do and enjoy with relative safety. Now, imagine that a bunch of people that only know of it what they see on TV decide that it's dangerous for children and causes crimes and proposes to abolish it. Furthermore, nations around the world have already abolished it for similar reasons.

Would you start to feel a little... put upon?

Maybe it's that...because it IS a right. and gives the freedom to choose.

Or maybe it's just kind of..normal.....to carry a gun in a wallet, keys, phone, glasses, gun kind of way.

It's just WHY Americans value this right so much when the rest of the "western" world has openly rejected "packing heat" as not being such a good idea.


It is just that normal for a lot of gun users. It's something that's always been there, like... oh... I dunno... a car; Something we grew up with, something that we view as normal and ordinary, something a lot of us learned about from our folks and that our grandparents told us about in their stories.

It's our heritage.

Here in Canada, there's nothing stopping me from owning a home defense weapon, True I can't go out and by a AK, but I can buy a shotgun and some 00 buck, or a semi automatic ( no hi-cap mags, five shots only ) which would be more than adequate for things that go bump in the night. Heck, I can even buy a handgun and keep it ready to rock....But I can't say I want to, or know anybody who wants to either


That's fine. I don't want you to have firearms if you don't want it. I just want to be allowed the freedom to do something that gives me pleasure and doesn't (or hasn't yet - that's kind of important) caused anyone else any problems without getting lumped in with gang-bangers, drive-by shooters, druggies, and idiots.

Something like 75 million US citizens have guns and use them safely and responsibly, but we're all being judged by people that don't know anything about guns and sentenced along with the people who use guns to murder 18,000 people per year.

As an American, I should be innocent until proven guilty, right? Yet, here I am, being found guilty, because, "my attitude towards guns," caused some jackassulating ex-con holding an illegal gun to defend illegal drugs to illegally shoot some poor little kid to death.

If you were being accused of being responsible for murders, would you get vocal?

There's a saying about using it or losing it. The only way to keep a right is to exercise the right, so a lot of gun owners just take the Second Amendment out for a serious run every now and again.

[six7s]

That's why I mentioned that, "whole world," en*POOF*ment.Damn you G, now I have this image of Clint Eastwood in a fetching chiffon number saying "Go ahead spunky, make my night"

:p

[Euromutt]

I've often wondered, sometimes out loud, sometimes just talking to the voices in my head that....were FSM to descend to Earth and wave his noodly appendage making all anti personnel firearms in the US vanish into thin air....Would the US rush to amend the constitution and join the rest of the world in thinking that having an armed society isn't maybe the best idea in the world. Or would the US crank the factories on overtime to re arm as quickly as possible ?
What if it weren't the American gun manufacturers that threw their production lines into overdrive? Organized criminals in western Europe don't seem to have any problem laying their hands on firearms when they want them, and the primary source of those weapons is eastern Europe. On 02-Apr-2007, the trial in Amsterdam against Dutch organized criminal Willem Holleeder was interrupted when parties unknown fired several rifle grenades at the court building.

So even if the FSM magicked all guns in the US out of existence, and law-abiding Americans decided en masse to forgo acquiring new ones, what would prevent the American criminal element from illicitly importing (aka "smuggling") firearms from unscrupulous sources in eastern Europe and rearming themselves? And thus becoming all the more lethal, since their prospective prey--insofar as these will not be members of the criminal element themselves--are now guaranteed to be incapable of using firearms to resist.

You're overlooking a crucial aspect in this shooting, which is that the shooter was someone who, even according to American societal norms, should not have had a firearm in the first place. Given the presence of $7.5K on the premises, I'm figuring this guy went back to dealing drugs after his most recent release from prison, and the robbery he'd suffered earlier this year was at the hands of an Omar Little (http://www.hbo.com/thewire/cast/characters/omar.shtml)-wannabe.

If drug dealers have little problem laying their hands on substances that had to be smuggled all the way from Afghanistan and Bolivia, why should smuggling guns from eastern Europe run into an insurmountable obstacle? It'd jack the price of illicit firearms, but there's at east one study out there (I'd have to dig around for the reference) that the more sinister the purpose to which the user intends to put the firearm, the higher the markup the user is willing to accept.

[Zep]

Hi

Only, in the cases cited, there was a tiger, and it was acting carnivorously in the presence of the gun user. The subsequent display or use of force halted the carnivorous behavior.

Does your rock do that?Sure it does! As I said, there's no tigers attacked me here, so it stands to reason that there must have been tigers at some time for them to be scared away. ;)

Slightly more seriously, have a look at the reasons why guns are owned in the USA. Most claimed reason? Personal protection. Why? There's violent people out there! True?

Well, we have violent criminals here in Australia who carry too. No doubt about it, we certainly do. Do we have military forces, armed police, professional and sports hunters, shooting clubs, weapons museums, and "working" guns here? I.e. guns in our communities? Yes we do. But do we as a populace generally go about armed for "personal protection"? No - it's so rare as to be unheard of (and handguns are heavily controlled items anyway). And what's our firearm incident rate? A relatively small fraction of the USA - about one fifth the rate or less, IIRC.

The difference seems to be definitely in attitude. We are not in fear of our government, we are not in constant fear of the criminal elements being armed, we see no need to be armed as a right or a matter of course. The "right to bear arms" is not mentioned in our constitution - it is not relevant to us as defining part of our nation.

Back to the anti-tiger rocks: The probability that any person in the USA is likely to be attacked is probably very low - at least as low as here in Australia, if not lower. So there is probably even less necessity than here for them to carry a gun for personal defence. And of those that do carry, the likelihood of them having to even brandish the weapon is probably much lower still. So those guns are actually a form of "anti-tiger rock" - they have successfully deterred a threat that is in fact close to non-existent.

The argument is that the very presence of these personal guns, especially concealed, somehow deters crime. Personally I consider that fallacious thinking by people who buy concealable guns for that purpose; it seems to endow the potential crims (who are usually one brain-cell behind amoeba anyway) with the psychic ability to see inside handbags and hidden holsters, etc, and make a rational choice to not attack if they detect hardware. That they can't suggests to me a large part of the justification for carry concealed is wrong.

[Zep]

Before my older brother was killed he was in the drug business for awhile--Crank to be specific--and part of that culture was the acquisition of guns to protect himself and his lackeys and as a result I saw all sorts of weapons, from uzi's to G3's go through his place. Where did these weapons, many of them illegal outright, come from? Mexico. They were all smuggled up from Mexico which, ironically, has stricter gun laws than the US. There's a huge underground market for these things and if you have the money you can buy damned near anything you want through it.

It was my experiences way back then that led to my cynicism about gun laws. I failed to see how they could work with literally millions of such firearms available to be brought over the border and the tens of millions of such undocumented firearms already in the country. Gun laws can work in an isolated and tightly regulated place....and Australia and the UK are pretty good examples of that...but the US is in a very different situation that probably calls for a different type of solution if any is viable at all.
I see your point. However we are not as isolated as you think, and the UK is definitely not isolated at all, for all practical purposes.

And do we have lots of unlicensed guns among crims here, especially in the drug trade? Sure. Do they give a toss about our laws. Nope, nada. Do our crims shoot it out among themselves? Frequently - another one only recently (http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=28&ContentID=31777).

And yet we are not an armed population as a rule, and our gun incident rate is low by US standards. Why is that?

[Stout]

This story is a good example of why arguing about gun control laws or rates of gun ownership is a waste of time with regards to the USA. .

I tend to agree with that sentiment which is the reason I came up with that freakazoid empoofment of all firearms in the US in order to get some input whether owning self defense guns is a matter of fear of armed criminals or a sense of needing an "equaliser" just in case the owner is confronted with an unarmed assailant who's physically bigger and stronger than they are.

Maybe a bit of both..?

What we gun controlled country dwellers are "shocked" about is the general availability of what I call anti-personnel firearms ( most handguns, assault weapons ) and the reluctance of the American population to consider these as "not a good idea".

Well, at least this resident of a gun controlled country is.

[tyr_13]

I tend to agree with that sentiment which is the reason I came up with that freakazoid empoofment of all firearms in the US in order to get some input whether owning self defense guns is a matter of fear of armed criminals or a sense of needing an "equaliser" just in case the owner is confronted with an unarmed assailant who's physically bigger and stronger than they are.

Maybe a bit of both..?

What we gun controlled country dwellers are "shocked" about is the general availability of what I call anti-personnel firearms ( most handguns, assault weapons ) and the reluctance of the American population to consider these as "not a good idea".

Well, at least this resident of a gun controlled country is.


Or maybe we enjoy shooting? How come people keep ignoring that point? Yes, guns can kill people but basically their job is to put holes in things at a distance. If the thing that gets a hole in it is necessary for continued life function, yes, it kills. But most of us don't want to do that. We want to put holes in targets, just like archers.

Could you define 'assault' weapons for us? No offense, but most people I've talked to who are against guns don't seem to really know what it means. They tend to think it is any 'scary' looking gun.

On a side note, I spent an hour yesterday chasing an injured deer through out woods. My uncle's idiot dog wouldn't leave it alone, and the deer looked like it had been hit by a car. Not owning a shotgun, I took my scoped 10/22 mostly because I couldn't find my binoculars. In the end we were able to tie the hurt two point buck to a tree and call a conservation officer, but if the animal had charged me, well, charged me without me dodging it, I would have shot it. Almost did anyway, the poor thing was hurt so badly. Does that count as using a gun for self-defense or as an optical tool?

[Stout]

It may be hard to imagine from a no-guns point of view, but there's lots of stuff you can do with guns besides kill stuff. Just ask your local Olympic shooting team.
QUOTE]

That I understand...I've owned rifles and shotguns in the past and although they were "kinda fun" I guess I pretty much lost interest in shooting as a sport. I've always been an urban type of guy, so I've never experienced the need for a firearm to control varmint's however i have nothing against firearm ownership for these purposes. Insert story about being a teenager who saved up for a .30-.30 ( one of those "pack guns" ) only to find that on my meager wages, I couldn't afford ammo....DOH !...Boom = $1 and at the three bucks an hour I was making.......


[QUOTE]The whole reason for the Second Amendment was to assure that the states could remain armed to prevent overt jackassulation by a central government that decided to get tyrannical.

OK, I understand that and I'm willing to lump it in under the "tradition" category however I have a hard time thinking that in this day and age that tradition would be at all effective...if push came to shove that is.

Is it anywhere close to fair to punish them (and yes - taking away our guns IS a punishment - it's one of the things we do to convicted felons) because someone else decided that he just couldn't stand not killing someone?

Interesting perspective, I hadn't thought of it like that before. The gun controlled country dweller in me hadn't thought that not being able to own something like a Tech9 or a class 3 weapon might be considered as punishment. I can understand the viewpoint though.

Partly, it's because pf the passion with which the anti-gun factions (yes - more than one) attack the right.

I can fully understand that and how that would inflame gun owners.

It is just that normal for a lot of gun users. It's something that's always been there, like... oh... I dunno... a car; Something we grew up with, something that we view as normal and ordinary, something a lot of us learned about from our folks and that our grandparents told us about in their stories.

I can understand that too, however my inner hippy has a hard time accepting that something like carrying a handgun could be considered normal. I may thin differently, however, if I moved to the US and guns became more familiar.

As an American, I should be innocent until proven guilty, right? Yet, here I am, being found guilty, because, "my attitude towards guns," caused some jackassulating ex-con holding an illegal gun to defend illegal drugs to illegally shoot some poor little kid to death.

Yes, pretty much. We see that attitude as being directly responsible for the sheer volume and availability of the type of guns us gun control folks are all afraid of. We're not so fussed about the long guns, just the "scary" ones that constantly make the news, like in the OP.

There's a saying about using it or losing it. The only way to keep a right is to exercise the right, so a lot of gun owners just take the Second Amendment out for a serious run every now and again.

OK, I'll side that.

Gagglegnash...you give good explanation

Cheers.

[Stout]

So even if the FSM magicked all guns in the US out of existence, and law-abiding Americans decided en masse to forgo acquiring new ones, what would prevent the American criminal element from illicitly importing (aka "smuggling") firearms from unscrupulous sources in eastern Europe and rearming themselves? And thus becoming all the more lethal, since their prospective prey--insofar as these will not be members of the criminal element themselves--are now guaranteed to be incapable of using firearms to resist.

You're overlooking a crucial aspect in this shooting, which is that the shooter was someone who, even according to American societal norms, should not have had a firearm in the first place. Given the presence of $7.5K on the premises, I'm figuring this guy went back to dealing drugs after his most recent release from prison, and the robbery he'd suffered earlier this year was at the hands of an Omar Little (http://www.hbo.com/thewire/cast/characters/omar.shtml)-wannabe.



Yes, that's a very distinct possibility. What I'm seeing here in Canada is armed criminals using their weapons on each other ( at least according to media reports ) rather than using them on "innocent civilians" For instance, getting mugged at gunpoint is rather rare, but there are armed robberies...

What I'm wondering out is the "vicious circle" that I see in threads like this. Civilians feel the need for self defense weapons because criminals have weapons...criminals need weapons because civilians have weapons, the civilian demand for weapons increases the availability of "illegal" weapons making access to weapons for criminals theoretically easier ( based on the sheer volume of weapons )

[Stout]

Or maybe we enjoy shooting? How come people keep ignoring that point? Yes, guns can kill people but basically their job is to put holes in things at a distance. If the thing that gets a hole in it is necessary for continued life function, yes, it kills. But most of us don't want to do that. We want to put holes in targets, just like archers.

Hi tyr.

Enjoying shooting ( like hunting ) as a hobby is perfectly understandable.


Could you define 'assault' weapons for us? No offense, but most people I've talked to who are against guns don't seem to really know what it means. They tend to think it is any 'scary' looking gun.

Yes, I'm thinking scary looking guns that are designed for the purpose of putting many rounds into many people in the shortest amount of time, but pretty much any semi automatic weapon with a high-cap magazine would fit that description if you wanted to stretch it. I'm thinking weapons designed solely with an anti-personnel function, we can include class 3 weapons too.

Does that count as using a gun for self-defense or as an optical tool

Sounds like it qualifies as both, but why would you need to take the time to fit the scope to the gun if you only wanted an optical device ? It sounds rather unwieldy, assuming of course that you weren't in a legal position to harvest that animal and were only carrying the rifle should you need to defend yourself from an injured, cornered animal.

As an non gun owner, were i to find myself in your situation, I would probably hesitate to get within the deer's striking distance and most likely wouldn't have been able to accomplish what you did.

[tyr_13]

I didn't take the time to mount the scope because it was already mounted. I didn't want to take the time to unmount it. If I had been thinking, I would have grabbed the unmounted scope I have tucked away in a drawer.

Honestly, I would have felt safer with a long stick to knock the deer away with though. I was hoping that the deer wasn't that badly hurt, and that I could just get the stupid dog away from it. Sadly, the deer was beyond saving.

Oddly enough, my 10/22 fits your description of an assault rifle. I only own two guns, the 10/22 and a .22 Henry lever action. The lever action I can shoot almost as fast as my Ruger, but it doesn't fit your description.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
incorporating

Sure it does! As I said, there's no tigers attacked me here, so it stands to reason that there must have been tigers at some time for them to be scared away. ;)


No it doesn't. Your rock prevents them from ever showing up.

There is a very real difference between a not-there tiger and a meat tiger in your living room. The reports cited were of meat tigers doing meat tigerey things which were stopped using a display of force.

Call me when a tiger comes through your front door, sees the rock and subsequently departs. Better yet, call me when you bag one with your rock (http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/111105/sta_111105106.shtml)...

or... you know... two (http://www.ktla.com/landing/?77-year-old-Woman-Shoots-Intruder-in-Cro=1&blockID=125539&feedID=1080).

Slightly more seriously, have a look at the reasons why guns are owned in the USA. Most claimed reason? Personal protection. Why? There's violent people out there! True?


Another is that one of the fastest ways to get turned down for a permit is to get specific about why you want it. When I went to get my carry permit, the police person there told me that the best thing to put in the, "reason," slot was self defense.

Also, "self defense," is easier to fit into the space they provide on the questionnaires than, "target shooting (benchrest, 25/50/100 meter, metallic silhouette, and running target), IPSC practical shooting, cowboy action shooting, collecting, hunting, three-gun competition, and self defense."

...and that's just me. I don't shoot nearly as much as most of the shooters I know.

....

Well - WAS me. I can't do most of that stuff any more.

Well, we have violent criminals here in Australia who carry too. No doubt about it, we certainly do. Do we have military forces, armed police, professional and sports hunters, shooting clubs, weapons museums, and "working" guns here? I.e. guns in our communities? Yes we do. But do we as a populace generally go about armed for "personal protection"? No - it's so rare as to be unheard of (and handguns are heavily controlled items anyway). And what's our firearm incident rate? A relatively small fraction of the USA - about one fifth the rate or less, IIRC.


Annnnnd... what was the rate before the gun bans?

Oh - wait - pretty much the same!

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/), (not gonna post the charts. I got a warning for that once already, even thought the postings were within the AIC's fair-use guidelines) the homicide rate went from about 1.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.4 per 100,000 in 2006, with excursions as high as 1.8 and as low as 1.3 per 100,000. The manslaughter rate is flat at 0.2 per 100,000 since 1999, a rate higher than it was in 1996.

The next chart down shows that you're keeping a fairly constant rate of decline in crime. Good on you, but where's the big drop after the semi-automatic weapons ban? The trend in firearm homicides (http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/weapon.html) shows a good constant decline, both before and after the gun ban.

I will risk the Teh Wrath of the Mods on one thing: Overall violent crime. This chart from the above source, shows a breakdown of Australian violent crime:

From Australian Institute of Criminology (http://www.aic.gov.au/research/homicide/stats/) page on Violent Crime Statistics...
http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats/index_rate.png (http://www.aic.gov.au/topics/violence/stats/)

I hope you guys have been doing better, the last couple of years.

BUT...

A decline in homicides is good though! I like declines in homicides.

I like them so much that I'd like to show you some figures from the US Bureau of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/welcome.html) Key Crime & Justice Facts at a Glance (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm):

(Please note: These are paid for with US taxes, so they're open-use.)

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/ncsucr2.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.gif

Putting that into a framework similar to the Australian graphs (I had to do this myself...)

http://sites.google.com/site/gagglegnash/_/rsrc/1225806848211/what-me-done/UsHomicideRates.jpg

...and no... errr... few, ok, few... gun bans in place.

The difference seems to be definitely in attitude. We are not in fear of our government, we are not in constant fear of the criminal elements being armed, we see no need to be armed as a right or a matter of course. The "right to bear arms" is not mentioned in our constitution - it is not relevant to us as defining part of our nation.


On the other hand, your government and media got you all so whipped up and weirded out about a single tragic event at Port Arthur that you all decided to take the semi-automatic firearms away from the people that did want them.

Majority rule, minority rights?

That's pretty frightening to me. Why is it that your government feels that an armed populace is more dangerous to it than a whole mess of armed criminals, or is it just permissible to remove a standing but nonenumerated right as long as the minority is small enough?

...and do the members of your government forgo the use of semi-automatic rifles and handguns in their own protection? Your national elite are allowed resources that are denied the common citizen. All of a sudden, that whole, "equal rights under the law," bit starts to look pretty shaky to me.

...and for what it's worth, we're not afraid of our government nor the criminal element. We've got guns and our constitution restrains our government from infringing on that.

Maybe that will change some day. Personally, I hope it doesn't.

Back to the anti-tiger rocks: The probability that any person in the USA is likely to be attacked is probably very low - at least as low as here in Australia, if not lower. So there is probably even less necessity than here for them to carry a gun for personal defence. And of those that do carry, the likelihood of them having to even brandish the weapon is probably much lower still. So those guns are actually a form of "anti-tiger rock" - they have successfully deterred a threat that is in fact close to non-existent.


See rock bits above.

As for likelihoods, how likely are you to have a flat tire? I've been in more actual gun fights than I've had flat tires. Why do you carry a spare tire?

Do you keep a first aid kit? Do you have a fire extinguisher? How often do you use those?

When I was shooting actively, I put a box of rounds (20 to 50) through three handguns every weekend. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that you don't use your spare tire, first aid kit, and fire extinguisher that often.

As for likelihood, your homicide rate, nation wide, sits at about 1.4 homicides per 100,000 and falling, and your violent crime rate is at about 800 and rising. In the US, our homicide rate in 2005 was 5.6 and level, and our violent crime rate was 467 and generally falling on the same scale

That means I'm something like 4 times as likely to be murdered as you are. Everyone in the world tells us out murder rate is HUGH!

So, you out of country gun-control guys have to get your rational straight: Either the US has a horrible murder rate, or we US gun owners are paranoid. It can't possibly be both.

The argument is that the very presence of these personal guns, especially concealed, somehow deters crime. Personally I consider that fallacious thinking by people who buy concealable guns for that purpose; it seems to endow the potential crims (who are usually one brain-cell behind amoeba anyway) with the psychic ability to see inside handbags and hidden holsters, etc, and make a rational choice to not attack if they detect hardware. That they can't suggests to me a large part of the justification for carry concealed is wrong.


And yet, our violent crime is declining while yours is increasing.

The government of Britain, that gun-free paradise, has taken down all those nice, easily understandable graphs that show both their gun crime and violent crime are increasing, as well.

After all, even the crims read the papers...

Mmm... Ok - maybe not - but they watch TV, anyhow...

and a few stories about guys getting shot in the performance of their chosen professions can go a long way towards making the rest of them a bit twitchy.

Now: Lets do a Gedankenexperimente....

You walk into a room with 100 guys in it, arranged in a line, and you know from previous experience that one guy in four has a gun. You get to walk up to anyone you want and take all their stuff.

The only catch is: If the guy you walk up to has a gun, he gets to shoot you.

You also know that just down the road a ways is another 100 guys, none of whom has a gun.

You really, really want some other guys stuff. What do you do?

Now, unfortunately, criminals tend to be criminal because they don't consider consequences prior to performing the act that makes them criminals. That whole, "I just can not go back to prison," thing only occurs to most of them only after they pull the gun on the liquor store owner.

So it's not a perfect defense, but it is A defense.

I'm happy that fewer guns, increasing violent crime, and a government that's afraid of an armed, law-abiding populace is working for you guys down under.

I just don't think that the US is civilized enough for all that.

[ETA]
That I understand...I've owned rifles and shotguns in the past and although they were "kinda fun" I guess I pretty much lost interest in shooting as a sport. I've always been an urban type of guy, so I've never experienced the need for a firearm to control varmint's however i have nothing against firearm ownership for these purposes. Insert story about being a teenager who saved up for a .30-.30 ( one of those "pack guns" ) only to find that on my meager wages, I couldn't afford ammo....DOH !...Boom = $1 and at the three bucks an hour I was making.......

....clip....


The line of demarcation between anti- and pro-gun attitudes here in the US seems to be urban/rural, as well. There are very deeply blue guys in the sparsely occupied west that carry and support citizen carry.

I suspect it's because cities have so few places to shoot that city folks never get the training early on that allows someone to look at a gun and have Dad's voice in their ears... keep the gun pointed downrange... keep your finger off the trigger... make sure it's unloaded....

Oh - and - are you Australian or Canadian? I seem to keep changing my mind about where I'm talking about.... :o :confused:

[technoextreme]

Hi




Mmm... anyone that sprays bullets from inside the house at an unknown target outside the house is more stupid than insane.
.
Yeah right what about the insane morons spraying bullets at burglars for self defense reasons.
The line of demarcation between anti- and pro-gun attitudes here in the US seems to be urban/rural, as well. There are very deeply blue guys in the sparsely occupied west that carry and support citizen carry.

Nah... It's just self preservation. In rural areas the odds of you accidentally killing someone are pretty dam low. In the more urban areas the odds of you accidentally killing someone tends to rise if you are doing seemingly innocuous things.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Yeah right what about the insane morons spraying bullets at burglars for self defense reasons.


Uhhh... you mean the police? Civilians, for the most part, aren't allowed to have firearms that, "spray," bullets.

Nah... It's just self preservation. In rural areas the odds of you accidentally killing someone are pretty dam low. In the more urban areas the odds of you accidentally killing someone tends to rise if you are doing seemingly innocuous things.


The primary difference is that one group is shooting at someone meaning to do them an indeterminable amount of dirt, and the other group is shooting at the proverbial anydamnbody.

While I'm nearly sure it's happened, I've never heard about someone shooting at an actual burglar and killing someone else. That may be an interesting bit of data. I'll look it up.

However, the rational for barring possession of firearms in cities isn't the risk of killing someone else. It's always the violent crime and murder, and, again, it's not the criminals that are prevented from having firearms by a firearm-banning law.

[technoextreme]

While I'm nearly sure it's happened, I've never heard about someone shooting at an actual burglar and killing someone else. That may be an interesting bit of data. I'll look it up.


I know it's happened with the cops and those people actually know what they are doing.
However, the rational for barring possession of firearms in cities isn't the risk of killing someone else. It's always the violent crime and murder, and, again, it's not the criminals that are prevented from having firearms by a firearm-banning law.
Ooo I don't really care about banning guns. I just don't particularly want any shield lawas for people who use them for self defense.

[tyr_13]

I know it's happened with the cops and those people actually know what they are doing.

Ooo I don't really care about banning guns. I just don't particularly want any shield lawas for people who use them for self defense.

As I've noted before, most gun enthusiasts I know are better shots than most of the police I know, although the guys that I know who are both are great shots on the move. Cops don't get to shoot enough, probably because of paper work. :p So as far as, 'know what they are doing' most gun enthusiasts do know.

I'm not blaming cops, they are at risk more and have to use their weapons with a lot of other people around.

[Gagglegnash]

I know it's happened with the cops and those people actually know what they are doing.


Interestingly enough, when it comes to just plain ol' shooting the wrong people, the police hold a firm lead.

I'm nearly positive that I read an artrice from the Department of Justice (or some such - maybe the FBI) saying that in their sample period, the police shot the wrong person 11% of the time, while ordinary citizens, using a firearm to defend themselves and actually discharging the weapon only shot the wrong guy 3% of the time.

I'll try to find the original citation.

Ooo I don't really care about banning guns. I just don't particularly want any shield lawas for people who use them for self defense.


To what, "shield laws," do you refer?

[Drudgewire]

Ooo I don't really care about banning guns. I just don't particularly want any shield lawas for people who use them for self defense.


Well since self defense is the best legal reason to own a gun are you saying you don't want guns banned, you just want people to only use them as decorative flower pots? :confused:

[Lonewulf]

Interestingly enough, when it comes to just plain ol' shooting the wrong people, the police hold a firm lead.

I'm nearly positive that I read an artrice from the Department of Justice (or some such - maybe the FBI) saying that in their sample period, the police shot the wrong person 11% of the time, while ordinary citizens, using a firearm to defend themselves and actually discharging the weapon only shot the wrong guy 3% of the time.

I'll try to find the original citation.

Don't put too much weight on such things. From my perspective, police officers are often forced to throw themselves into situations that are far more dangerous, on average, than the average citizen will find themselves.

That's my perspective on this, at least.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Don't put too much weight on such things. From my perspective, police officers are often forced to throw themselves into situations that are far more dangerous, on average, than the average citizen will find themselves.

That's my perspective on this, at least.


In this case, all of the civilian sooters were being actively jackassulated against. It doesn't get much more dangerous than that.

If you asked my opinion, I'd say it's because the police tend to show up significantly after the incident is finished, and it's hard to tell exactly who was holding the gun 15 minutes ago.

Don't get me wrong! The police so a bang-up job of keeping us from getting more banged up then we do. It's just that they're a phone call, a dispatch, a quick drive, and a cautious run from what's happening while the victim is right in the middle of it, right from the start.

[Stout]

As for likelihoods, how likely are you to have a flat tire? I've been in more actual gun fights than I've had flat tires.

What ????:confused:

Are you saying that as veteran or LEO ? If I'd been involved in as many gunfights as I've had flat tires I'd sure see the need for a gun in every room, a carry gun, a car gun and a couple of guns for the boat I don't own yet.

Gagglegnash, those are a couple of really poor stories about DGUs. First that 66 year old grandma sounds like she was more looking to shoot someone than anything else. She did what ? hunted a criminal in her house ? Now is that stupid or what ? Suppose the criminal hiding in the closet had a gun himself ? Grandma would have been at a tactical disadvantage...BOOM, as soon as she touched that closet door.

Then she shoots him in the leg....against her training, but since he was running away why not put a round into him, you know, since he's no longer a threat, seeing as how he's running away, a shot to the leg will grant her that DGU hero status to toss around at barbeque's.

The second one ? That'll teach that college kid not to walk into the wrong house.

We need good ones...where the psycho was approaching with murder in his eye and a rusty knife in his teeth....and all that stood between my family and total annihilation was me and my Desert Eagle...that sort of thing.

Hesitant executioners and drunken teens don't really do it

BTW, I'm Canadian....

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

What ????:confused:

Are you saying that as veteran or LEO ? If I'd been involved in as many gunfights as I've had flat tires I'd sure see the need for a gun in every room, a carry gun, a car gun and a couple of guns for the boat I don't own yet.


A vet. A year and a half in Sunny South East Asia. I've been in three gun fights, which is three too many.

Gagglegnash, those are a couple of really poor stories about DGUs. First that 66 year old grandma sounds like she was more looking to shoot someone than anything else. She did what ? hunted a criminal in her house ? Now is that stupid or what ? Suppose the criminal hiding in the closet had a gun himself ? Grandma would have been at a tactical disadvantage...BOOM, as soon as she touched that closet door.


Actually, of all the examples I looked up, I chose these to specifically to get your exact response.

....

Well - and also that I thought the second was kind of funny.

In the first example, you will recall that the old lady invited the guy to get down on the ground and fully explained the consequences should he fail to comply.

Then she shoots him in the leg....against her training, but since he was running away why not put a round into him, you know, since he's no longer a threat, seeing as how he's running away, a shot to the leg will grant her that DGU hero status to toss around at barbeque's.


He neither ran away nor got horizontal. He tried to grab her firearm.

So she shot the guy.

Now, I wouldn't have done it that way. Stuff is replaceable, cell phone calls are cheap, and I'm as at home across the street as anywhere, but why do you figure that she, in her own home, should be the one to back away?

A lot of sates, like Indiana where I live, have enacted what the anti-gun folks, being as even handed and objective as they always are, call, "The MURDER Law!"

It states:
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against
another person to protect the person or a third person from what the
person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.
However, a person:
.
.
.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force,
against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to
prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on
the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

(Bolding mine) (so you know which one I'm talking about) (and so I can make run-on notations)


Was she wise in doing what she did? Probably not.

Did it work? Absolutely.

In situations like this, there is only one criterion for success: You get to walk away.

In this case, both of them walked away. Good on her!

The second one ? That'll teach that college kid not to walk into the wrong house.


Someone that isn't supposed to be in your house and set off an alarm while getting in is coming at you. You point a gun at the person and tell him to leave, and he just keeps coming.

May I ask how you are able to tell if it's a practiced rapist figuring that a 77 year old lady doesn't have the nerve to shoot him or a drunken idiot of a college student?

If you can tell the difference while it's happening, I hear you can get a million dollars still.

A lot of the anti-gun folks grab up on stories like this in exactly the same manner. It's like, "you have a gun! Why aren't you supernaturally able to determine the intention of the stranger in your house?"

People with guns are held to a vastly different standard.

In the eyes of the anti-gunners, we're criminals already, for just owning the guns, and if we should shoot someone who turns out, after it's all over and the police are there and all the information has bee taken down and entered into evidence, to be just some harmless idiot, then it's our fault for not knowing all the particular details before hand.

They seem to think that people breaking into someone else's house stop and fill out a questionnaire before entering the premises.

:D Thanks very much for cooperating so well. :D

We need good ones...where the psycho was approaching with murder in his eye and a rusty knife in his teeth....and all that stood between my family and total annihilation was me and my Desert Eagle...that sort of thing.

Hesitant executioners and drunken teens don't really do it

BTW, I'm Canadian....


Ok.

Elderly Woman Shoots Male Intruder (http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/2835651.html)
Woman, 75, shoots intruder (http://video.aol.com/video-detail/woman-75-shoots-intruder/3930370620/?icid=VIDLRVNWS06)
Elderly Woman Grabs Gun, Holds Would-Be Burglar At Bay (http://www.wpxi.com/news/17223812/detail.html)
Blind Man Shoots Home Intruder In Neck (http://www.wesh.com/news/14437963/detail.html)
Armed 85-year-old woman makes intruder call cops (http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=456&sid=1462598)

That's all I have time for right now, but I believe you can see a pattern emerging.

:D Oh, Canada! :D

[gumboot]

I am of the opinion that the major difference between, say, New Zealand and the USA is that New Zealanders by and large trust other New Zealanders, and Americans by and large do not trust other Americans.

This is, I think, the single major difference between the two societies, and the cause of the differing attitudes to guns, and differing crime rates.

I should point out that while New Zealand has more stringent gun laws than the USA, here it is still perfectly legal to own a wide variety of weapons for recreation, sport, as a hobby, for work purposes, and so on. I personally know of someone who legally owns a fully functioning .50 cal heavy machine gun.

[ServiceSoon]

Don't put too much weight on such things. From my perspective, police officers are often forced to throw themselves into situations that are far more dangerous, on average, than the average citizen will find themselves.

That's my perspective on this, at least.One would think but check this chart out.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.png

[Stout]

Ok...but in the first story, she shoots him when he's out in the front yard. First she tells him to get on the floor, then there's the fumbling with the latch, then there's the BOOM ( and presumed scream of anguish ) so, it really wasn't a "shoot first" "castle doctrine" "stand your ground" scenario at the time she pulled the trigger. Had she shot him as he grabbed for the gun, then yes, in fact, had he been doing anything other than running away, then yes...and I'd agree with her use of force.

I actually agree with the use of force in the second story too. There's no way the woman could have known the intruders intention(s) and she did what she needed to do. I was looking at that whole incident as a tragedy that might have been avoided had there not been a self defense firearm involved rather than "accusing" the woman of any wrong doing.

Good on ya for posting them for those reasons. I was going to come back with the 11 year old shotgun champion shooting the two illegals, but when I searched for it, it came back urban myth.

[Stout]

I am of the opinion that the major difference between, say, New Zealand and the USA is that New Zealanders by and large trust other New Zealanders, and Americans by and large do not trust other Americans.
.

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking...with an extra measure of paranoia thrown in for good measure. I dunno, thinking about being a victim of crime takes up so little of my day, And I conjecture getting involved with self defense firearms would drastically alter that.

I'd be thinking about it too much, sort of like I thought too much about kicking people in the head when I was into martial arts.

I've never lived in the US, I've been there several times and never run into guns. I 've been to Honduras a few times, whoa, you want to talk about an armed society...yikes.

[Euromutt]

I know it's happened with the cops and those people actually know what they are doing.
Are we talking about "mistaken identity" shootings, or "innocent bystander hit by stray round fired at legitimate target" shootings?

Regarding the former, all the available evidence indicates that private citizens commit way fewer of these than police in the United States, measured as a percentage of shootings. In one study that compared shootings by private citizens to shooting by police in Missouri, the police were found to have shot an innocent person in 11% of incidents, private citizens in 2% of incidents (Carol Ruth Silver and Don B. Cates, "Self-Defense, Handgun Ownership, and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society"). The most obvious explanation is that, unlike the police, it is not private citizens' job to seek out and apprehend suspected criminals. When a homeowner confronts a burglar, for instance, the homeowner (being familiar with the legitimate occupants of the residence) knows the other guy is an intruder. By contrast, police responding to a 911 frequently don't have all the necessary facts by the time they arrive on the scene, such as what's going on, and the respective roles of the parties involved.

Suppose an armed robber is trying to hold up a gas station. An observer calls 911 and informs them that "there's a guy with a gun" at the gas station; that's all the cops have to go on. Now suppose that, while the cops are on their way, the cashier manages to snatch the robber's gun (it's been known to happen), and causes the robber to flee or holds him at gunpoint. Now the cops arrive, unaware that the current "guy with a gun" is not the same person as the "guy with a gun" originally called in. We have a definite potential for tragedy right there (so remember, folks, if you call 911 to report a violent crime in progress, try to give as comprehensive descriptions of the parties involved as you can).

[Euromutt]

One would think but check this chart out.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/justify.png
And that chart tells us... what exactly? Absolute numbers of justifiable homicides aren't particularly useful if we don't know what percentage of total homicides they constituted. It strikes me as plausible that, broadly speaking, more people are fatally shot by police than are shot by private citizens engaged in (what they thought were) DGUs. If the cops shoot 1,000 people a year, 89% of which are justified, and DGU-ing citizens shoot 100, 98% which are justified, the private citizens are doing better than the cops in not killing people they shouldn't. But the absolute number of justifiable homicides is still going to be lower for the private citizens.

[gumboot]

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking...with an extra measure of paranoia thrown in for good measure. I dunno, thinking about being a victim of crime takes up so little of my day, And I conjecture getting involved with self defense firearms would drastically alter that.

I'd be thinking about it too much, sort of like I thought too much about kicking people in the head when I was into martial arts.

I've never lived in the US, I've been there several times and never run into guns. I 've been to Honduras a few times, whoa, you want to talk about an armed society...yikes.


You carry around a hammer, and everything is going to start looking like a nail. My wushu coach had a similar experience - he decided to get into martial arts, and for years actually constantly got into fights because of it. In 13 years of wushu training he has only ever been in one fight, mainly because modern wushu focuses on form and technique rather than practical application.

It may be a chicken and egg scenario, but I'm inclined to think the mistrust is the cause of the interest in guns for self defense rather than the result of an interest in guns for self defense.

Myself and those I know are just like you - the threat of being a victim of crime simply does not enter into our daily thoughts.

But then, Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn't get our start in the world through armed rebellion against authority, so maybe that has something to do with it. Distrust seems to be a fundamental aspect of the American psyche.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

That's along the lines of what I'm thinking...with an extra measure of paranoia thrown in for good measure. I dunno, thinking about being a victim of crime takes up so little of my day, And I conjecture getting involved with self defense firearms would drastically alter that.

I'd be thinking about it too much, sort of like I thought too much about kicking people in the head when I was into martial arts.

Aha - someone else who missed the whole point of martial arts.

Yeah - thinking about being the victim of a crime would really cut into the time you must spend worrying about having a flat tire, or worrying about your house burning down, or worrying about sustaining a serious injury.

....

What?

Well - you must do all those things! You have a spare tire don't you? You have a fire extinguisher, don't you? You have bandages and antibiotics, don't you?

If you have a spare tire, doesn't that mean that you spend a lot of time thinking about having flat tires, or does it mean that you don't have to think about it because you're prepared?

The only time I even think about self-defense is when someone makes my explain my stance on having a gun for self-defense. The rest of the time, I'm thinking about how I can get the little holes closer together on the paper.

The goal of martial arts is not thinking about using martial arts.

I've never lived in the US, I've been there several times and never run into guns. I 've been to Honduras a few times, whoa, you want to talk about an armed society...yikes.


Whoa! Glad you made it back.

[gumboot]

Hi



Aha - someone else who missed the whole point of martial arts.

Yeah - thinking about being the victim of a crime would really cut into the time you must spend worrying about having a flat tire, or worrying about your house burning down, or worrying about sustaining a serious injury.

....

What?

Well - you must do all those things! You have a spare tire don't you? You have a fire extinguisher, don't you? You have bandages and antibiotics, don't you?



You're far more likely to have to deal with the above things than you are being attacked. Although the spare tyre is a good one. Here, at least, you're required by law to have a spare tyre in your car. However I don't know anyone who ever actually makes sure their spare tyre is properly inflated, and I know a bunch of people who don't have a jack or the tools to actually put that spare tyre on.

Likewise, I'm the only one of my friends who owns a first aid kit, and the only one with a fire extinguisher in my car (I believe fire extinguishers are likewise compulsory in some countries). I've not had to use my fire extinguisher yet, but I use my first aid kit all the time, and regularly have to stock it up. I've not only changed my own flat tyres a number of times, but been able to stop and change someone else's flat tyre when they didn't have the tools they needed, and on numerous occasions have performed jump starts for myself and others thanks to carrying around a handy set of jumper cables.

I have, however, never felt even the most remote need to carry any sort of weapon for personal protection. Your own experiences perhaps have a lot to do with your differing view point, and that's fair enough. However I'd point out that the gunfights you experienced were in a foreign country, not in the USA. There's quite a number of countries where I wouldn't feel safe travelling without a firearm for personal protection.

(Ironically, due to lawlessness, a flat tyre was always taught as a major danger for NZ service persons living in Papua New Guinea, due to the prevalance of armed youths. It was advised, if you had a flat tyre, to simply continuing driving on the rim until you got home.)

But all of this misses a rather fundamental point. A firearm can only provide personal safety if it is easily accessible and loaded. An easily accessible loaded firearm is inherently dangerous. A first aid kit, a spare tyre, a fire extinguisher... none of these are inherently dangerous while sitting waiting to be used.

It all comes down to a balance of pros and cons. Guarding against a very rare occurance is worthwhile if the measures needed to guard against it are safe, inexpensive, and easy. If those measures are dangerous, expensive, and difficult, guarding against such a rare occurance is senseless. However if that occurance is more likely, eventually a critical point will be reached at which it is worthwhile guarding against it despite the negative cost of those measures.

Your comparison is deeply flawed because you simply haven't taken into account these variables.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Ok...but in the first story, she shoots him when he's out in the front yard. First she tells him to get on the floor, then there's the fumbling with the latch, then there's the BOOM ( and presumed scream of anguish ) so, it really wasn't a "shoot first" "castle doctrine" "stand your ground" scenario at the time she pulled the trigger. Had she shot him as he grabbed for the gun, then yes, in fact, had he been doing anything other than running away, then yes...and I'd agree with her use of force.

Uhhh... which first story are we talking about? The one where the little old lady shoots the guy that's grabbing for her gun, or the one where the little old lady shoots one of the two guys that break into her home?

(Oh - and I posted the, "shot in the crotch," one again by accident. I still think it's funny.)

I actually agree with the use of force in the second story too. There's no way the woman could have known the intruders intention(s) and she did what she needed to do. I was looking at that whole incident as a tragedy that might have been avoided had there not been a self defense firearm involved rather than "accusing" the woman of any wrong doing.

Good on ya for posting them for those reasons. I was going to come back with the 11 year old shotgun champion shooting the two illegals, but when I searched for it, it came back urban myth.

And would it have been less of a tragedy if she didn't have the gun and the guy had been a rapist-murderer specializing in defenseless old women?

From England, that firearm-free paradise on earth, by way of the BBC:

Pensioner 'killed and set alight' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/south_yorkshire/6358435.stm)
"An elderly lay preacher was murdered during a 'prolonged and brutal beating' in her own home before her body was set on fire, a court has heard."

Pensioner 'killed for small change' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2687655.stm)
A pensioner who was strangled to death in her home was killed for the change in her purse, police believe.

Teenager charged over OAP murder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/3500203.stm)
A teenager has appeared in court charged with the murder of a pensioner found dead in her home in south Wales on Saturday.

Night patrol around 'murder' site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/4617200.stm)
Mounted police have patrolled streets through the night in a south Wales town where a pensioner was killed.
....
Detectives are investigating if she was killed when a burglary went wrong.

'Horrendous' attack on pensioner (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/7009017.stm)
Police in Swansea are appealing for help after a "horrendous" attack on a 75-year-old woman in her home.
(Read this one. Think about your grandmother.)

Just how much of a tragedy does one have to go through to justify defending one's self and one's home?

....just askin'.

[Stout]

Hi Gagglegnash..

I was talking about the gun grabbing guy one, and based on the description of the woman's actions, I wondering if that part ( the gun grabbing ) might just be an "embellishment" after the fact seeing as how the course of events describe a criminal who was more interested in fleeing than confrontation

Guy shot in crotch would still have been a tragedy had he been a murderer/rapist but we would have had a real criminal/victim scenario rather than a stupid drunk and a woman who was acting within the bounds of the law shooting someone who wasn't really like a criminal per say. That story is kind of funny, but only because the student got shot in the crotch, like any guy taking a "shot" to the nuts is. Had she shot him in the head ( or center mass ) then the element of humour would be diminished severely...IMO

Yes, I think about flat tires, yes I think about my house burning down, yes I think about getting seriously injured. I carry a spare ( thanks gumboot, I'll check it's condition today ) I have a fire extinguisher ( but only because I'm a fire performer and it looks good to have one on hand ) and yes I have first aid kit, but it's rather lame.

But my spare, extinguisher, and band aids aren't things that can be lost or stolen and used either against me or someone else by some jackass.

Now here's my thinking....I buy a handgun, a carry gun and I obviously need training to use it as a self defense weapon. I've never held a handgun, well, never fired one so I''m going to need the full meal deal, education right from the preschool level. My plans aren't to go into competitive shooting I just want a weapon...just in case.

So I buy the gun, I sign up for some classes at the range, I practice, and I start carrying my gun. I'm going to be thinking about that gun, and it's intended use several times a day , every time I pick it up and stick it in my

aside..how do you actually carry a pistol anyway ? sure I see the holster thing on TV, but what about in hot climates, where, you're wandering around in just a shirt and pants, how do you conceal a handgun ? Just suck it up and wear a jacket ?

Anyway

Every time I pick it up, every time it bumps against my body as I move, every time I sit down and feel that uncomfortable two pound lump, every time a "suspicious" character casts a glance my way...ad nauseum.

So I'm thinking that were I to carry a pistol...I'd be thinking about it waaaaaaay more often than I would about my spare tire, insurance policy, or antihistamines.

I would start thinking that maybe...I want some benefit for the "inconvenience" this two pound lump of legal liability is causing me, I may start mentally creating scenarios where I can justify to myself that the weapon I'm lugging around might actually be a benefit, rather than an inconvenience. This is where the idea of trust comes in. Might my trust of my fellow citizens be affected by my constantly thinking about my lethal capabilities ? I figure it would.

So if I'm not into "sport" shooting, and only want a gun for defense, then I most likely won't be thinking about the holes in the paper, I'd be thinking about holes in people.

That's just me though. Well, me and 66 year old woman who shot that guy who was running away..and that guy in Texas who shot those two guys in his neighbours yard, live, on a 911 call....

I read through that last round of stories you linked to, and yes maybe some of those could have been prevented by home defense and carry weapons. One thing I will note, in the last story, a LEO was quoted as saying that he'd never seen anything like it in 25 years of police work, so we're not talking about events that could by any means of the imagination be considered "common"

I suppose I could buy insurance against a plane crashing into my house, but I'll take my chances and play the odds that it won't happen in favour of enjoying the benefits of spending the premiums on something else.

[Drudgewire]

aside..how do you actually carry a pistol anyway ? sure I see the holster thing on TV, but what about in hot climates, where, you're wandering around in just a shirt and pants, how do you conceal a handgun ? Just suck it up and wear a jacket ?


I have two carry guns. The one I carry year-round is a S&W 642 airweight. Loaded it weighs and takes up little more space in my pocket than a pack of cigarettes. Cheap pocket holster is all you need to keep it stable.

Here's a picture of it next to its regular-framed brother:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/swbox7.jpg

My other one is a Glock 26 subcompact, also pictured next to the full-sized Smith (and the FNP-9):

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/glockbox6.jpg

This is not good for pocket carry because the trigger requires very little pull, and I don't see much point in carrying a semi without one in the chamber. Although with my Galco holster it can barely be seen even under a skin-tight soccer jersey (even with my small frame) I still prefer to carry it mainly when I'm wearing a sweater or sweat shirt.

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bhsconf.jpg

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/bhsworn.jpg

Hope this helps. :)

[Stout]

Thanks drudgewire..it does help.

I was thinking big, bulky, heavy things that would make a CCWP carrier "obvious" and discounting the practicality of so called "mouse" guns. I'm figuring that a semi without a round in the chamber would be rather pointless, but wouldn't the safety prevent accidental discharge on your Glock ?

[Drudgewire]

Thanks drudgewire..it does help.

I was thinking big, bulky, heavy things that would make a CCWP carrier "obvious" and discounting the practicality of so called "mouse" guns. I'm figuring that a semi without a round in the chamber would be rather pointless, but wouldn't the safety prevent accidental discharge on your Glock ?


While the Glock has three safeties, they are all internal. There is no button on there to keep it from firing, just mechanisms within the gun which prevent it from being fired unless the trigger is pulled from the front (external safeties are for wimps, and considering worst-case scenario you might have to pull a gun on someone once in your life if the time comes a safety is just one more thing to concentrate on and slow you down).

Still, considering a set of keys could cause that (as well as the close proximity to the breadbasket) I would not at all feel comfortable with the possibility. You mentioned the notion that having a gun makes you think about it more. Well with the Glock in pocket I'd be thinking about it constantly. With the Smith, I honestly think about it only when I put it in, take it out, or instinctively reach for the wrong pocket while going for my smokes.

[Stout]

No external safeties..my I am behind the times then, I had no idea pistols were designed like that but it makes sense from a speed perspective.

You figure you may only have to pull the gun on someone once in your life ? That's the kind of stuff I was looking for. I have no ideas on how often a gun might be "necessary" but I was conjecturing, well, a lot. Like the hand going toward the gun several times a month. I stopped that sort of guessing when It came to how often I figured the gun would have to be drawn ( brandished ? ) thinking that in recent memory, there's only one incident, that had I been armed, the gun would have been out and ready.

I'm also assuming that my unfamiliarity with handguns is motivating my thoughts about thinking about it constantly. I think the responsibility of carrying a firearm may have something to do with it as well as the gun itself.

[Drudgewire]

You figure you may only have to pull the gun on someone once in your life ? That's the kind of stuff I was looking for. I have no ideas on how often a gun might be "necessary" but I was conjecturing, well, a lot. Like the hand going toward the gun several times a month.


My hand has never gone towards the gun as part of a defensive motion. I pretty much assume (and hope with all my heart) I'll never pull it.

I carry for one reason, and that's so my last thought isn't "damn, sure wish I'd had a gun" as I lay dying in a pool of my own blood.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

What DW said.

Also - having your hand go to your gun as a defensive measure is purely a TV thing, used to show how hair-trigger a guy is.

One of the big parts of the Real Gun Culture is familiarity.

There's only been a period of a few years of my fifty-<<mumble that sounds vaguely like, "seven,">> when I didn't have guns in the house. I don't think any more of them then I think about my underpants, and I do not walk around worrying or thinking about what's in my holster OR my underpants.

I carry... errr... used to carry... because I don't want to have any more ghosts standing at the foot of my bed when I am in that half-awake-half-asleep state. I was an Explosive Ordnance Disposal specialist in the Army, and my ghosts are of the men, women, and children I couldn't keep from being killed.

If someone shoots at me, I'm actually better with it than you might suspect. If someone starts shooting at the people I'm with, or the folks around me, the shooter and I will have words.

As for concealed carry, I use an inside the pants model because they let me carry a larger frame firearm. They're usually made of suede so they don't get slick and slimy when you sweat, and a light shirt will act nicely as a concealment garment because your pants cover most of the handgun.

http://sites.google.com/site/gagglegnash/_/rsrc/1225914134847/what-me-done/ConcealedCarry.gif
Big Fat Man, Demonstrating Concealed Carry of Big Fat Handgun.
http://sites.google.com/site/gagglegnash/_/rsrc/1225914567544/what-me-done/Picture%205.jpg

Astra A-100 in .45 ACP.

That whole, "Texas Swing," going on with my belt is not normal. I've lost a bunch of weight recently (hence the bracers), so my cloths don't fit right any more.

[gumboot]

I have to say I find the notion of normal members of the public wandering around with pistols to be utterly bizarre and surreal. It's actually quite hard for me to express in words just how alien it seems to me. It's quite a lesson in how compelled you are to adhere to the values and ideals that you were raised with, and how strongly you automatically feel against values and ideals you weren't raised with.

I imagine some people probably find the notion of walking around without a pistol to be utterly bizarre.

[Drudgewire]

I have to say I find the notion of normal members of the public wandering around with pistols to be utterly bizarre and surreal. It's actually quite hard for me to express in words just how alien it seems to me. It's quite a lesson in how compelled you are to adhere to the values and ideals that you were raised with, and how strongly you automatically feel against values and ideals you weren't raised with.

I imagine some people probably find the notion of walking around without a pistol to be utterly bizarre.


It's funny, I've only been carrying for about 2.5 years. Before I started, I would have been a little "iffy" about the notion. But with knowing the training involved, the knowledge you have to have about the laws and what is and isn't legal use of "lethal force," and the background which will be run before getting said permission, even if I didn't have a license I'd now feel a lot more comfortable in the notion of an armed public.

More than anything, what gives me comfort is those who have the piece of paper saying they can have pretty much promised they'll be more responsible in non-shooting aspects of their lives than the public at large. If I'm pulled over, I FULLY expect to have my car searched and have no problem with that (although if nothing else, the license tells a policeman "I am not a felon" right away which is comforting to all parties concerned). If someone tries to goad me into a fight, I pretty much have to just walk away rather than respond with fists like I might have done ten years ago.

In other words, in the overwhelming majority of cases the guys here with carry licenses are probably the last people you have to worry about... unless you're looking to rob them.

[Euromutt]

aside..how do you actually carry a pistol anyway ? sure I see the holster thing on TV, but what about in hot climates, where, you're wandering around in just a shirt and pants, how do you conceal a handgun ? Just suck it up and wear a jacket ?
drudgewire's rig is a fairly good example of how you can carry in warmer climes; an OWB ("Outside the WaistBand") holster can be fairly readily carried under a Hawaiian shirt, or any other shirt that doesn't look stupid worn not tucked into your trousers. You will probably want to wear and undershirt, though. There are also IWB ("Inside the WaistBand," obviously) holsters, in which only the grip protrudes from the top of your trousers, with the rest inside. These do require slightly roomier trousers than OWBs, but can be worn with a shortish windbreaker or roomy sweatshirt. A particular subclass of IWB are "tuckable," meaning that they attach to the belt in such a way that the shirt can be tucked into the trousers over the weapon's grip.

Obviously, the better concealed your weapon is, the more effort it will take to draw from concealment.

One a side note, drudgewire's carry guns there are by no means "mouse guns." The criterium for "mouse guns" is one of caliber (as in "this thing wouldn't stop anything bigger than a mouse"), not the size of the weapon itself. Typically, "mouse guns" are considered to be anything in .22LR, .25 ACP, and .32 ACP (7.65mm). The S&W 642 is a .38 Special +P, and the Glock 26 is a 9mm Parabellum, both adequate manstoppers.
Personally, I detest the term "mouse gun," because it fosters an attitude that anything smaller than 9mm Short (.380 ACP) won't do significant damage to a human, and that in turn encourages negligent handling practices. I know (of) one guy from another forum who ended up in the hospital because a friend of his was playing around with a .25-cal pistol (thinking "this thing can't really hurt someone"), had a negligent discharge, and hit the guy in the heart. It's a tribute to the state of medical science that he's still alive (can you imagine trying to fix a gunshot wound to the heart with homeopathy? or acupuncture?). The .22LR is the leading cartridge involved in unintentional shootings in the US, which is mostly because it's such a popular cartridge, but the mistaken notion that "not really lethal" plays a part as well.

Every time I pick it up, every time it bumps against my body as I move, every time I sit down and feel that uncomfortable two pound lump, every time a "suspicious" character casts a glance my way...ad nauseum.
("Ad nauseam.")
Actually, with a combination of the right belt and holster, carrying a concealed handgun isn't much more inconvenient than carrying a cell phone or multitool or mini-maglite in a belt pouch. The main problem is less one of one of the object's mass and/or size, and more that any foreign object that protrudes from your waistline is likely to get banged into door jambs, desk corners, chair arm rests, etc.

So I'm thinking that were I to carry a pistol...I'd be thinking about it waaaaaaay more often than I would about my spare tire, insurance policy, or antihistamines.

I would start thinking that maybe...I want some benefit for the "inconvenience" this two pound lump of legal liability is causing me, I may start mentally creating scenarios where I can justify to myself that the weapon I'm lugging around might actually be a benefit, rather than an inconvenience. This is where the idea of trust comes in. Might my trust of my fellow citizens be affected by my constantly thinking about my lethal capabilities ? I figure it would.

So if I'm not into "sport" shooting, and only want a gun for defense, then I most likely won't be thinking about the holes in the paper, I'd be thinking about holes in people.

That's just me though.
Wow.
If you're that psychologically unstable, maybe you should seek the services of a competent mental health care provider.

Seriously, this just another variant on the "people who carry in public are just looking for an excuse to shoot somebody" trope that most gun owners have heard a hundred times, and there is no evidence to support it. When Dominick Maldonado opened up at Tacoma Mall three years ago, there were several armed CPL-holders present in the mall. Most concerned themselves with making sure they and theirs were safe. One, Brendan McKown, attempted to confront Maldonado, but suffered from a fit of misplaced humanitarianism that caused him to re-holster his weapon and try to reason with Maldonado, rather than trying to stop him by shooting him. (I say "misplaced" because Maldonado did not return the courtesy; he responded by shooting McKown several times, putting him in the hospital and almost paralyzing him.)

A study in 1999 of statistics maintained by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety indicated that the general public, on average, was 5.7 times as likely to commit a violent offense than a CHL-holder. By 1992, over 14,000 people had been issued CCW permits by the state of Oregon; of these, 4 (0.03%) had been convicted for illegal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm. "Wild West shootouts" and "blood running in the streets" have consistently failed to materialize in states that passed "shall-issue" laws, despite the anti-gun lobby's dire predictions every single time.

[Drudgewire]

One a side note, drudgewire's carry guns there are by no means "mouse guns." The criterium for "mouse guns" is one of caliber (as in "this thing wouldn't stop anything bigger than a mouse"), not the size of the weapon itself.

I meant to point that out. Hell, by the size standards the Glock 29 & 30 would be considered "mouse guns."

They're 10mm and .45 ACP respectively. "Mouse cannons" maybe. :cool:

[gumboot]

It's funny, I've only been carrying for about 2.5 years. Before I started, I would have been a little "iffy" about the notion. But with knowing the training involved, the knowledge you have to have about the laws and what is and isn't legal use of "lethal force," and the background which will be run before getting said permission, even if I didn't have a license I'd now feel a lot more comfortable in the notion of an armed public.

More than anything, what gives me comfort is those who have the piece of paper saying they can have pretty much promised they'll be more responsible in non-shooting aspects of their lives than the public at large. If I'm pulled over, I FULLY expect to have my car searched and have no problem with that (although if nothing else, the license tells a policeman "I am not a felon" right away which is comforting to all parties concerned). If someone tries to goad me into a fight, I pretty much have to just walk away rather than respond with fists like I might have done ten years ago.

In other words, in the overwhelming majority of cases the guys here with carry licenses are probably the last people you have to worry about... unless you're looking to rob them.



This is quite an interesting piece of information, thanks. When I first became involved in discussing "gun politics" I very quickly found myself corrected of the misconception that the USA has no gun control laws whatsoever. I'm still not familiar with the ins and outs of every state's various laws on the topic, but at least now I appreciate that controls do exist and I shouldn't leap to conclusions. I know quite a few friends and fellow New Zealanders who pretty much just think that buying an assault rifle in the USA is as easy as buying a can of softdrink (soda?) from the corner store.

What I've found more interesting is trying to get my head around the reason Americans feel the need to carry a weapon while in my own country we don't. That's what I really find fascinating. And to be honest I find my own lack of desire to be armed equally as fascinating as I find an American's desire to be armed (obviously not all Americans have that desire!).

Just out of curiosity, do you know if the controls you've described above are typical for concealed-carry states, or is your experience particularly stringent/lax by US standards?

[Drudgewire]

Just out of curiosity, do you know if the controls you've described above are typical for concealed-carry states, or is your experience particularly stringent/lax by US standards?


Laws vary from state to state, from guidelines to obtaining a license to what constitutes legal force to where you can and can't carry. And even if states provide recpirocity (I can carry in your state and you can carry in mine) the carrier must abide by the laws of the state he's in.

I live in a state that has reciprocity with 14 others. For the most part, those states have the same basic tenents for obtaining a permit mine does (but not necessarily exactly). While I'm not sure what the guidelines are for obtaining a CWP in Florida, I know that as long as I have one I can send them $85 and get theirs as well... which increases the number of states I can carry in to 22.

The most stringent guidelines are the permit for Utah. You can take the course in most states that offer CWPs to obtain a Utah license, but it requires a more thorough background check, a more complete shooting test, and possibly a harder written test as well. The reason people who never plan to go to Utah take the test is because of the standard, they have reciprocity with damn near everyone who allows concealed carry. If and when I decide to go that route, I'll be able to carry in 38 states that honor it plus Colorado which doesn't require a permit.

[Drudgewire]

An interesting sidebar to what I said above, even within my state (South Carolina) there's lots of confusion regarding exactly where you can and can't carry. When you take the CWP course, they stress one of the places you can not carry is any restaurant where alcohol is served. However, when you actually read the law there's NOTHING about restaurants on the banned list.

The only place they're mentioned is in "additional penalties" where it says a sentence can be increased if you're carrying there unlawfully... but as a CWP there's nothing in the statute which says a CWP would be carrying illegally in the first place. Our state lobbying group is currently trying to get clarification on it (we recieved a letter from the asst. AG who quoted the additional penalties mantra, but has not since responded to the fact a CWP shouldn't face them the way the law is written).

Still, I'm not going to be the one who winds up being the test case so if I go anywhere serving booze the gun stays at home or in the glove compartment.

[gumboot]

An interesting sidebar to what I said above, even within my state (South Carolina) there's lots of confusion regarding exactly where you can and can't carry. When you take the CWP course, they stress one of the places you can not carry is any restaurant where alcohol is served. However, when you actually read the law there's NOTHING about restaurants on the banned list.

The only place they're mentioned is in "additional penalties" where it says a sentence can be increased if you're carrying there unlawfully... but as a CWP there's nothing in the statute which says a CWP would be carrying illegally in the first place. Our state lobbying group is currently trying to get clarification on it (we recieved a letter from the asst. AG who quoted the additional penalties mantra, but has not since responded to the fact a CWP shouldn't face them the way the law is written).

Still, I'm not going to be the one who winds up being the test case so if I go anywhere serving booze the gun stays at home or in the glove compartment.



I didn't realise they have lists of places you cannot carry. What other places are included in this ban list?

This makes it remind me of the common policy towards swords during medieval times. Out in the "wilderness" you could carry a sword as much as you felt like it, but in the major towns and cities, the carrying of a sword was prohibited unless you were given special permission by the local government to bear arms inside their territory. It was usually something done to recognise service to the community, or to win favour with a local lord.

Traditionally you became a full knight and were given a sword when you turned 21 and reached the age of majority (the sword being a symbol of knighthood) but meanwhile as society became more civilised the right to bear arms in the city had evolved to being given "the key to the city" - and that's why it's tradition to give someone a key plaque on their 21st birthday.

To this day, city councils will hold ceremonies granting local military bases the right to carry arms in their city, in recognition of a long partnership of friendship and cooperation. And likewise, important public figures will be gifted the "keys to the city" in recognition of their efforts to improve the city.

It's funny that it all comes back to being granted a medieval CWP.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

.... If and when I decide to go that route, I'll be able to carry in 38 states that honor it plus Colorado which doesn't require a permit.


And Vermont, which also requires no permit.

[Drudgewire]

I didn't realise they have lists of places you cannot carry. What other places are included in this ban list?


Again this varies from state to state but here is the list I must abide by:


(M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(1) police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or any other law enforcement office or facility;

(2) detention facility, prison, or jail or any other correctional facility or office;

(3) courthouse or courtroom;

(4) polling place on election days;

(5) office of or the business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district;

(6) school or college athletic event not related to firearms;

(7) daycare facility or pre-school facility;

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;

(9) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body; or

(10) hospital, medical clinic, doctor's office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed unless expressly authorized by the employer.


Title 23, Sect. 23-31-315 (http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t23c031.htm)

We are one of the states currently lobbying to remove the campus provision, which I know is a serious hot-button but three years ago I had zero guns. Within 24 hours of Virginia Tech's shooting I had my first one (took less than a minute of news talking heads discussing the need for more gun control to motivate me to get to a gun store. Then I sort of fell in love with them and now have six).

#9 is pretty funny considering I took the concealed course in a church parish hall. :D

Oh, and as far as the guidelines for NOT allowing guns in your business:

Sign requirements.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

(1) clearly visible from outside the building;

(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

(5) a diameter of a circle; and

(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.

(C) If the premises where concealable weapons are prohibited does not have doors, then the signs contained in subsection (A) must be:

(1) thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;

(2) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black three- inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(3) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal and must be a diameter of a circle whose circumference is two inches wide;

(4) placed not less than forty inches and not more than ninety-six inches above the ground;

(5) posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.


In other words, you can't just say "you can't have guns in here" and expect me to do anything more than roll my eyes at you. :cool:

[Drudgewire]

And Vermont, which also requires no permit.


I always forget about Vermont. Just seems so implausible from the state that gave us Howard Dean. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/redface.gif

[tyr_13]

I happen to live in New York...and am trying to get my handgun permit before I move to Japan. Here you must have a CWP to even own a handgun at all. This is a problem, because my grandfather has my great-grandfather's collection and no one else in my family has a permit. The get a permit in my county, you have to take a safety course, get fingerprinted, do a TON of other paperwork, and get two references, who cannot be employees of the sheriff's department.

The places you are not to carry is about the same for New York.

I like mouse guns. For a carry arm I want to eventually get either a Taurus .22 with black pearl grips, or a Walther P22 (which feels great in the hand). As a deterrent, a .22 works just like a .357. If you don't want to be shot, you don't really care what the caliber is. Although if I had to be shot, I'd pick .22 short.

And before anyone makes fun of me for the small caliber, I've shot .454 Casull and .50AE, it isn't the kick I don't like. Plus, if I had money, I'd want a nice reliable Ruger P90 in .45 or FN Five-seveN.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The thing you should remember about a .22 is that it's pretty much a puncture wound weapon: If it doesn't kill 'em immediately, it doesn't do 'em much damage, leaving them free to do much damage to you.

While I love my Walther P22, I would not, under any circumstances, use it for a carry piece.

The... ummm... 7th maybe... rule of the gunfight is: Make sure that the ammunition for your gun starts with a 3, 4 or 5. 6, if you can manage it.

[tyr_13]

True, but I can afford to actually shoot a .22LR, and being a good shot is always better than having the bigger gun. Besides, most of the time you don't actually have to fire the weapon for it to do the defense job. Also, I don't always want to wear a loose shirt. I do have a buddy who does carry his Desert Eagle (the big version, long barrel, 50AE), but he can't take off his jacket and have that work!

There was an article some time back in a gun magazine called, "In defense of the rimfire," and I wish I could find it. I've always found 'stopping power' claims to be pretty exaggerated with a couple of notable exceptions. I've also seen this reflected in long arms. Why give a shotgun to an officer who can't handle it? Plus a silenced .22 is only as loud as it's cycling. That is of course, in a law enforcement use.

[Stout]

OK, I'll buy into the "hassle" of physically carrying a gun is something you get used to, it did, after all take me months to get used to wearing a wedding ring which is the first ring I've ever worn in my life.

I was thinking metaphorically when i mentioned the whole 'hand going to your gun thing" and it was something I'd taken from the movies. No doubt the reality of doing that would give you away as a CWP holder.

Gagglegnash, thanks for being open about your reasons for carrying.


Euromutt, I'm not psychologically unstable at all, just thinking from the perspective of someone who's trying to imagine what carrying a firearm might be like and i figure it would take quite a bit of adjusting to, psychologically and physically.

Remember, I'm one of these guys who sees this whole issue as "foreign" :D

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

.... Besides, most of the time you don't actually have to fire the weapon for it to do the defense job. ....


Most of the time, you don't run into someone actively trying to kill you, either.

In the event that you have to do something romantic (romantic: Adj. Unusual, unexpected, and expensive.) You have enough time to draw and fire center-mass. Wing someone a little low and left with a .22, he's going to get pissed off and try that much harder to kill you. Hit the same guy low and left with a .40 S&W, he's going to start thinking sweet thoughts about home and Mamma's apple pie. Hit someone the same way with a .45 ACP, and he'll lie down and begin to reconsider his career choices.

Not saying anything. Just saying....

[ServiceSoon]

I always forget about Vermont. Just seems so implausible from the state that gave us Howard Dean. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/redface.gifAlaska doesn't require a permit to carry. I'm still proud of Indiana who has lifetime handgun permits :)

I didn't realise they have lists of places you cannot carry. What other places are included in this ban list?...In the USA we have to follow Federal & State laws as well as local county & city ordinances.

[Drudgewire]

Laws vary from state to state, from guidelines to obtaining a license to what constitutes legal force to where you can and can't carry. And even if states provide recpirocity (I can carry in your state and you can carry in mine) the carrier must abide by the laws of the state he's in.

I live in a state that has reciprocity with 14 others. For the most part, those states have the same basic tenents for obtaining a permit mine does (but not necessarily exactly). While I'm not sure what the guidelines are for obtaining a CWP in Florida, I know that as long as I have one I can send them $85 and get theirs as well... which increases the number of states I can carry in to 22.

The most stringent guidelines are the permit for Utah. You can take the course in most states that offer CWPs to obtain a Utah license, but it requires a more thorough background check, a more complete shooting test, and possibly a harder written test as well. The reason people who never plan to go to Utah take the test is because of the standard, they have reciprocity with damn near everyone who allows concealed carry. If and when I decide to go that route, I'll be able to carry in 38 states that honor it plus Colorado which doesn't require a permit.


Bump to update the law here. One of my co-workers' husbands took the course over the weekend and here's where we currently stand:

Right now I can carry in 23 states, but the annoying thing is Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana aren't included. HOWEVER, thanks to New Hampshire that's only $20 and a copy of my SC license from being fixed (sent off the application this morning). With theirs and mine I can carry in 29 states, plus Vermont and Alaska which don't require a license.

I was apparently wrong about Colorado, but that will require some looking into.

[fuelair]

OK, I'll buy into the "hassle" of physically carrying a gun is something you get used to, it did, after all take me months to get used to wearing a wedding ring which is the first ring I've ever worn in my life.

I was thinking metaphorically when i mentioned the whole 'hand going to your gun thing" and it was something I'd taken from the movies. No doubt the reality of doing that would give you away as a CWP holder.

Gagglegnash, thanks for being open about your reasons for carrying.


Euromutt, I'm not psychologically unstable at all, just thinking from the perspective of someone who's trying to imagine what carrying a firearm might be like and i figure it would take quite a bit of adjusting to, psychologically and physically.

Remember, I'm one of these guys who sees this whole issue as "foreign" :D
Interestingly, my hand has never moved to my pistol while carrying, but it always goes to where it would be when it isn't there under circumstances that might mean it will be needed. My brain apparently processes differently when it is there because when it isn't the reaction time is way faster than concious thought.

[fuelair]

Hi




Most of the time, you don't run into someone actively trying to kill you, either.

In the event that you have to do something romantic (romantic: Adj. Unusual, unexpected, and expensive.) You have enough time to draw and fire center-mass. Wing someone a little low and left with a .22, he's going to get pissed off and try that much harder to kill you. Hit the same guy low and left with a .40 S&W, he's going to start thinking sweet thoughts about home and Mamma's apple pie. Hit someone the same way with a .45 ACP, and he'll lie down and begin to reconsider his career choices.

Not saying anything. Just saying....
And if your loads are hydroshock, black talon or glazer, you ramp that effect up a notch or two.