Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGuns in Public, and Out of Sight
Alan Simons was enjoying a Sunday morning bicycle ride with his family in Asheville, N.C., two years ago when a man in a sport utility vehicle suddenly pulled alongside him and started berating him for riding on the highway.
Mr. Simons, his 4-year-old son strapped in behind him, slowed to a halt. The driver, Charles Diez, an Asheville firefighter, stopped as well. When Mr. Simons walked over, he found himself staring down the barrel of a gun.
“Go ahead, I’ll shoot you,” Mr. Diez said, according to Mr. Simons. “I’ll kill you.”
Mr. Simons turned to leave but heard a deafening bang. A bullet had passed through his bike helmet just above his left ear, barely missing him.
(...)
Across the country, it is easier than ever to carry a handgun in public. Prodded by the gun lobby, most states, including North Carolina, now require only a basic background check, and perhaps a safety class, to obtain a permit.
In state after state, guns are being allowed in places once off-limits, like bars, college campuses and houses of worship. And gun rights advocates are seeking to expand the map still further, pushing federal legislation that would require states to honor other states’ concealed weapons permits. The House approved the bill last month; the Senate is expected to take it up next year.
full: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html?pagewanted=all
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Of course, our toting friends will declare such incidents as statistically insignificant, like the 10,000 gun suicides and the 10,000 annual homicides. All statistically insignificant. After all what's a few thousand gun deaths and a few tens of billions of public healthcare dollars, compared to the rights of a few insecure people to tote their guns everywhere they go. Hey, it's apparently in the Constitution.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is no evidence that gun laws cuts suicides or murders.
These guys probably "toted" even when they legally could not.
Using Lott and Ayres as examples of research? At least both sides were equally insulted.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We've beaten around that bush too many times. There is lots of evidence. Not 100% proof, but overwhelming evidence and plenty of it to convince an impartial mind, which includes me, believe it or not.
3 Basic Facts (once again)
Less than 10% of all suicide attempts are successful.
70% of all attempted suicides do not result in future successful suicides.
95% of attempted gun suicides are successful.
Now, if you accept these numbers as FACTS, not ideas, not emotions, just plain FACTS, then how can you draw the conclusion that all the suicides would have happened anyway. Even if, as you might claim, some of those who choose a gun are more determined, they aren't just cries for help, the numbers would change significantly. Even if guns were not available, they may have sought a different method, which on average would have had a far less chance of success, the numbers would change significantly.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and real criminologists who don't take grants from any echo chamber, and they say there is no evidence. They would change? Show one jurisdiction where it did. The only one we have is Canada in the late 1970s. Slightly fewer Canadians were shooting themselves, but more were hanging themselves to make up the difference. No Canadian lives were saved.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)...talking point can be repeated.
The fact that gun availability is a factor in completed suicide has been found in countless number of studies. For a quick illustration, this chart comparing gun suicides vs non-gun suicides in high-gun vs low-gun states is pretty telling:
Now, I don't expect hardened pro-gun denialists to ever pay attention to any statistical or scientific evidence -- some people are simply impervious to reason. But to others interested in the link between guns and suicide, here is some info:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)comparison can be dragged out.
That fact that these studies combine successful suicide by other means is combined with pop-a-few-pills-and-call-for-help outcries skew the results. As a quick illustration, this chart this chart comparing gun suicides vs non-gun suicides in high-gun vs low-gun states is a prime example of (do I really need to point out the logical fallacy for this?)
Now, I don't expect hardened anti-gun ranters to ever pay attention to any statistical or scientific evidence not done by the Joyce echo chamber or MAIG (using data they do not provide nor could have legally obtained)--some people are simply impervious to open-minded critical thought. For those interested in made for echo chamber shill studies, by all means check out the link. For real objective research in the issue, look some place else.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,761 posts)...if there should be a limit on the age of someone reasonable characterized as a "child".
I think 19 is really pushing it. 
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)No, what is refreshing is to know that in addition to bad guys carrying guns, good guys can, too.
We know the bad guys probably always will have guns. And even if they didn't, it's good to know that good guys won't have to resort to fleeing, submitting, or engaging in a physical contest of strength with their attackers if they are victims of crime.
Of course, our toting friends will declare such incidents as statistically insignificant, like the 10,000 gun suicides and the 10,000 annual homicides. All statistically insignificant. After all what's a few thousand gun deaths and a few tens of billions of public healthcare dollars, compared to the rights of a few insecure people to tote their guns everywhere they go. Hey, it's apparently in the Constitution.
I am not going to allow you or anyone else to restrict my right to keep and bear arms because people use them to commit suicide. The simple fact is, anyone who really wants to commit suicide can do it with a small piece of rope looped around their neck and a doorknob and simply sitting down on the floor.
And yes, it's tragic that 10,000 people are the victims of homicides every year with firearms, but given that there are 40-80 million firearm owners, that means that only .025% - .013% of firearm owners are involved in firearm homicides every year. This means that 99.98% or more of firearm owners don't commit homicides each year.
So. Given the fact that this is a Constitutional right we are talking about here, and given how few firearm owners are involved in homicides every year, I'm not going to support any crusade that affects all of us who aren't doing anything wrong on behalf of the few people who are.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Statistical insignificance and denial on the suicide issue.
BTW I don't want to restrict anyone's rights, just encourage a little behavioral modification. Constitutional rights are fine when exercised by reasonable people. What's going on now is an abuse of those rights, which unfortunately, will inevitably end in those rights being curtailed in the name of public safety and then we will move closer to the police state that you fear. The extremists on both sides of this issue are fucking it up for the rest of us. I blame compulsive toters and absolute banners equally for the fear mongering and lack of reality testing.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You said:
So refreshing and reassuring to know only the good guys carry guns, isn't it?
To which I replied:
No, what is refreshing is to know that in addition to bad guys carrying guns, good guys can, too.
We know the bad guys probably always will have guns. And even if they didn't, it's good to know that good guys won't have to resort to fleeing, submitting, or engaging in a physical contest of strength with their attackers if they are victims of crime.
You see, what is refreshing is not that only bad guys can carry guns, but that good guys can also carry guns and so stand up to bad people should it be necessary. It's refreshing to know that good people have a choice other than to flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attackers. These are the only choices available to a victim of violent crime who is unarmed. It's refreshing to know that there is another choice for good people who want it.
Then you ignored this:
I am not going to allow you or anyone else to restrict my right to keep and bear arms because people use them to commit suicide. The simple fact is, anyone who really wants to commit suicide can do it with a small piece of rope looped around their neck and a doorknob and simply sitting down on the floor.
And finally, and most importantly, you ignored this about the fact that though 10,000 firearm owners commit homicide with their firearms every year, 39,990,000 to 79,990,000 firearm owners don't. :
And yes, it's tragic that 10,000 people are the victims of homicides every year with firearms, but given that there are 40-80 million firearm owners, that means that only .025% - .013% of firearm owners are involved in firearm homicides every year. This means that 99.98% or more of firearm owners don't commit homicides each year.
So. Given the fact that this is a Constitutional right we are talking about here, and given how few firearm owners are involved in homicides every year, I'm not going to support any crusade that affects all of us who aren't doing anything wrong on behalf of the few people who are.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why is that refreshing? It's always been so, regardless of the bit of paper that says you can do it legally. Anyone who really felt the need to carry one would. What's happening now is a fad. A very dangerous fad, because it will ultimately threaten the very constitutional right you believe in so much.
I am not going to allow you or anyone else to restrict my right to keep and bear arms because people use them to commit suicide. The simple fact is, anyone who really wants to commit suicide can do it with a small piece of rope looped around their neck and a doorknob and simply sitting down on the floor.
Don't know where you got the idea that I wanted to restrict any of your rights. I think you and your ilk are working towards destroying everyone's rights by flaunting and abusing your constitutional rights. Your point about suicide is dismissive and insulting.
The rest of your post is nothing more than the usual NRA rant about statistical insignificance and imaginary crusades.
Maybe you confuse me with an extreme anti-gun person. Couldn't be further from the truth. I am an anti-extremist. I believe that you and those of the opposite extreme both contribute to the problem by feeding off each other's intolerance, instead of facing reality and learning moderation.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It is refreshing because otherwise good people would only have three choices when confronted with a violent attacker: Flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker if they are strong enough.
It's refreshing to know that people have another choice that enables them to fight back without engaging in a physical contest of strength.
It's always been so, regardless of the bit of paper that says you can do it legally. Anyone who really felt the need to carry one would.
But it's refreshing to know that now it is sanctioned under law. You don't have to hide or skulk or otherwise sneak to exercise your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Granted, you shouldn't need a "bit of paper that says you can do it legally", but at least it's getting easier and easier to get that piece of paper.
What's happening now is a fad. A very dangerous fad, because it will ultimately threaten the very constitutional right you believe in so much.
If it's a fad, it's a fad that's been going on since at least 1986, and shows no signs of slowing down. That's nearly 30 years. Bell bottoms didn't last that long.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I wonder why you discount other, far better options, though fleeing is not a bad option.
You might want to consider using your brain. It's amazing how successful it can be in such situations. And rather than a physical contest of strength, I would suggest a few classes in Judo. Way more effective than a gun as a weapon of self-defense. A handgun is the last thing you need in a physical confrontation, especially with a more powerful adversary, unless you have both the element of surprise, which is highly unlikely, and you have a killer instinct (also unlikely if you're one of the "good" guys).
You seem to be very concerned about what you describe as "engaging in a physical contest of strength". Let's be serious here. What do you mean by that? I'm having trouble imagining what you are trying to say.
Regarding that bit of paper. It and $3.50 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks. If I felt the need to carry a gun, I would, regardless of any bit of paper "sanctioned under law". The permit would be the last thing on my mind. The first thing on my mind would be who I'm going to shoot and how I am going to shoot them. Because I can think of no other reason to carry a gun as a private citizen.
As I said, it's a fad. Did you see the underwear post?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Fleeing is good, if you are unable or unwilling to stand up to bad people.
You might want to consider using your brain. It's amazing how successful it can be in such situations.
What mind powers did you have in mind when you are being attacked by a violent criminal.
And rather than a physical contest of strength, I would suggest a few classes in Judo.
When I say "a physical contest of strength", I am talking about any engagement of with your attacker that involves the physical use of your body's strength to thwart your attacker. Judo, or any other martial art, is a physical contest of strength. You have to be physically strong enough to be successful.
Way more effective than a gun as a weapon of self-defense. A handgun is the last thing you need in a physical confrontation, especially with a more powerful adversary, unless you have both the element of surprise, which is highly unlikely, and you have a killer instinct (also unlikely if you're one of the "good" guys).
There is no better weapon than a firearm for dealing with a violent attack. It is why the police carry them instead of relying on martial arts training.
You seem to be very concerned about what you describe as "engaging in a physical contest of strength". Let's be serious here. What do you mean by that? I'm having trouble imagining what you are trying to say.
I thought it was pretty straight-forward. As I said, if you are using the strength of your body to thwart a violent attack, then you are engaging in a physical contest of strength with your attacker. That's great if you are stronger than your attacker, or a more skilled martial artist.
Regarding that bit of paper. It and $3.50 will buy you a coffee at Starbucks. If I felt the need to carry a gun, I would, regardless of any bit of paper "sanctioned under law". The permit would be the last thing on my mind. The first thing on my mind would be who I'm going to shoot and how I am going to shoot them.
I agree with you, and this is precisely the mindset of armed criminals today.
But it is refreshing that normal, non-criminal citizens can also carry firearms without risking punishment from the state. Law-abiding people don't have to break the law to carry firearms.
Because I can think of no other reason to carry a gun as a private citizen.
So you think the only reason people carry firearms is because they are hoping to shoot someone?
Do you wear seatbelts because you are looking for a car accident? Do you have smoke detectors or fire extinquishers because you are hoping for a fire? Do you carry a spare tire because you are hoping for a flat? Do you have health insurance because you are hoping to get sick?
People own such things not because they want to use them, but in case they have to use them.
Firearms are the same way.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The basic principle is using the weight and power of your opponent to your advantage. It is the "gentle way", the opposite of "brute strength".
The early history of judo is inseparable from its founder, Japanese polymath and educator Jigoro Kano.
"Central to Kano's vision for Judo were the principles of seiryoku zen, maximum efficiency, minimum effort) and jita ky, mutual welfare and benefit). He illustrated the application of seiryoku zen'y with the concept of yoku o seisu , gentleness controls hardness):
“ In short, resisting a more powerful opponent will result in your defeat, whilst adjusting to and evading your opponent's attack will cause him to lose his balance, his power will be reduced, and you will defeat him. This can apply whatever the relative values of power, thus making it possible for weaker opponents to beat significantly stronger ones. This is the theory of ju yoku go o seisu."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judo
Please spare me the fire extinguisher, spare tire argument. You don't carry them around on your person. The seatbelt, I wear when in a moving car. If I were on my way to a gunfight, I'd take a gun.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I fooled around with Pa Sa Ru for a bit. The style is a style is a blend of elements of Karate, Kung Fu, and TaeKwonDo. We learned a few foot sweeps and throws. There is nothing gentle about it, and if you want any martial arts technique to be successful it takes years of intense training and not a little talent and natural physical ability. I got as far as a green belt before I went to graduate school, which is like being a fourth grade noob in martial arts. It took a lot of work and at my best I could throw 150 roundhouse kicks in sixty seconds. An average session had me sweating through a gi in about ten minutes. Unfortunately I was nowhere near sufficiently trained to actually take on your average street thug. I would have gotten my ass handed to me.
The rule of thumb for us was skill beats speed and speed beats strength. The catch 22 of course was that it takes strength and speed to perfect skill.
There is no gentle way to hurt somebody.
&feature=related
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We were trained in several self-defense techniques. Mostly Judo. How to transfer the weight and energy of an attacker to your advantage, by making him fall. How to break various holds and how to subdue an aggressor with minimal effort, using easily learned holds and pressure points. Very useful when dealing with those who resist arrest. Came in very handy. Found myself in lots of situations where I was grateful for the training, as I was never a scrapper. There were no aggressive moves involved, beyond holds. No kicking, punching, striking. The purpose was to learn restraining techniques and defusing volatile situations with minimal force.
Karate was a whole other experience and a serious workout. Both have great qualities in terms of physical and spiritual self assurance.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)that no martial art is a panacea. The soft arts that involve joint locks and throws require tremendous training and simply won't work against a sufficient disparity of force. If your ass isn't in the dojo three days a week for about ten years the martial arts simply won't help you when you really need to defend yourself.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I speak from first hand experience. Years in a dojo if you want to be competitive, yes. For self-defense, including defense against an armed attacker, all you need are a couple of dozen moves. Anyone can learn them in a few weeks. But guns are easier. I know a few people who bought the outfits and attended a couple of classes. People are lazy.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If that were the case firearms would never have been invented. Defense against an assault IS a competition. One of the oldest known to man.
If it were that easy every street thug on the planet would be a black belt.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)Nah, thugs are the laziest. That's why they are thugs. (post #66)
So one minute all you need is a couple dozen moves learned in a few weeks, and the next minute thugs are too lazy to learn something so simple.
You are offering simple platitudes that I would expect from someone who had never been exposed to the martial arts at all.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Where is the contradiction? And I'm not offering platitudes or anything else. I'm speaking from my own experience. I have no belts or guns. I am not physically imposing or above average strength, but I was trained to disarm those bigger than me and it served me well. My remark about "thugs" was flippant. Sorry, just my weird sense of humor that comes out when people use words like "thug". I makes me think of mafia hitmen.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Is training in the martial arts easy or difficult? If it's easy, they why aren't there a bunch of thugs running around with black belts? And if it's hard and all those lazy thugs can't be bothered to learn it what makes it a viable alternative to a firearm?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Not the kind of thing most "thugs" or gun toters are into. However, I'm not talking about training to be a black belt or competing in Judo championships. I'm talking about learning a few moves, holds and pressure points that will help you turn the tables on an aggressor. Why would "thugs" want to learn defensive techniques? If the toters are carrying for SD, then they may want to improve their odds by learning such techniques. If and when they attain a sense of self confidence, then they may choose to leave the gun at home.
It feels much better to subdue an attacker with two fingers on pressure points and dialing 911 for the cops, than calling for an ambulance to clean up a shooting victim.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)"It feels much better to subdue an attacker with two fingers on pressure points and dialing 911 for the cops,"
Joint locks, pressure points and grappling moves are useless if there is a sufficient disparity of force. Did you watch the videos I posted? All of those techniques required two things - blows either from hands or feet and forcefully throwing your assailant on the ground. A one hundred pound woman, I don't care how well trained, would not prevail in the way you describe. You are still offering Hollywood platitudes to avoid your contradiction. And we haven't even gotten to the possibility of multiple attackers yet.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have seen 100 pound women totally overpower men twice their size using the weight and brute force of the men. That's what it is all about my friend. I have seen those same women remove rowdy drunks from bars with two fingers. A beautiful sight to see.
BTW you must have noticed that DU3 is considerably more civilized than DU2 and those who like to insult or just take potshots at other members are wisely not participating much. It has become a place more conducive to civilized debate and discussion.
Meanwhile, have a great weekend and Happy New Year
rrneck
(17,671 posts)does not mean that you can expand your personal experience to public policy. Nor does it obviate the point I have made at least two or three times. Nor have I forgotten stories about flare guns and ultra cheap Uzi's with no serial numbers that are still floating around in DU2.
The fact remains that the greater disparity of force between two combatants the greater will be the need to equal that disparity using either commensurate strength, training, or technology. I am just as aware of pressure points and joint locks as you and I know how trying to use them against some big motherfucker can get you killed if you don't know what you're doing. If you don't get him into that joint lock or pressure point super quick, you will lose. That's why most of the soft arts precede those pressure points or joint locks by first throwing their opponent on the ground. Go look at those videos again.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The goal is to defend oneself from being harmed by another, not to hurt or harm the attacker. I learned from playing rugby as a kid that the bigger they come, the harder they fall. One of the reasons I dislike American football. I like the videos, BTW. I think they exemplify my point.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I've faced down my share of big bad motherfuckers and I did it by making it clear that I wasn't the only one that was going to get hurt. I know of no gentle way to subdue someone who doesn't want to be subdued.
I agree about personal choices. We all should have the right to deal with such situations the way we see fit. And if it can be done without violence so much the better. I expect to always advocate for the freedom to carry a firearm on one's person. I also expect to advocate for the position that killing is wrong every time no matter why. It's not a contradiction, it's just being human.
If you're good enough at hand to hand combat, you will never have to engage in hand to hand combat. But only if your opponent is convinced you're that good.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The key is how to avoid being hit by those who would do you harm. I don't want to take away anyone's personal choices or rights. I want to encourage options that I perceive as more sensible than routine toting, which I think might backfire and cause the majority to lose their rights through the behavior of the few. I hope I'm wrong and optimism is something I am known for.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I'm gonna run outside tonight to see if the moon is blue.
DWC
(911 posts)Response to rrneck (Reply #62)
rrneck This message was self-deleted by its author.
We_Have_A_Problem
(2,112 posts)....I'll PM you my address and invite you by for an object lesson in how wrong you are.
Don't worry - I'll use a Nerf gun...just pretend its real
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I can only attest to my own experience, which fortunately did not include defending myself against a gun. Weapons I faced included knives, broken bottles, a bicycle chain and a machete, besides quite a few feet and fists. I am not a natural fighter and never had a fight since grade school. My encounters were all as a police officer, many moons ago, and I was grateful for the training. But I'm grateful for the invite and would love to drop by next time we're in Texas. Maybe you could teach me a few things.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Actually, I know a fair amount about Judo. I was two belts away from Black in Hapkido, which shared floor space with the Judo class.
You are absolutely correct that one of the fundamentals of Judo is to use your attacker's weight and power against them. But you are kidding yourself if you think this is not a contest of strength. Any time you lay hands on your attacker, you are engaging in a physical contest of strength with your attacker. You may be weaker, and you may be skilled enough to use your opponents strength and weight against them, but you are still engaging in physical, hand-to-hand combat.
This is fine if you have the strength and/or the training to undertake such an endeavor. I submit to you as an expert both Hapkido and firearms that it is far, far easier to effectively use a firearm than to effectively use a martial art.
Please spare me the fire extinguisher, spare tire argument. You don't carry them around on your person. The seatbelt, I wear when in a moving car. If I were on my way to a gunfight, I'd take a gun.
Whether or not you are carrying them on your person or not is irrelevant. The point is that people who keep tools close at hand and ready for use do so not because they are waiting for the chance to use them but in the emergency case that they have to use them.
Besides which, the only reason we don't carry fire extinguisher and spare tires around on our person is because we don't have to do that for them to be effective. It is sufficient to simply keep them near the place where they are likely to be needed in an emergency. Outside your home, the only effective place to keep a firearm to use in emergencies is on your person.
But I do carry a Swiss pocketknife around on my person. Not because I'm looking for things to cut, screws to turn, or wine bottles to open, but in case I find myself in a situation where I need to do those things. You wear a seatbelt when you are driving a car, not because you are on your way to a car accident but in case you happen to be in one while driving. People carry guns for the same reason.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What I am saying is that Judo techniques are more efficient, not effective. Judo effects the preferred result. Stopping and subduing an assailant without injury. I'm not an expert, but I've used those techniques many times with success, including disarming an adversary. Handguns are crude and carrying them for self-defense is way over the top.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Firearms are the most efficient means of stopping an assault. The effective use of martial arts against the same range of assailants would require years of intensive training and that training would have to be maintained to be effective.
A firearm can be used by more kinds of people against more kinds of assailants than any other method of self defense. That's why there are so many of them. If martial arts was better there would be eighty million black belts running around today. And people like you whining about how vulgar they are to study such barbaric techniques for hurting people. I can hear it now, "People are spending waaaay too much time in the study of bone breaking. It's crude and over the top."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Personally, If I was confronted with an armed attacker, I would be all for "over the top". I would not interested in seeing how little force is required to stop the attack on my life. You may think that handguns are "crude" and not as "efficient" as Judo (though I have to wonder how killing your attacker in seconds with a flick of the finger cannot be considered to be "efficient" ), but when your life is on the line, your best choice is the one that is the most effective.
That's why police officers carry firearms.
But all of that is academic. The bottom line is any kind of physical resistance against a violent attack is just that - physical resistance, and it requires the victim to be stronger and/or better trained than their attacker in order to succeed. This is an unrealistic expectation for most people.
So once again we are back to this:
Without firearms, any victim of violent crime has three choices: flee if they are fast enough, submit if they are tough enough, or engage in a physical contest of strength with their attacker.
Many people just don't have they physical capability to do any of those things. The firearm is an equalizer.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In this country. Where I grew up and worked as one they don't carry firearms and it works very well for them. Just to let you know there is always another side to the coin.
I have never been a victim of violent crime, but have been threatened many times by those who would have made me a victim. If I had chosen any of your options I would have been a victim. Even if you flee, you are still a victim of sorts. 99% of being a victim is feeling like a victim. Did you watch the video of the guy taking the AK47 away from the would be robber and laughing as he did it. Do you think that guy was a victim or sees himself as a victim? I don't. When one arms oneself to walk out of the house one has already decided to be a potential victim. I find that very sad. To be a victim of one's own fear has to be the worst kind of victimization, because it is relentless.
I never found using Judo techniques as physical resistance. They are the opposite. I think you have a very poor understanding of how Judo works. Efficiency is about accomplishing a task with the least effort. Shooting someone requires an enormous effort.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)In this country. Where I grew up and worked as one they don't carry firearms and it works very well for them. Just to let you know there is always another side to the coin.
The bottom line is when police officers are threatened with real violence they almost always show up with guns.
Did you watch the video of the guy taking the AK47 away from the would be robber and laughing as he did it. Do you think that guy was a victim or sees himself as a victim? I don't.
The man was a victim of armed robbery. The fact that he was able to engage in a successful attempt to physically overpower his attacker does not change that fact.
When one arms oneself to walk out of the house one has already decided to be a potential victim. I find that very sad.
When I drive out of my driveway with a spare tire, this does not mean I have already decided to have a flat tire. It simply means that I want to be prepared if I do have a flat tire.
Carrying a gun means that I have decided to be able to fight back if I ever am a victim of violent crime.
I never found using Judo techniques as physical resistance. They are the opposite. I think you have a very poor understanding of how Judo works. Efficiency is about accomplishing a task with the least effort. Shooting someone requires an enormous effort.
This is a huge stretch. You're just simply wrong. If you are using your body to manipulate someone else's body in a combat situation, then that is hand to hand combat. That is physical resistance - you are physically using your body to manipulate your attacker's body to resist their attack. There is simply no comparison between the amount of physical effort (and that is what we are talking about here when we talk about physical contests of strength) to engage in hand to hand combat versus that required to fire a handgun .
Again, I have a very good understanding of how Judo works, and Hapkido in particular. This does not change the fact that any martial art is hand to hand combat, and requires the user to be physically capable of using their body to deflect the attack of their attacker's body. While there are indeed some cute moves that people can use to incapacitate an attacker with almost trivial body movements, as my instructor taught us most fights end up on the ground in a desperate, violent physical encounter. Physical strength and training are huge[i/] parts of winning nearly any violent encounter.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unless you have an invisible cloak, which I do. Happy New Year.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)hack89, did not say the situation was likely.
hack89 said in that [unlikely] situation, a gun is the odds-on best solution.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How did I misread that? How is being attacked by an army a likely situation? And how would having a gun help against an army?
I think the key word here is "likely" which means there is a high probability of it happening.
petronius
(26,696 posts)that such situations are likely to occur. "Likely" modifies the verb (are), not the noun (situations)...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Then, likely, there are situations where a gun is the best answer
petronius
(26,696 posts)You asked how, and I told you. (Your main mistake, really, was neglecting the context.) No need to thank me - I'm always glad to help guide a fellow DUer through the labyrinths of the English language... 
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)At the very least he should have put a comma after likely. Check his post. Otherwise, I interpreted it correctly and in context. As long as we call it the English language, let's stay with some of the basic rules.
hack89
(39,181 posts)some sort of law I have never heard of before?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)sounds like reason enough to carry a gun in certain places or situations in America.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In certain situations and places they definitely make sense. But overall, I'd put the odds much closer to never than likely. Have you ever needed your gun?
I've never met anyone who claimed they would've been better off if they had been armed and I have met several victims of robbery and rape. The only "if only" I ever heard from victims was about taking the wrong route or not being alert enough. Usually blaming themselves, which is unfortunate, because self blame is a common trait of those who tend to be victims or worry constantly about being victims.
hack89
(39,181 posts)let them use their judgement and knowledge of their environment to make an informed judgement. Because it is certainly clear that concealed carry permit holders have an excellent safety record. There will be a minuscule percentage who will go wrong but not many.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Whether it is a wise choice is another question, but we all have to live with our choices in life. Have a safe, healthy and prosperous New Year
hack89
(39,181 posts)Two guys messing around with my car. Did't have to shoot - when they approached in a belligerent manner I simply showed my holstered gun and they took off.
That, by the way, is something you consistently refuse to acknowledge - many defensive gun uses do not involve gun fire.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I just don't call it DGU. I call it scaring people away by showing your gun. Obviously it works. I think other methods work equally as well, without the potential for escalation.
hack89
(39,181 posts)without a gun they had the advantage - I was at their mercy.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and you decided that it was worth using your gun to defend your car. It was a judgment call on your part and fortunately it worked out OK for everyone. Personally, I would think twice before making that choice, but, as I say, it's your life, your car and your call.
hack89
(39,181 posts)but secondly, there can be no predators if there is no prey. You are willing to give criminals free reign - I am not. They should be challenged when ever it is safe to do so.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Where the hell did you get that idea from? I spent years of my life defending life and property and putting criminals behind bars and I didn't need a gun to do it. The latest version of your story makes it appear that you were justified in exposing your weapon. I don't know how justified and I don't care. It was your call and it's your story. If that's what it takes for you to feel safe, then so be it.
There will always be predators and prey as long as living creatures roam the earth. That doesn't make it a requirement to be one or the other, in able to roam the earth. Some animals are neither. Carry a gun and you're auditioning for one of those roles.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I find your priorities misplaced - all this concern about people that do not represent an actual threat but no talk of reasonable measures to combat criminals. Are we all criminals.in your mind?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I want to live in a world where nobody feels the need to carry a gun. Right now I'm talking to you and the "good guys". If I were talking to criminals, I would tell them the same. I think we all have a right to be armed, regardless of the second amendment. My beef is with those who exercise that right on a "you never know when you might need it" basis. I don't know if that includes you or not. Maybe you have a good reason. That's your business and It's your life.
hack89
(39,181 posts)why are you wasting time talking to us? Concentrate on criminals and you will get the world you want.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't feel threatened by toters, be they licensed or unlicensed. Foolish behavior by anyone is still foolish behavior and I will comment on it as much as I like. Why are you wasting your time talking to me? I hope it is because I am causing you to question your choices, or lack thereof. All dependency is rooted in fear. Gun dependency is no different.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm presenting rational and effective options to carrying a GUN, for those concerned about personal safety. The whole point of Judo is that superior strength or physical fitness is not necessary, as it is based on principles of equalizing physical disparity.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Because you don't seem to actually grasp that a certain level of fitness/strength is actually required to make those techniques work. One may sometimes not need to be of equal or superior level as ones' opponent, but you'd better be close or the difference will tell very quickly.
For the record, I'm a Sho-dan in Uechi-ryu Karate, albeit very rusty and out of practice.
Edit: Disregard my question, I just saw your up-thread post.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'll only need it with my car.
I have fire extinguishers in my house, in all my vehicles, and they are already in all public buildings.
If you can foretell when I will actually need a gun, I'll only carry at those times (more likely try to avoid that place altogether), but no-one I know is that good at prognostication.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Headlines! Read all about it! Massacre at school by madman with a fire extinguisher. 
If I were riddled with that kind of fear I would never leave home. I might be struck by lightning or a piece of space junk or a car. Much more likely than needing to shoot someone. Don't forget your defibrillator and your body armor. You do realize how silly it sounds to compare a gun to a fire extinguisher, don't you?
Hey, Happy New Year BTW.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Cheers to you too, if you're within reach of some Boddingtons or John Smith, have one for me!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts) 
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just because your undies get in a bunch when you ponder it doesn't make the analogy any less apt.
Is someone who has a fire extinguisher in their car (or boat) intending to have a fire? Is that person 'riddled with fear'?
Both are instruments that some people have handy on the rare chance that they may need to use them.
What's silly is not recognizing the parallels and trying to distract people.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Fire extinguishers are designed to put out fires to save property and/or lives. Handguns are designed to injure or kill humans. You may use them for target practice or hunting or hammering in nails, but it doesn't change what they are designed and made for. Calling a handgun a tool of self defense is exactly the same as calling a nuclear arsenal a tool of national defense. Both concepts are bogus.
Defensive tools are shields, helmets and body armor. Even pepper spray is an offensive weapon, but it won't kill or maim. Anyone who carries a handgun for purported self defense is, or should be, prepared to kill or maim. Nobody carries a fire extinguisher for that purpose. You're really clutching at very thin straws with that kind of analogy.
Anyway, have a Happy New Year. May it be safe, healthy and prosperous.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Is a person having access to an item potentially useful for a rare event 'irrational' or 'riddled with fear'?
Additionally, does a person having that access mean that they 'intend' to face that rare event?
There- no way to weasel out, trying to fudge the terminology (though I'm sure you'll try.)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)No.
"Additionally, does a person having that access mean that they 'intend' to face that rare event?"
No.
Now let me ask and answer questions in the context of what is under discussion.
Is a person who straps on a gun every time they leave home, regardless of where they are going irrational, or riddled with fear?
Very probably, unless they have a number of known deadly enemies.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It is simply incncievable to you, isn't it, that others might make different choices about their state of preparedness for any given eventuality, than YOU would, with calm logical reasoned rationale.
And because you disagree with that choice, or find it distasteful, or repugnant, or...characterize it any way you like...However you decide to charactereize it, it isn't because of what they're choosing to do, that makes you assign "fear" to it as a motivation, rather than calm logical reasoned rationale.
It is because of of how you feel about that choice.
And everyone here knows it.
That script has been played out a thousand times here and on the old DU, if not more.
Nothing new here what so ever.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You may describe compulsive toting "distasteful or repugnant". You may call it "calm logical reasoned rationale". I don't call it either. I see it as extremely silly and dangerous behavior and those who practice it need to spend some time asking themselves "What the hell do I think I'm doing?" Standing in front of a mirror usually helps with figuring stuff like that out. Any compulsive behavior, by definition, is not about "calm logical reasoned rationale."
And concerning the choice, it's how I think, not how I feel. I have no feelings about the choice. My feelings are reserved for the victims of gun violence. And no matter how much you try to redefine reality, every time you leave home with you handgun, you put another handgun on the street. There may be "good guys" and "bad guys" out there, but there are no good shootings. They are all tragic.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"You may describe compulsive toting "distasteful or repugnant". You may call it "calm logical reasoned rationale". I don't call it either. I see it as extremely silly and dangerous behavior and those who practice it need to spend some time asking themselves "What the hell do I think I'm doing?" Standing in front of a mirror usually helps with figuring stuff like that out. Any compulsive behavior, by definition, is not about "calm logical reasoned rationale."
First of all, it hasn't been established, by you or anyone else, that "compulsive toting" even exists. Oh, sure, you've asserted it. You've packaged it, and now you're selling it. Because this is your assertion, a contrivance by you intended to lead a reader to a predetermined conclusion, the burden lies with you to prove it. And not just as an exception, but as a rule. You just wouldn't waste all this time and effort to prove an exception to the rule.
Thus far you have not met that burden. I repeat: Thus far you have not met that burden. To these eyes, it doesn't even appear that you are, or have been, attempting to. That could be described a number of ways, some pleasant, and some not, but "reasoned discourse", and "logical debate" would not be among them. Given the purpose of this forum, you might pause and consider that.
"And concerning the choice, it's how I think, not how I feel. I have no feelings about the choice. My feelings are reserved for the victims of gun violence. And no matter how much you try to redefine reality, every time you leave home with you handgun, you put another handgun on the street. There may be "good guys" and "bad guys" out there, but there are no good shootings. They are all tragic."
Ignorance for the win? You pontificate as if your unsupported unproven assertions are somehow objective truth, both regarding "compulsive toting" and "fear as the motivator",and yet I'm the one trying to "redefine reality"?
Please.
I don't carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, btw.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Why not, may I ask? Is it your decision?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Based upon criteria of my own selection, I have chosen not to, thats why I don't carry a gun.
I understand others may have different criteria than myself, may view the same or similar criteria differently and come to a different decision based on it, and do not begrudge them of that, and believe that they should be afforded the same without being labelled, characterized, or described as "compulsive toters" or "fear driven".
I am convinced that you do not hold this view.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't begrudge them their choice, but when they announce their eccentric behavior and declare it normal it makes me curious. How would you characterize an individual who is gun dependent? You don't wonder what drives them to be gun dependent? You don't think fear might be a motivation? I don't label them. They label themselves. I just translate for the rest of us.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Read it again, and read it completely thouroughly, and acurately - I said:
"I understand others may have different criteria than myself, may view the same or similar criteria differently and come to a different decision based on it, and do not begrudge them of that, and believe that they should be afforded the same without being labelled, characterized, or described as "compulsive toters" or "fear driven"."
Read the part that says "without being labelled, characterized, or described as "compulsive toters" or "fear driven"."
By your very words in this forum, clearly, you do NOT aggree, or you wouldn't have cast the aspersions you did or used the words you used.
"How would you characterize an individual who is gun dependent?"
Show us all one post where someone expresses that sentiment. Just one. I'll disprove any example you come up with, by the standard YOU set in a previous post - "someone that will go NOWHERE unarmed." Your words. provide an example, or just admit you're talking about a group of people that dont exist hereabouts, and pretending some of us belong to that group.
"You don't wonder what drives them to be gun dependent?"
Without an example, I can't really say. Please provide a cite to a post here on DU in which evidence is contained, by YOUR standard, that someone is gun dependent.
"You don't think fear might be a motivation?"
See above. I wouldn't know, I haven't been provided with an example.
"I don't label them. They label themselves."
The only entity you're succeeding in labelling, is yourself. I have your posts as proof that you actually exist. Posts by anyone hereabouts that would prove by your standard that someone is "gun dependent"?
Not so much.
So , pony up some proof for a chage.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Care to explain your *cough* logic?
[div class='excerpt']In the US there are 400,000 residential fires every year, and there are ~105,000,000 homes. Odds of a home fire? 1 in 263.
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html
According to the DOJ, the rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743
Considering that your odds of being a victim of violent crime is higher than having a house fire, I would assert that having a tool to address violent crime is more rational than fire extinguishers.
As far as your claim about 'every time they leave home, regardless of where they are going' - what "logic" leads you to believe that you can predict where or when you will encounter crime? My crystal ball is on the fritz. If I thought visiting a certain location were likely to increase my odds of encountering violent crime, I'd avoid that place. (And I do.) It's the times and locations I can't predict for which I carry.
Are you under the mistaken impression that there are places where crime doesn't happen?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)So what? Because there is crime, you feel the need to carry a gun? 
Don't you see how weird that kind of logic is? On a par with trying to put out a fire by dumping gasoline on it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Because I might get a flat anywhere I drive, I carry a spare tire.
Because I might have a car fire anywhere I drive, I carry a fire extinguisher.
Because I might have a house fire at any time, I have fire extinguishers.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Comparing guns to fire extinguishers boggles a rational mind. One guy said he compares a gun to underwear. Is there anything compulsive toters don't compare there guns with?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just emotional hand-wringing and half-veiled insults.
Congratulations, this is why we win.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You think my responses are emotional hand-wringing? Hardly. How is making observations about compulsive behavior and pointing out the absurdities of such behavior emotional hand-wringing? I don't offer advice out of an emotional need.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Sanity is also not about repeating an unproven assertion, in the hopes it becomes accepted truth.
"How is making observations about compulsive behavior and pointing out the absurdities of such behavior emotional hand-wringing? I don't offer advice out of an emotional need. Living off the grid and loving it."
You have still not proven "compulsive behavior" on the part of others. You assert it, but provide no proof of its existence as an exception, let alone a rule. Put simply, thats fail. The closest you have come, is to demonstrate what appears to be compulsiveness:
You can't seem to stop yourself from doing this over and over.
Did you really want to talk about absurdities?
Are you sure?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)When you see your gun the way you see your underwear and never leave home without it. When you think you might need a gun in any and all situations in order to be safe. When you equate wearing a gun with have a fire extinguisher. When you see a gun as the best tool you could ever have for survival.
If you think any of that is rational, please don't bother to reply. I have nothing I need to prove in this particular discussion. We can disagree. I'm fine with that. We don't all see the world the same.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Attributing meanings to statements that were more or less tongue in cheek - the gun=underwear thing. I read it. I saw it for what it was. You are attributing to it, some other meaning than it was intended to convey.
And its no accident.
So comeone chooses to be armed when they can. So the fuck what. That person made a CHOICE. You're ascribing a meaning to that choice, drawing a conclusion from that choice, for which no facts have been presented to support.
Period.
Did you really think that sort of thing is accepted in this forum without comment, question, and condemnation? Really?
"When you think you might need a gun in any and all situations in order to be safe."
One can choose to be prepared for many things which may or may not happen, with varying degrees of potentiality. So what? the difference, between those other things and the choice of carrying a gun as a means of preparedness gun EXISTS IN YOUR MIND. Again, you're ascribing a meaning to that choice, drawing a conclusion from that choice, which no facts have been presented to support.
Period.
"When you equate wearing a gun with have a fire extinguisher."
And again, your claiming someone did and said something they didn't. Nobody was equating "wearing a gun with have a fire extinguisher" - they were comparing THE REASONS for doing either of those two things. I doubt very much that you're so dim as not to know or recognise the difference.
"When you see a gun as the best tool you could ever have for survival"
Who exactly claimed exactly that? Beuller? BEULLER? Claiming it was the best tool for survival IN A CERTAIN SITUATION perhaps. Well, thats not at all what you claim was said, now is it. So again, you're claiming someone expressed a sentiment which they in fact did not.
"If you think any of that is rational, please don't bother to reply"
Why would I think any of it is anything, since none of is is what anyone said. Its what you CLAIMED they said, tortured out of their words, or equivocated into the murk.
"I have nothing I need to prove in this particular discussion."
We'll, then don't pretend you're interested in rational discourse or discussion, and just admit you're here to make unsupported claims about other posters words , motivations, and sentiments, and that you're simply here to cast aspersions.
That IS what you've been doing.
In rational discourse and reasoned discussion, if one makes claims, the onus is on them to back it up or retract those claims. You've done neither. And you'll never be upholding YOUR end of things until you do.
"We can disagree. I'm fine with that. We don't all see the world the same."
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not , however entitled to your own facts.
Nor are you entitled to:
* present your opinion as if it were fact
* cast unfounded aspersions on others and characterize them as fact
* make false claims that others said or meant or argued things that they very obviously didn't and present that as fact
* assign motivations to actions or behaviors of others which no facts have been provided to support and present THAT as fact
No sir. Not here. Not now. Not ever.
Expect to be called on it.
Every.Single.Time.
"I don't know Beevul. What do you think?"
I think you know exactly what you're doing. I think its been pointed out enough that there can be no mistaking it, even in the off chance that you were so dim as not to know it initially what you were doing.
I think you're going to keep doing it anyway, because I've seen this a hundred times before - the evasiveness, the dodging, the unfounded claims, the equivocation, the deliberate misinterpretation of things posted tongue in cheek, the unwillingness to even try to back up claims...all of it.
I've seen it here before. And I'm not the only one.
Enough times to recognise is for what it most likely is.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Now you're a telepsychologist?!?
Tell me, Carnac.. what am I thinking now?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If so, then you don't carry compulsively. I'm only referring to those who have stated that they will go nowhere without being armed. That's compulsive. The act of leaving home compels them to behave in a certain way. It really isn't complicated.
For example, I smoke, but am not a compulsive smoker. Usually, I wear a hat, but if I forget it or lose it, I feel fine.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I'm only referring to those who have stated that they will go nowhere without being armed."
Emphasis on the "nowhere". Who has claimed that they will go NOWHERE without being armed?
Cite it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If you spent more time here you would know and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Some have already departed permanently, some are hiding in their cubbyholes. Some may join in and declare themselves. I don't make this shit up. It's the whole point of our conversation and my participation here.
Stick around, they'll pop their heads up eventually. I don't have any interest in critiquing rational behavior.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"You know I can't do that as it would be a call out."
Thats a cop out and you know it. Without mentioning names, its allowed as far as I have ever seen.
"If you spent more time here you would know and we wouldn't be having this conversation."
*snork*
My Profile
Member since: Wed Nov 5, 2003, 06:25 AM
Number of posts: 5,925
Last post: Tue Jan 3, 2012, 04:44 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=133926
"Some have already departed permanently, some are hiding in their cubbyholes."
And yet is is, that you can't bother to post a link to a post where anyone claims that...or even a link to a THREAD where anyone has claimed that.
"I don't make this shit up."
Calling something, something it is not, is close enough, and may as well be making shit up.
"It's the whole point of our conversation and my participation here."
No, the whole point of our conversation, is that you're making a claim, and have not, abd I believe CAN NOT back it up.
in any case, your unwillingness speaks volumes, and is very telling.
"I don't have any interest in critiquing rational behavior."
Nor it appears, do you have any interest in accurately characterizing the behavior in question, or those who engage in it, accurately or fairly.
And I just have to ask...even if you come up with one example of someone who refuses to go ANYWHERE unarmed (doesnt fly, refuses court appearances because he/she can't take a gun, refuses to work because he/she can't carry at work), what bearing would it have on the majority of those that carry, and why waste your time trying to discuss something that clearly does not apply to 99% (if not 100) of the posters here?
Why?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)This way if they own up you can talk to them yourself.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It's your assertion, feel free to back it up.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)see the new thread. I don't need to dig up old posts from DU2
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm often wrong, though I really don't see any right or wrong about this discussion.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)You've yet to prove that, even with your new thread.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You can do it at the same time you're logged in here. If a post is there, you can find it.
If it's there, mind you...
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The fact that you try to diagnose a mental illness by what people choose to carry on their person tickles me.
It's a transparent ruse, trying to impugn mental health of those whose choices you don't agree with- but it does make me chuckle.
Are you 'ok' with leaving home without your wallet?
Are people who always carry their wallet and cell phone similarly 'compulsive'? 
LOL, now I get to watch you squirm.. let me get ahead in this little dance.. "But that's diiiiiferent....", right?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You think compulsive toting is a mental illness? Where the heck did you get that idea?
I sometimes take my wallet if I need to buy something. Usually I take an ATM card or cash. I usually take my phone, because I run a business from it. Not always. Never actually thought about killing anyone with either the card or the phone. I try to keep a knife handy and should probably carry it more often, in case I need to cut a rope or some kelp. Can't really think of anything I compulsively take with me on a daily basis besides a pair of shorts or jeans and that's really for social decorum.
But, to answer your question "Are people who always carry their wallet and cell phone similarly 'compulsive'?"
Yes. Of course they are. There is nothing wrong with being compulsive. We are all compelled to do all kinds of things all the time.
The discussion here, just in case you missed it, is about compulsively carrying a gun.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)As if you didn't wish people to infer mental illness from your 'compulsive behavior' schtick.
Transparent.
beevul
(12,194 posts)That would appear to be a thinly veiled personal attack.
You're assigning compulsiveness to others who have given no indication of being so.
But I wont alert, because posts and themes like it, help only help the pro-gun cause, and hurt your efforts against it.
On top of that, you're asserting posters here are doing things they aren't doing:
"Comparing guns to fire extinguishers"
No one, of course, is doing that. Comparing ones reasons for having one thing versus ones reasons for having another thing, is not the same thing as comparing one thing versus another thing.
In fact, you're trying to change the argument into comparing one thing versus another thing, then attribute that argument to your "opponent".
There are words and phrases that describes that:
Dishonest. Disingenuous. Straw man.
You really need to understand that for the great majority of us that frequent this forum, this isn't our first rodeo, and doing such things as attributing to others words they have not posted...behaviors they have given no evidence of engaging in...arguments they have not made...or views they've given no evidence of holding...only makes one look Dishonest and disingenuous.
And posters here are seasoned enough to recognise it for what it is, and identify it as such.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)help only the pro-gun cause, and hurt your efforts against it."
Amen. I'm convinced that the internet is at least in part responsible for the decline in support for gun control. In discussions all across the web, fair-minded people notice a pattern quickly - and it most certainly does not favor the pro-restriction (or pro-sanity) side.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Oh really? Then feel free to alert. Who was I attacking in my thinly veiled way?
You think nobody here is comparing guns to fire extinguishers? Do you read the threads? This faux comparison comes up constantly. Are you in complete denial of what doesn't appeal to your sensibilities?
"But I wont alert, because posts and themes like it, help only help the pro-gun cause, and hurt your efforts against it."
How magnanimous of you and delusional at the same time.
beevul
(12,194 posts)X digger says:
Because I might get a flat anywhere I drive, I carry a spare tire.
Because I might have a car fire anywhere I drive, I carry a fire extinguisher.
Because I might have a house fire at any time, I have fire extinguishers.
And you reply:
Comparing guns to fire extinguishers boggles a rational mind. One guy said he compares a gun to underwear. Is there anything compulsive toters don't compare there guns with?
You just made the implication that X Digger is a "compulsive toter" without knowing anything about him, or how often he carries a gun, or the rationale or criteria with which he made the decision to do so. Thats a thinly veiled personal attack if I ever saw one.
But I'm sure you meant it in only the nicest way, right?
On top of that, you said he did something he did not in fact do:
"Comparing guns to fire extinguishers". You claimed he did that, but he did NOT do that.
He compared the reasoning behind having a number of things, rather than comparing the things themselves.
Maybe in your mind, thats all the same, but here in the real world, those are two very different things.
"Then feel free to alert."
Nope. I prefer to have these posts around to link back to, they make for good reference material. And they serve only to hurt the anti-gun movement. You say you're impartial between anti-gun and pro-gun. If thats true, its a good thing for the antis, and they should be happy.
Because theres no telling how much damage you could do to the anti-gun position if you were really committed.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts).........to distract from what they are actually used for - which in many cases is self defense. One of the favorite red herrings of the pro-restriction supporter.
I live in a corrupt carry state - which is to say that the sheriff doles out permits to his campaign supporters, celebrities, etc.
Once while walking many blocks to my car one night downtown I had to resort to the "Michael Corleone bluff" - which is to say I feigned possession of a weapon by moving my right hand from my pant pocket to my jacket pocket. It worked - luckily......but had it not I would have had to try to sprint about six or seven blocks to a busier street to avoid three young thugs who were obviously up to no good with a sprained ankle. In shall-issue states, episodes like this happen as well - except that the citizen is allowed to pull a handgun in self defense. And do these episodes get reported to the police? Of course not.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You find the truth silly. I find it reassuring. You also prove my point with your tale of woe. Obviously you didn't need a gun and thus avoided shooting your three "thugs" by merely pretending to have one, which is much safer and far less lethal. Feel free to move to a gun happy state. I'm sure they'll welcome you with open arms.
BTW I'm not pro-restriction. I'm pro-sanity. In the absence of sanity, I could be persuaded to be pro-restriction. Posts like yours nudge me in that direction.
Happy New Year
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)You find the truth silly.
More obfuscation from you - again, no surprise. I don't dispute that guns were originally designed to kill and maim. I disputed the idea that tossing out that worthless line advances the dialog, or in any way supports gun restriction.
You also prove my point with your tale of woe.
Horseshit. I got lucky. The punks could have just as easily called my bluff - and then i would have been in one very tight spot.
I'm pro-sanity.
No - not so much. It's been proven that concealed carry permit holders are extremely law abiding, and that more assaults occur away from the home than within it. So it is obviously not "sane" to be alright with guns in the home, but against concealed carry.
Happy New Year back at you - I look forward to more wins for the RKBA in 2012 and chuckling as the peddlers of "sanity" lose even more ground.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In that, my friend, you differ from many here. So you might want to re-evaluate your position of group spokesperson.
BTW, if you read my posts, you will see that I do not support gun restriction. I support self-control.
Horseshit. I got lucky. The punks could have just as easily called my bluff - and then i would have been in one very tight spot.
You were in a spot that you put yourself in to start with. You learned, hopefully, not to repeat that mistake. When you swim in shark infested waters, especially when injured, you shouldn't be surprised. I've done the same as you on more than one occasion and managed to avoid confrontation by using my wits, as you did. Again, you demonstrate my point.
It's been proven that concealed carry permit holders are extremely law abiding, and that more assaults occur away from the home than within it. So it is obviously not "sane" to be alright with guns in the home, but against concealed carry.
Really? Proven? It has been claimed. Keeping a gun in your home poses no danger to those who don't enter your home. If you decide to carry a concealed weapon, you do it so that, if the need arises, you will be able to kill or maim with it. That mindset says that your personal choices come before those of society. I think you should have the right to do it, but should think more than twice about it. And doing it as a habit? Sorry, nothing rational about that.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Sorry - more horseshit. I'm guessing that you assumed that I was "needlessly" in a "bad part of town". I was not. The downtown area of my city on the street in question had been much safer than in years past as a result of heavier police presence and other factors. I parked a fair distance from the theater where friends and I were enjoying a play to save a little bread - I didn't want to be taken to the cleaners by the nearby parking structures/lots. A person should have the right to walk to/from their car while engaging in legal activity without being threatened with violence. You are free to lessen your enjoyment of life by attempting to avoid ALL potentially dangerous situations, but you are not free to suggest I do the same.
So NO. I most certainly did not demonstrate your point.
Really? Proven? It has been claimed.
No sir - it has been proven. I'm sure someone else can provide the citation from the state of Florida, but here's the evidence from Texas. Note that the member provided a link to enable you to check his math if you so desire:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x422366#422581
That mindset says that your personal choices come before those of society
Huh wuh? I'm guessing that you imagine that innocents are routinely killed/maimed when in the crossfire between persons defending themselves and criminal predators. Good luck providing stats supporting that theory.
And doing it as a habit? Sorry, nothing rational about that.
Actually, pretending that you can know when a predator will decide to make you their prey is what is irrational. I obey the laws of my state and do not carry - but I certainly don't fault the sane daily carriers who have the sense to realize that they don't have any special ability to determine when the excrement will hit the fan.
SteveW
(754 posts)Do you have data comparing the crime rates of those with concealed-carry permits with the crime rates of the population in general?
While you are at it, how are gun-crime rates going over the last several years?
Please post the data. If you have it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Gun crime is a direct consequence of gun proliferation. Bad guys aren't supposed to have guns. So where do they get them?
SteveW
(754 posts)Just substituting your comment with another object. To test its validity. There wasn't much.
Of course, there is probably a difference between the rate of criminal acts of concealed carry people and the rates with the general population.
Crime is a direct consequence of people breaking the law, and the violent crime is in the main a direct consequence of repeat felons.
True, bad guys aren't supposed to have guns. But bad guys are criminals, and they steal and commit other crimes. From the data, it appears few criminals who used guns got them from gun shows, and fewer still got them from FFL holders.
If you wish to expand the NICS test to include all people (and not just those who obtain firearms through mandated FFL holders), please present some suggestions. This topic has been covered before, and there is considerable sympathy for making NICS "universal." Keep in mind that even if a universal NICS system could be established that would satisfy most parties, the criminal would employ smuggling, manufacturing, and theft to gain access to guns. 'Hear-tell, there is a powerful, wealthy and competent cartel system operating south of the border which can accomplish this; they have a "good" track record at it. Some have even suggested these cartels are now operating in the U.S.
Most violent criminals in this society have every intention on behaving as they have been, and they will most often deal violently with those who try to stop them. They, too, have a good track record at this.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Who cares about differences in rates of criminal acts between toters and normal people. WTF does that have to do with rational behavior? Why do you even think about violent criminals? Are you some kind of target for violent criminals? What makes you so special that these violent criminals pose a threat to you? I can understand if you have a good answer for that. For example, I would possibly consider carrying a gun if I were an obvious potential target, like a jeweler, super rich guy, pimp, hooker, undercover cop, high profile celebrity or high profile asshole. Otherwise, I can't think of any reason why any bad guy might target me, unless of course, I show him my gun.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Mayhap Mayor 1% didn't *really* want ordinary people to be able to access it, but what's your reason?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I object to the overall lack of self control by gun nuts and the reactions that they trigger from their opponents. Don't you see how extremists always fuck things up for everyone else?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Apparently not, which is why I support lancing the festering extremist boil off before it infects too much, and taking good hygienic steps/antibiotics to inhibit their development.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)BTW Happy New Year
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)...hold my tongue because gun control proposals seem to be even more subject to savagery than healthcare reform proposals. Needless to say, it would be a hybrid-American-European version. After all, it's not rocket science and doing nothing is not a compelling argument in my opinion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Write your Congresscritters. Talk them up on other fora.
http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1hwyfqhO7
President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am
***snip***
•First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it....
As DUer spin correctly pointed out, these common sense and reasonable (Yeah, I went there...) proposals got nary a word of support from the Bradys,
MAIG, or the VPC. I'd even go farther and suggest enacting "safe harbor" provisions for private sellers who do the right thing and check buyers on a
publicly accessable NICS.
MY question is: Do you want effective gun control, or just more gun control?
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)Also: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/tucson-shooting-victims-urge-congress-act-gun-laws-010234172.html
I don't know where you're getting the idea the gun control movement is just about the Brady Campaign. Don't pigeon hole me, and I won't pigeon hole you.
http://mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/
http://www.lcav.org/
My Congresscritters at the moment is Maxine Waters, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Previously, I was represented by Neil Abercombie, Daniel Akaka, and Daniel Inouye. It's not my Congresscritters that are the problem. It's the Republicans and those corrupted by the NRA.
"MY question is: Do you want effective gun control, or just more gun control?"
Both. That's a silly question.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And what have Waters, Feinstein, and Boxer done to support our President's proposals?
Nothing. Nada. Bupkes. Zip.
Have you contacted any of their offices to urge they support improvements to, and expansion of, the NCIS? And if not, why not?
Said proposals would have the dual advantage of 1) actually helping to prevent ineligible persons from obtaining firearms, and 2)
subverting the Republicans.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts) friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)How was I to know that meant "ban private sales"?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Because the huge hue and cry against concealed carry revolves around the irrational fear that such people will be a danger to society. When we can show that they are far less likely to be involved in crime than everyone else, we can show that that fear is irrational.
For example, I would possibly consider carrying a gun if I were an obvious potential target, like a jeweler, super rich guy, pimp, hooker, undercover cop, high profile celebrity or high profile asshole. Otherwise, I can't think of any reason why any bad guy might target me, unless of course, I show him my gun.
Well, like you said, "I prefer self control to government control."
People should be able to decide for themselves whether the hassle of carrying a gun is worth the risk of encountering bad guys. Most people aren't going to be in situations where they are at a great risk of violent crime, which is probably why most people don't bother carrying firearms.
But we shouldn't put roadblocks in front of people who decide that it is worth the hassle.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The epidemic (fad) of handgun toting has created a "hue and cry". The fear is irrational on both sides. Don't you see that? The extremes feed off each other's fears, and both try to recruit the rest of us by trying to infect us with their particular brand of fear.
I'm not trying to put up roadblocks. I'm discouraging the practice of indiscriminate toting. Jesus, man, we've got members who equate wearing a gun with wearing underwear. We have members who cheer about every crazy new law that encourages more gun toting.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Well I didn't realize we were debating the fact that people can simply choose, without regard for the law, to carry a gun.
Of course they can.
I thought the point here was the impact of gun control on this choice. And clearly, it is refreshing that law-abiding people can make the personal choice to carry a firearm without interference from the government.
The epidemic (fad) of handgun toting has created a "hue and cry". The fear is irrational on both sides. Don't you see that? The extremes feed off each other's fears, and both try to recruit the rest of us by trying to infect us with their particular brand of fear.
Sure. There is no doubt that most people carrying a concealed firearm will never have cause to use it. But here's the thing: Since they virtually never hurt anyone doing it, who cares if they are justified or not in carrying a firearm?!?!.
I'm not trying to put up roadblocks. I'm discouraging the practice of indiscriminate toting. Jesus, man, we've got members who equate wearing a gun with wearing underwear. We have members who cheer about every crazy new law that encourages more gun toting.
And there is nothing wrong with that. People who go through the expense and bureaucracy of obtaining a concealed carry permit are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime. So why worry about it? Why try to discourage something that applies to people more law-abiding than everyone else is anyway?
There is no reason to discourage people from lawfully carrying concealed weapons. It rarely hurts anyone, less so than for people who don't bother with the paperwork.
SteveW
(754 posts)If so, that is good to know, because on that I agree with you. Personally, I don't think a universal NICS test will have any effect on crime, but it is a serious proposal to many gun-controllers, and one I am not automatically opposed to.
On criminal act rates, this is yet another gun-controller "issue;" that somehow those who have CCW permits are hidden thugs, crims, nut cases ready to shoot up a mall or something. You've read these pages. You know this is a common theme.
Respectfully, I think you are being tedious with "Why do you even think about violent criminals?" That's like asking someone if they ever have thought about suicide: Merely reading the preceding clause causes one to think about it. I only think about it when someone is on the street actually committing crimes, and when I read about it. Beyond that, I don't worry, so the rest of your questions have little meaning.
"Otherwise, I can't think of any reason why any bad guy might target me, unless of course, I show him my gun."
You can't, but a "bad guy" can. I don't think for them. I merely take reasonable precautions.
BTW, the vast number of CCW people don't go around showing ANYONE their guns.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I reckon anyone who wants a gun will have one and anyone who wants to carry a gun will carry one.
The guns are obviously not going away. They are available to anyone intent on having one. All the laws and restrictions and 2A debates and permits are smoke and mirrors.
In terms of "targeting", I find it easy to put myself in the mind of the "bad guy". Go to a mall and watch the people. Pretend you are a "bad guy" and see who you would target. If you see yourself amongst the targets, you'll have learned a lot about yourself. If you don't, then you'd probably be better off leaving the gun at home. Your choice.
SteveW
(754 posts)Nice tight parameters you present, there.
I choose to practice situational awareness, go about my business, and get 8+ hours of sleep a night.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Major strawman. Nobody on this board feels that way. What we actually have is an absence of arrogance. The arrogance that believes that one the many violent assaults that is guaranteed to occur in any given city in the U.S. will happen to "the other guy", and that it can't possibly happen to the prescious ME.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did you mean prescient or precious? Or is it a new combo word?
"Nobody on this board feels that way. What we actually have is an absence of arrogance."
Nice to know you've been elected spokesperson for everyone on this board. I guess the rest of us should just sit back and learn from you.
Happy New Year BTW
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)What's the portion of the legal saying? When your case isn't supported with the facts, go after your opponent?
I don't see myself as any spokesman either - but I do have the ability to read. So when I find my sentiments in agreement with the sentiments expressed by others, I naturally use the word "we". More trivial pursuit from you. And yes -- Happy New Year. The 2011 wins for those who support the RKBA wouldn't have been possible without folks like you!!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm not in legal mode here. I don't have a case to be made. I just like to express my thoughts and share my observations.
When people talk of winning and losing on social/political issues I'm always reminded of Dylan's verse
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin'.
'Cause the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
And you didn't answer my question, which was serious. Precious or prescient. Doesn't really matter as both apply.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Then a sane person would realize that there should be at the very least a correlation between the number of guns in the nation and gun violence.
And that's where proponents of this nonsense have painted themselves into a corner. Because there isn't one.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"Then a sane person would realize that there should be at the very least a correlation between the number of guns in the nation and gun violence. "
Isn't that what I'm saying?
What is the "nonsense" you refer to? I'm confused.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'm not John Lott, so I will not claim the first is responsible for the second. But if the proliferation of guns is responsible for gun violence,
should not gun violence have increased?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)More guns, yet lower crime and gun crime.
I think you need to re-calibrate your reading comprehension- see "should be" in the post you responded to.
Without that correlation, the premise falls apart.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)
just very rare. So rare that Brady and VPC have to pad the numbers with situations where the permit is irrelevant (even where a gun is not used) and justifiable homicides.
Would the permit or lack of make a difference? How account is accurate? We only have one side. Either way, he does not have it now. I am guessing he is in a gun free (and very violent) zone about now.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)"Mr. Diez, then 42, eventually pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill."
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)"Sgt. Lori Pierce, who handles concealed handgun permits in Union County, said no one ever notified her about Mr. Wills, who was released from prison in November. And as the sole person handling permits in her county, she said, she does not have time to conduct regular criminal checks on permit holders, unless they are up for a five-year renewal."
Let's get Sgt. Pierce some help before we start handing out these things like take-out restaurant fliers 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)since it is a federal crime for Wills to possess a gun, the permit was not worth the plastic that laminated it. How about the system reporting to Sgt Pierce of the conviction or would trigger an automatic revocation? If DMV can do it, why can't why can't they? Those are better questions to ask.
They were never handed out like take out restaurant fliers except for LA county to campaign contributors and NYC to celebrities, like racist coke head Don Imus.
Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)
ellisonz This message was self-deleted by its author.
Straw Man
(6,943 posts)Read it again.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)My apologies "Straw Man" - how did you come to pick that name?
safeinOhio
(37,611 posts)"Sgt. Lori Pierce, who handles concealed handgun permits in Union County, said no one ever notified her about Mr. Wills, who was released from prison in November. And as the sole person handling permits in her county, she said, she does not have time to conduct regular criminal checks on permit holders, unless they are up for a five-year renewal.
As it is, she said, she can barely keep up with issuing permits. She has granted about 1,300 this year."
They are too busy issuing new permits to check on the people that already have them. I would think a "user tax" on permits that would pay for the personnel to cross check all crimes with permit holders. A $50 fee on those 1,300/year new permits would raise $65,000/year, enough to hire another person to keep track. A permit is good for 5 years, so that'd end up costing a permit holder only 10 bucks a year to maintain the integrity of the system. That would benefit those that are qualified to hold a permit and make it safer for everyone.
Looking back at my numbers, if 1,300 were issued every year, that $65,000 could be payed for with only a $10/holder user fee as over 5 years it tax 6,500 people.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)$10 a year to maintain my Right to vote and buy books seems quite reasonable, and would surely "benefit those that are qualified to hold a permit and make it safer for everyone."
safeinOhio
(37,611 posts)There are taxes on guns and bullets and I don't know of any state that issues permits that don't already have a fee. Now the only question left is how much.
Apples and oranges. Make books and voting safer? Nothing in the fee suggestion has anything to do with owning a firearm, it deals with carrying one concealed while in public.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Right?
safeinOhio
(37,611 posts)causing murder and mayhem or they become such a danger to the public so that every ones in danger if they are misused.
Your logic would allow any 5 year old to carry a CW as if it was a book, or allow anyone to fire a gun in a crowd as if they were voicing an opinion. Apples and oranges.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Please extinguish all open flames...
safeinOhio
(37,611 posts)you've got it.
ellisonz
(27,776 posts)BTW we had to pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit poll taxes and books are covered under the First Amendment. What a nonsensical argument.
DissedByBush
(3,342 posts)I remember it in Florida, their funding sucked.
But that wasn't because the gun owners weren't paying enough, their high CCW fees were more than enough to pay for the paperwork and investigations.
The problem is the legislature saw that nice chunk of change and decided it would be better used for something else.
But then for this case we're back up against the fact that -- oh no, what a surprise -- criminals will do illegal things.
The moment this guy was convicted his CCW became invalid, maybe sooner depending on state laws. He knew he was carrying without a valid CCW and didn't care.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)A couple of states have already done away with licensing requirements for concealed carry.
This is not surprising. When you look at CCW permit holders, they are hardly ever involved in crime. The rate of revocation is like less than 2%.
Kind of hard to justify all the bureaucracy to maintain such a system when the people who volunteer to submit to it hardly ever are involved in crimes, anyway.
SteveW
(754 posts)The imposition of fees, permit charges, and other taxes would be seen as a thinly-veiled attempt by gun-prohibitionists to restrict the Second Amendment. Poll taxes were done away with by constitutional amendment; there is little reason to think that similar fees would not be seen in the same light.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and the judiciary system.
The article also very pointedly did not compare rates of crime by permit holders to rates of crime by non-permit holders. Rather glaring ommission there.
safeinOhio
(37,611 posts)between those that have a permit and those that would qualify for a permit. As the article stated, most permit holders are middle aged white men, a group that already has a lower crime rate than most other groups. When you compare permit holders to everyone else, you are also including gang members and violent felons.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Why exclude non-qualifiers?
If the concern is people carrying guns in public who might use those guns to commit a crime, that includes everyone, including bad guys who can't legally carry a firearm.
And when you compare CCW permit holders against everyone else, including both those who are able to get a permit and choose not to and those who cannot get one, CCW permit holders are many times less likely to be involved in crimes.
If you just want to compare how much safer CCW permit holders are against the rest of law-abiding society, no doubt they won't be nearly as much less likely to commit crimes.
But the whole argument against CCW is that such people might do criminal things with their firearms! So if you're worried about people in public carrying guns who might commit crimes, why would you exclude the criminal element from your comparison?
But no matter who you compare them against, CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.
spin
(17,493 posts)Gun advocates are quick to cite anecdotes of permit holders who stopped crimes with their guns. It is virtually impossible, however, to track these episodes in a systematic way. By contrast, crimes committed by permit holders can be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/more-concealed-guns-and-some-are-in-the-wrong-hands.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
How convenient. Label any story of a person with a CCW using his weapon in legitimate self defense to stop an attack or a violent crime as a simple anecdote. Then go on to describe in detail some of the few instances where a person with a CCW misused his weapon.
I could point out that in Florida in the 24 year period of time between 10/01/1987 - 11/30/2011 only 168 concealed weapons permits have been revoked because the holder committed a crime with a firearm after the license was issued. In that same time frame 2,092,966 licenses were issued and currently 878,174 are valid. (source http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)
So yes, people with carry permits do occasionally act irresponsibly with their weapons, but it's not a common everyday occurrence. Once again only 168 people out of 2,092,966 lost their licenses in Florida in 24 years because they were stupid enough to use their firearm in a criminal manner. That works out to be 0.0080%. Of course that doesn't mean that the all crimes they were convicted of even involved a shooting. I'm sure that far, far more Floridians with a carry permit were able to use their weapons in a legitimate manner to stop a crime. The individual who wrote the article could have mentioned facts like this but it would have diluted the impact of his hit piece.
SteveW
(754 posts)...nor report the results of those who have.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)break the law and carry a gun illegally.
ileus
(15,396 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,678 posts)I can't link to the OP article without subscribing to the NYTimes.
But if the NYT had to dredge up a two-year-old incident to support their pro-gun-control premise, that's pretty weak.
SteveW
(754 posts)That place is the fly-buzzing booth of gun-control, where, when the lights go off and no one of responsible ethical standards is around, all manner of yee-HAH discourse can escape unfettered -- as long as it serves your prejudice:
"While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun."
Tis "a small percentage" indeed.
But never too small for the NYT.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,761 posts)Indeed.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)SteveW
(754 posts)
alp227
(33,272 posts)