"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about which of the other parents is carrying a gun, about which one of them might be in a domestic squabble with her husband who's about to storm into the playground shootin'.
But I don't have that. The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine. This was done as a planned and systematic assault on the legislative interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Now, what we've got is something which would be totally unrecognizable by the sacred and revered Founding Fathers, not something they would approve of, but something they would be baffled and confounded by.
Ah, but MikeB, you are supposed to trust that your fellow citizens who are carrying a deadly weapon are going to be law abiding, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary as shown by the amount of gun violence we have in this country - including by concealed carry permit holders, including by the owners of lawfully purchased firearms.
ReplyDeleteThey obey the laws when they feel like it -- like our Anonymous - but then disregard it when they don't, as in trespassing with firearms.
The elections held in the past 24 hours do seem to support a swing, generally, away from the more conservative, extreme and largely reactionary right wingers. If that trend holds, in the face of the OWS movement, which appears to be garnering both the support of the right and center, but also the moderate right, there will be less support, not more, for the gun loons.
I know that it seems like a victory to me that the Personhood at Conception initiative failed in Mississippi by a 55% majority.
I can only hope that this signals a return to sanity, even among conservatives, from where it went in the previous election.
The tea party is facing record disapproval ratings, as are Republicans. Back in August, the Dems had an even split between approval and disapproval - not great. But the Republicans were at a 59% disapproval rating with only 33% approval. The Tea Party came in at 51% disapproval, and only 31% approval.
Lets hope that trend continues; it has been going on for awhile now.
Lets hope real freedom continues to win over the lip service freedom on the right that actually erodes and eliminates actual freedom.
"Let your gun be the constant companion to your walks."
ReplyDeleteThomas Jefferson
Mikeb, you sound paranoid. Perhaps you should stay in your home, lock your doors and close the blinds. There are all types of evil and dangerous things outside. I mean hell, you could be hit by a car walking across the street because someone is texting and not paying attention. We must do away with phones, somebody could get hurt.
Mikeb302000
ReplyDeleteDog Gone claims that the overwhelming evidence makes us with concealed carry licenses look violent, but what evidence would that be? As I've pointed out before, according to the gun grabbing organization, Violence Policy Center, since 2007, some 300 of us have committed murder. That's out of six million. I don't deny the pain caused when an innocent person dies, but I do observe that we have a good record of behaving responsibly.
When I have my handgun concealed on my person, I'm no threat to any child or parent in a park. Why do you think that I threaten your life? If you honestly believe that I am posing a danger to you or to your child, under the laws of Arkansas, you would have the right to respond with lethal force. Do you really mean that my handgun that you can't see is a threat?
Or is it possible that you are the one who is paranoid here?
Anonymous, I do get sick of Thomas Jefferson's words on hunting, specifically, in woods and fields, being used by pro-gunners trying to justify taking their firearms with them in urban areas.
ReplyDeleteTo do that completely ignores the intent of Jefferson, and misrepresents what he said by taking the words out of context. But then I've seen that quite often from conservatives supposedly quoting the intent of the founding fathers, either taking the words out of context in a way that alters their meaning, or fabricating those comments entirely. The list of Jefferson faux quotations is legendary by itself.
As to evidence that concealed carry people engage in bad gun behavior - look at not only homicides, but accidents, domestic violence, including murder suicides. Look at the rate of domestic violence among law enforcement towards family members or partners alone to support that statement - and in most states law officers are allowed off-duty concealed carry. Two different studies documented that 40% of the families of police officers experience domestic violence. That domestic violence is frequently reported to involve threats of firearm violence.
So, yes, I think I can make a very persuasive argument that there is violence from those who legally carry.
"Two different studies documented that 40% of the families of police officers experience domestic violence."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that in order to protect women we need to outlaw law enforcement officers from being married or living with a woman.
Jefferson was not talking about hunting or walks in the woods. And he wasn't alone:
ReplyDeleteThe right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
Jim said...
ReplyDelete"Two different studies documented that 40% of the families of police officers experience domestic violence."
Seems to me that in order to protect women we need to outlaw law enforcement officers from being married or living with a woman.
How interesting that you seem to identify police as male. While your comment may have been intended to be glib or flippant, or maybe satiric snark, there is a more serious reason that this is a problem that should be addressed.
Domestic abuse often involves the abuser being controlling; a person who is dominating their family coercively by controlling the most minor actions and choices.
That can be indicative of a person who has some serious issues in how they responsibly handle the power of authority they have as police officers, and it can also reflect some serious problems with how they respect - or don't respect women, or people who are vulnerable, be it children, or a suspect in custody/ restraint.
It is also fairly often an indication that the abuser is feeling helpless that they are trying to control the most minute details of those around them precisely because they are no longer successfully able to manage their stress. It strikes me that the high incidence of domestic violence by law enforcement probably has a triggering mechanism in the higher stress levels, that it could be a sign of their needing help to handle the stressful side effects of their job.
These individuals could easily be a law suit for excessive violence to a stranger waiting to happen.
Your response, Jim, is more along the right wing kind of thinking - simplistic solutions that fail to understand the problem correctly, even if it was meant speciously.
Anonymous, since you claim that Jefferson was not talking about walking / hunting/ recreation, here is the full quotation from the definitive source on Jefferson, the nice people at Monticello who like to debunk erroneous crap about Jefferson:
ReplyDelete"Exercise
Thomas Jefferson firmly believed that physical exercise ensured not only bodily health, but mental health as well. Walking was his preferred activity, although as he aged he lamented that "a single mile is too much for me," and turned more to horseback riding as his daily exercise.
Documentary References[1]
1784-1789. "I step a French mile of 1000 toises = 6408 Eng.f. in 1053 double steps. This yields 3f. & 1/2I. English to the step and 1735 steps to the mile. I walk a French mile in 17 1/2 minutes. A French mile is = 1.21 or 1 1/4 Eng. miles. I walk then at a rate of 4 3/20 miles or 4.mi.264 yards an hour."
Walking moderately in the summer I walked a Fr. mile of 1000 T = 6408 f. in 1254. steps and in 26'. That gives 2.55 f. to the step and
2066 1/2 steps to the Eng. mile
1735 the brisk walk of winter
331. difference."[2]
1785 Aug. 19. "Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual...Give about two of them [hours] every day to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk. But divert your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. The Europeans value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man..."
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/exercise
Ah. Anonymous, you are at least consistent --- consistently wrong, consistently ignorant, but consistent.
Anonymous--I may copy, but at least I copy from the correct people.
ReplyDeleteAnd understand what it is I am copying.
And I try to copy the correct quotation--rather than inaccurate or misquoted versions.
This is the entire paragraph from Story:
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
This quote makes it quite clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms comes with the duty of belonging to a Militia.
It was quite clear that this duty was beginning to become a burden. Story bemoans the fact that unless the citizenry is properly disciplined and organised, this right is nugatory.
It also helps when you are copying, anonymous, to use the most accurate version of the quotation in question and citing to the source, In this case the Lee quote:
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always by kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms...
Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer
to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
Anonymous's misquotation changes the meaning of the actual quote which reinforces the "Civic right" interpretation in that, like story, Lee believes in the institution of the militia, which is a well organised and trained band of people which is under the civilian control. In fact, the major benefit of the militia system was that it was primarily a civilian force, rather than a professional military body. It was also believed to instill civic values.
This runs quite contrary to the revisionist view being peddled these days.
The Lee Quote in its entirity:
ReplyDeleteFederal Farmer, no. 18
25 Jan. 1788Storing 2.8.217
These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature.
The complete quote changes the entire meaning of the passage.
Lee's interest in the institution of the Militia, rather than any spurious gun rights.
The problem is that the "individual right" interpretation of the Second Amendment does not withstand scrutiny. It is based upon misinterpretation of the constitution and primary source documents. Anonymous's use of of of context misquotations is a prime example of why this fallacious interpretation is allowed to thrive.
Anonymous, I support your right if you wish to be part of a militia which has been organised under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 to perform the duties mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15.
Otherwise, the right you are claiming is ludicrous.
Wrong? Wrong about what? What does a gun do? In Jefferson's own words that you posted: "I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind."
ReplyDeleteDoes that sound like the main purpose of carrying a gun was physical exercise?
Yes, marksmanship. Which would be considered "exercise".
ReplyDeleteYou do know what Marksmanship is and practise it, don't you, anonymous?
Or do we look forward to the day when your face graces the wall of shame for shooting an innocent bystander, or having missed your assailant, being severely beaten or worse.
A gun is pretty useless to you if you can't use it properly.
Even more useless when it is used against you.
Yup, it couldn't be any more plain for anyone to read. From the paragraph: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
ReplyDeleteHow much plainer can it possibly be, the right of the CITIZENS to bear arms is the palladium of LIBERTY.
And while on the business of attending to the neglected education of Anonymous, here is a quotation falsely and inaccurately attributed to Jefferson as well by the gun loons:
ReplyDelete"Home › Jefferson › Quotations › Spurious Quotations
Those who hammer their guns into plows...(Quotation)
Quotation: "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
Variations: 1. "Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Sources consulted: Searching on the phrase "hammer their guns"
Monticello website
Ford's Works of Thomas Jefferson
UVA EText Jefferson Digital Archive: Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, Texts by or to Thomas Jefferson from the Modern English Collection
Thomas Jefferson Retirement Papers
Quotable Jefferson, ed. Kaminski (searching under "guns")
Earliest known appearance in print: No appearances in print found. [1]
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: See above.
Other attributions: None known.
Status: We have not found any evidence that Thomas Jefferson said or wrote, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
Footnotes
↑ To establish the earliest appearance of this phrase in print, the following sources were searched for the phrase, "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.": Google Books, Google Scholar, Amazon.com, Internet Archive, JSTOR."
Anonymous--do you have shit for brains?
ReplyDeleteI gave you the entire quote from Story, yet you are still enough of a fuckwit to miss that you are not correctly quoting him.
I'm not sure what you are reading, but it isn't Story.
Anonumbass wrote:
ReplyDelete"Does that sound like the main purpose of carrying a gun was physical exercise?"
When the entire paragraph is about walking, and recreation, but mostly walking? YES. Not one word in there about self defense or other purposes.
Geeze you don't read well for comprehension. There ARE other references on the Monticello web site which confirm THAT was what Jefferson was writing about. He wrote it as part of a series of letters corresponding with his nephew.
Context, anonymous. C. O. N. T. E. X. T.
It is a useful concept, you should try to learn it. Of course, it would interfere with your chronic intellectual dishonesty, but that could only be an improvement.
Laci wrote, in response to another screw up about guns by Anonymous:
"Story bemoans the fact that unless the citizenry is properly disciplined and organised, this right is nugatory."
Anonymous probably believes that has something to do with candy...
Anon cites people in support of his assertions - incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteAnd when he is proven wrong - as he is, over and over and over and over and over - he tries to change the subject.
He makes stupid arguments like, (quoting Jefferson) "I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise ", which is part of a lengthy section which is ONLY about exercise, and then writes - to exhibit his ignorance even larger (apparently all the billboards were rented)...
Anonymous wrote:"Does that sound like the main purpose of carrying a gun was physical exercise?"
YES. What part of YES, EMPHATICALLY YES, and this is the conclusion of Jeffersonian scholars as well: YES. This is about exercise, relaxation, recreation.
YES. And if you are unable to see that, you must be unable to pass an eye exam or a reading comprehension exam.
Laci, it seems clear that our ignorant Anonymous is also unfamiliar with the word palladium.
ReplyDeleteMaybe he thinks it is where you eat your nugatory candy...
Let me provide him an historic background to the word, which is used to refer to the common good / common defense / common military activity:
(from dictionary.com - word history)
"Encyclopedia
Palladium
in Greek religion, image of the goddess Pallas (Athena), especially the archaic wooden statue of the goddess that was preserved in the citadel of Troy as a pledge of the safety of the city. As long as the statue was kept safe within Troy, the city could not be conquered. It was said that Zeus, the king of the gods, threw the statue down from heaven when the city of Ilium (Troy) was founded and that the Greek warriors Odysseus and Diomedes carried it off from the temple of Athena in Troy, thus making the Greek capture of Troy possible. Many cities in Greece and Italy claimed to possess the genuine Trojan Palladium, but it was particularly identified with the statue brought to Italy by the hero Aeneas after Troy's destruction and preserved in the shrine of the goddess Vesta at Rome. The Palladium was a common subject in Greek art, as was its theft in literature."
The Odyssey, the Iliad, Homer, massive military action in the days of ancient Greece - any of that ring a bell? Epic battles between ARMIES?
That's pretty funny, Anonymous and Greg asking if I'm paranoid when they're the ones who carry guns. It's not only funny, it's a typical ploy of the pro-gun crowd to accuse the others of what they themselves are guilty of.
ReplyDeleteThe problem, Greg, is that you as a responsible and safe gun owner, look just like the guy who isn't.
And please drop that 300 out of millions rap. The 300 is certainly not an all-inclusive figure. The VPC is reporting only the ones they know about. Nobody is keeping count. The true figure would be way higher and when you add the less-than-lethal incidents, even the ones in which no shots are fired, brandishings and such, your talking about significant numbers.
In fact all you have to do is read the papers on-line.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDelete"The problem, Greg, is that you as a responsible and safe gun owner, look just like the guy who isn't."
I see. So because you exaggerate the numbers and can't tell the difference between the two types, all of us should lose our rights?
I believe that a person ought to have full exercise of all rights and privileges (that's to accomodate both views here) until there is a specific reason, i.e. a conviction of a crime, to deny the same. I don't want the government deciding who's likely to do something wrong. That kind of thinking leads to all manner of abuse.
But then, I don't accept what rights I'm given; I demand the rights that I have.
Anonymous, I am pretty sure you have no idea what the words mean when they are read all together.
ReplyDeleteOne doesn't pick and choose if one doesn't understand the context. Taken as a whole, he is extolling the virtues of the militia system--not arms possession.
But,if you did understand what he is saying--you are wrong.
Sorry!
Greg: "I see. So because you exaggerate the numbers and can't tell the difference between the two types, all of us should lose our rights?"
ReplyDeleteDid I say you have to "LOSE YOUR RIGHTS?" No, I didn't.
What I'm always talking about is better screening and stricter controls, which, assuming your mentally sound and willing to be inconvenienced a tiny bit, will not change a damn thing in your life as far as your guns go.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDelete"Assuming your [sic] mentally sound. . ."
That's a problem. You're willing to tar someone before the person has done anything wrong. I don't trust any government bureau or agent that acts with impunity. Nor do I approve of any such that has the power to take away my rights, even if I can spend lots of time and money to get them back.
I don't object seriously to denying firearms to persons with a record of criminal convictions, but the government has no business denying any right to someone who has done nothing.
What other laws do you want? Will you ban me from carrying a handgun in public places? Will you ban specific types of firearms? How far will you go, and when will you regard the laws as strict enough?
GregC wrote:
ReplyDelete"Assuming your [sic] mentally sound. . ."
That's a problem. You're willing to tar someone before the person has done anything wrong."
NO. That is a problem where someone has been determined by mental health professionals to be a danger to himself or herself and / or others that shouldn't have a gun because THEY ARE DANGEROUS PEOPLE.
Sadly there are two problems with denying firearms to the dangerously mentally ill. One is that we are decreasing the funding that would provide the care for people who need it, INCLUDING making that determination of who is or is not dangerous.
And Secondly, very very few states report to the NCIS the findings of who is dangerously mentally ill - as evident here- scroll down so you can see the table that demonstrates that:
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/01/republicans-in-minnesota-attempt-to.html
Then GC wrote:
I don't object seriously to denying firearms to persons with a record of criminal convictions, but the government has no business denying any right to someone who has done nothing.
Yes they do have that right. A dangerously mentally ill person may not have harmed anyone or been convicted of a crime, but they still shouldn't have guns. Jared Loughner could be the poster boy for that premise.
What other laws do you want?
1. an insurance type bond in the amount of $50k, for each firearm owned.
2. mandatory trigger guard locks and secure gun safe storage, with a whopper penalty for not doing so, especially if the firearms is used in a way that harms someone or in the commission of a crime.
3. registration and a background check on the transfer of any firearm in any manner -purchase, inheritance, gift, etc.
Will you ban me from carrying a handgun in public places? Yes, unless you demonstrate a NEED, not a desire, to do so, as in a private profession, or after the issuance of a criminal restraining order against someone, or in the case of an active police investigation for a threat against you - and then, only until that threat is resolved.
Will you ban specific types of firearms?
Yes. Assault weapons, some military grade weapons (no personal RPGs for example), and expanded capacity magazines, and some kinds of ammo that would place law enforcement at risk, as in armor piercing / bullet proof protection piercing rounds.
How far will you go, and when will you regard the laws as strict enough? When we become as safe as say Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or most other CIVILIZED countries, and less like Somalia.
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteBut Somalia is a free marketeer's and I kin haz gunz, Type 2A's wetdream!
Years ago, in FL after a number of high profile carjackings (and several murders) of foreign tourists in Broward and Dade County the state of Florida and the rental car agencies at area airports decided to give each tourist their choice of an M-16, a Glock 9 or a S&W .40 whenver they rented a car; if they upgraded from, say, a Toyota Corolla to a Lincoln MK VII they would also recieve a cupola mounted .50 BMG and 500 rounds of ammunition...
Oh, I'm sorry, I was using my old glasses when I read that. What they really did was made it more difficult for would-be jackers to recognize rentals. Oh, that, and they made a bit of a point of saying, "Roll up the windows and lock the doors, you have AC.".
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou've expressed the vision of gun control that we gun owners find repulsive. At least you've made your position clear. The good news is that we're winning. Have a look at the Brady Bunch's scorecard map if you doubt that. Do you notice how the country gets redder every year, outside a few festering states?
Democommie,
I lived in Florida when the carjacking scare was on. Could it be that Florida created its shall-issue system because of the threat?
The carjackings that were making the national news were in the early 90's. Shall issue laws were passed in FL in 1987. Could it be that the carjackers had gunz 'cuz they were easy to get? Oh, gosh no, that's just speculation on my part. I don't have all of those great DGU stats like John Lott.
ReplyDeleteGreg asked how far will I go. Well, thanks to you and your eagle eye, I guess I'll go back to English grammar class.
ReplyDelete"
"Assuming your [sic] mentally sound. . ."
"
The only thing I hate worse than making a typo or a minor grammatical error is when someone points it out with that stupid fucking [sic] bullshit. I always think, what an asshole, what a pompous asshole.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI generally let such matters go. I'm not perfect, either, although I do like it when someone helps me when I go astray. That being said, when someone is talking about taking away my rights, I respond. I meant no offense.
I do wish that you and the others here would gain a real understanding of what we reasonable gun owners believe and want. We get tarred with the same brush that goes after wackos, but we're not out trying to tear down our society. We're just your neighbors trying to get through the day.
I don't think that you're a loon because you disagree with me. Nor do I think that you're an extremist. I just think that you have a different view from mine of how a society ought to be organized.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"I just think that you have a different view from mine of how a society ought to be organized. "
The problem with what you term 'how a society ought to be organized' is that it ignores the factors which shaped our societies. Not only this society, but societies and cultures elsewhere which contributed to this society, a heritage you claim you wish to preserve - but only the violent parts.
You appear perfectly willing to throw out the traditions, including moral and legal traditions, relating to liability and duty and common law (which includes the attractive nuisance doctrine, btw).
You want a society where there are no speed limits on roads, because that is dull, never mind a matter of practical safety and civil engineering, and never mind who suffers losses or who is hurt or killed.
You want a society where it is acceptable to go lethally armed,instead of relying on other factors for your safety and well being. You want to imprison people punitively, regardless of whether this actually deters crime or recidivism, which would seem the opposite of someone embracing freedom.
You claim to want your personal firearm for self-defense, but there is no level of personal safety where you will be sufficiently safe. That makes it a shallow and false excuse.
You don't in fact appear to want a well-ordered society. You appear to want the opposite, an anarchistic arrangement.
Perhaps you should read more history, which addresses our evolution, including social biology that looks at the relative history of different parts of our brain as it relates to our ability to think, to speak, to cooperate for our mutual success.
Because Greg, you're heading backwards, not forwards in that development. You are advocating an every man for himself order, and that isn't society; it is the antithesis of cooperation and responsibility.
"The good news is that we're winning."
ReplyDeleteReally? I'm thinking you might get a little blowback from the folks whose loved ones are the victims of gun violence.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteWhat other factors can I rely on when someone is attacking me right now?
Here's a situation that happened to me a while ago. I was walking in a public park where I live. An elderly couple coming the other way had two German shepherd dogs, not on leashes. Those dogs came running toward me, barking and growling. I put my hand near the grip of my 1911 under my shirt. The dogs stopped short and went back to their owners, so I didn't draw.
There was no animal control officer or police officer around at that moment. The owners were not controlling their dogs. I don't know why those dogs didn't complete the attack, but they didn't, and I didn't use force to stop them. My point is that at that moment, I was the only one who could have acted in my defense had things gone badly.
That's one example. The police don't exist to prevent crime. They can't. There aren't enough of them, and we don't want to live in a society in which there would be.
You might suggest pepper spray for the situation that I described, but that could serve only to enrage an already aggressive animal. I don't want to go hand-to-fang with a big dog. And note, nothing ended up happening. I made a rational judgement. I am glad that I had the option to use force, since things, as I said, could have gone a different direction.
As for the law being a punitive force, that's as it should be. Crime must be punished for justice to be served. Otherwise, we have to allow personal feuds. I will accept rehabilitation once the crime has been paid for, but only then.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteI was walking in a public park where I live. An elderly couple coming the other way had two German shepherd dogs, not on leashes. Those dogs came running toward me, barking and growling. I put my hand near the grip of my 1911 under my shirt. The dogs stopped short and went back to their owners, so I didn't draw.
I've had my own dogs attack someone who posed a threat to me. If those dogs really chose to attack you, one would have come at you from behind, going for the hamstring to bring you down, while the other went at you from the front.
I train and breed one of the giant breeds - 180 lbs for males, 130-150-lbs. for males; I consider GSDs - or Alsatians as Laci would refer to them - as only a medium large breed. I've worked with rehab training of dangerous dogs from pit bulls up to the much larger molosser breeds like Cane Corso and the various bully breeds and Mastiffs.
If these dogs did decide to attack you, in typical hunting / pack aggression behavior - and two makes a pack - they would have split up, and been moving fast enough in close quarters it is unlikely you would have succeeded in stopping both of them before one of them got you, possibly fatally.
Yes, pepper spray works, and no, it is not a given that it would have made them more enraged; it is incapacitating, and more so than less, to a species that has much larger areas of mucosal tissue exposed, and a more intense capacity for smells.
Better, in my experience would simply be an aerosal air horn, and/ or a plastic whiffle bat. Before you poopoo such a solution, you should know that horse trainers use them (the bats) on aggressive stallions for control on occasion - they work better than you think.
I would strongly suggest that you also should have directed the elderly couple to please leash their dogs, phoned the police that the dogs were a threat, and taken a photo with your cell phone of the individuals who were walking with uncontrolled loose dogs.
Beyond that, I question you ability compared to mine to recognize dog behavior so as to discern protective / passive defender behavior from aggression / offensive behavior. The behavior you describe sounds very much like the dogs maintaining a sort of safe perimeter for their owners, and putting themselves between the owners and a new stimulus in their walk- you - until they determined that you were not an actual threat, which explains their return to the owners.
This varies by breed and requires a trained observer to determine. In that regard, I refer you to the ATTS, a shutzhund based dog assessment technique that is exceptional for evaluating dog behavior and temperament. I had considered becoming one of their evaluators at one time, and I have both taken a number of my dogs through the testing as well as assisting in the performance of over a hundred of such testings.
Just because you were concerned or felt threatened doesn't mean you in fact were in any danger. Just because your gun made you feel safe does not mean it made you any safer.
Greg, you ever in the military. Probably not from the comments you make here.
ReplyDeleteI have to second Dog Gone's comment about if the dogs would have attacked you.
First off, there is a proper way to deal with shooting an attacking dog, which you were not in from your story.
So,despite the gun, the dog pack would have mauled you had they wanted to have attack.
You demonstrate the type of cavalier attitude that shows you probably should not walk around with loaded firearms.
You are a danger to society, and more importantly--yourself, in how quickly you would draw your weapon in an inappropriate situation. You set yourself up for civil and criminal liability.
You may have taken some quickie gun safety class to be able to carry a weapon, but that class did not stress the results of inappropriate use of a firearms.
You are lucky the couple didn't call the cops on you.
As for the law being a punitive force, that's as it should be. Crime must be punished for justice to be served. Otherwise, we have to allow personal feuds. I will accept rehabilitation once the crime has been paid for, but only then.
Greg, that is far more of an authoritarian than libertarian attitude. The libertarian approach to this issue is that restitution (in the broad, rather than technical legal, sense) is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian degree of deterrence.
Dog Gone and Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteApparently you didn't read my story carefully enough. I didn't draw or even expose my weapon. To clarify, I wasn't near the couple when their dogs ran at me. We were a good thirty yards apart.
Perhaps you'd care to explain how I was cavalier in that situation? Why would the couple call the police about me? Let's see, dogs run at man; man waits to see what will happen; nothing happens; man does nothing in response. My point is that it was a potential danger that no police officer was present to prevent. Beyond not having a firearm on my person in the first place, what specifically do you think that I should have done differently?
Rather than drawing and making a scene, I evaluated what was happening and did nothing. Wasn't that the appropriate response?
Greg, I disagree with your fundamental assessment of the danger of this situation, specifically that the dogs were attacking or in any way a threat to you. All of your subsequent reasoning relies on the first assumptions correct. Expecting me or anyone else to trust you to only use your firearm in an appropriate situation with an appropriate response ALSO relies on your assessment being correct. I don't trust your assessment, not in this situation, and quite possibly - from this - not in OTHER situations either. Most of all, I distrust your ability to apply other solutions, less lethal or violent solutions, to situations like this.
ReplyDeleteThat is the crux of our disagreement.
Greg wrote:
I was walking in a public park where I live. An elderly couple coming the other way had two German shepherd dogs, not on leashes. Those dogs came running toward me, barking and growling. I put my hand near the grip of my 1911 under my shirt. The dogs stopped short and went back to their owners, so I didn't draw.
Yes, it is a good thing you didn't draw; but even putting your hand on a weapon in a threatening manner only escalates the situation.
Draw or even just display a handgun in my general direction or the direction of one of my dogs, and I would expect a dog properly behaving as a passive defender to then respond with an active attack on you as a threat to me and to the pack. If you bothered to go to the ATTS (American Temperament Testing Society) you would discover that dogs are evaluated on correctly identifying and responding to a threatening stranger, AND on their behavior around a gun being fired.
So, not only did you NOT do the smart thing by putting your hand on that firearm, in case the dogs were familiar with that item, or just correctly interpreted the nature of your gesture, YOU could easily have escalated that INTO a dangerous situation where it was not before.
Greg then wrote: "There was no animal control officer or police officer around at that moment. The owners were not controlling their dogs. I don't know why those dogs didn't complete the attack, but they didn't, and I didn't use force to stop them. My point is that at that moment, I was the only one who could have acted in my defense had things gone badly."
Except that you didn't do the right thing, and YOU could have made that situation a bad one.
First and foremost, you should have called to the elderly couple to please leash their dogs.
IF they did not do so, THEN you should have phoned the police, and taken a photo of the people and dogs, to provide to the police for follow up.
YOU should have phoned the police,
I also provided you with a list of non-lethal alternatives that would have been more useful for self-defense than your firearm.
You might want to begin by reading up on Turid Rugaas's work on calming signals, a short read but excellent observations on her part, for how to alter a potentially dangerous situation, or even a situation where dogs are simply agitated but not dangerous.
But YOU expect me to what - pat you on the back, and say, Wow, now I trust you with a gun after all? No. You fail in the fundamentals of your argument in 1. demonstrating that this was a dangerous situation where your firearm was necessary; and 2. that you know a dangerous situation from one that is not; and 3. that you look to non-lethal solutions rather than relying on a firearm when you have one with you.
Any of those three would make me uncomfortable with you having a gun in public; failing on all three - what do you think?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDelete1. To clarify again, I had my hand near my gun, but not on it. It was never exposed. All that anyone could see was my left hand near my side.
2. You want me to ask the couple to put their dogs on leashes--should I have done that while they were running toward me?
3. I grew up before cell phones, and so I don't walk around with one--shocking, I know, but I just prefer not to be available sometimes. I also don't carry a camera.
So again, I didn't do anything irresponsible. No, I didn't call the police. Sometimes, it's just best to let the matter go.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"1. To clarify again, I had my hand near my gun, but not on it. It was never exposed. All that anyone could see was my left hand near my side."
You don't think you were behaving in a way that was aggressive rather than passive? The fact that you did that, and that you incorrectly assessed the situation IS the point. Dogs can be very astute judges of behavior and respond accordingly.
2. You want me to ask the couple to put their dogs on leashes--should I have done that while they were running toward me?
You should have done that the moment you saw the dogs, yes. Why would you not think to do that? It would at the very least informed your understanding of the situation as to whether the dogs were or were not under their control. Their dogs may very well have been obedience trained, and for them to maintain that distance from their owners is consistent with what I expect from dogs off leash while walking. They tend to form a moving perimeter around me. In more crowded areas,20 to 30 yards; in more open, wilderness situations, they take turns which dog stays next to me while the rest move in a loose circle about 50 yards from me in any direction.
If a potential situation presents itself, they move in to the distance you describe. The next level of their defensive response is for the dominant dog in the pack hierarchy present, or alternatively what is referred to in wolf studies as the pack enforcer, to move to the closet position to the threat, the next dog in pack order to take a rear defensive position, and the more subordinate pack members to move to cover the sides. Should things deteriorate from there, the rear dog moves up next to me,or alternatively, any puppies or young dogs, and the other dogs move forward to contain the threat.
The fact that these dogs ran up, stopped,and turned around and went back just means they were behaving defensively, not offensively, and as a pack.
3. I grew up before cell phones, and so I don't walk around with one--shocking, I know, but I just prefer not to be available sometimes. I also don't carry a camera.
An inexpensive phone for emergencies would serve you better in this situation, or in most emergencies, than your firearm. They are smaller,lighter, and more multi-functional-- and usually a lot cheaper.
And a cell phone would have been a much better option than your firearm to handle this situation.
Greg Camp:
ReplyDeleteYou're a school teacher and you don't have a cell phone? Wow.
I know a shitload of school teachers; every one of them has a cellphone.
You carry a Colt 1911, .45 under your shirt--in a holster I hope, so you don't accidentally blow your own johnson off. You don't carry a cellphone? So, when you're driving out in the middle of nowhere and you get a flat--then find your spare is flat as well--you do what? Walk to the nearest residence and let them know that you're armed and you would like to use their phone? Damn, son, I just don't think you use your head a whole bunch.
Greg said, "I didn't do anything irresponsible."
ReplyDeleteSorry, man, I really like your style, but that line is too much. Your whole act is irresponsible. democommie said it nicely, no cell phone but a big ol' heater.
I do own a cell phone. In fact, that's my only telephone. I just don't feel the need to carry the dingus with me everywhere. I am not Borg. I also know how to change a flat tire.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Democommie, I use a holster. I'm also not Plaxico Burress.
How useful is it to be able to change a flat tire, if your spare is also flat?
ReplyDeleteAnd how less than useful was it in this case to be carrying a firearm, but not a cell phone?
Your priorities are flawed, and most of all your grasp of what is and is not a dangerous situation is flawed, and therefore you cannot make the correct or better response to the situation.
I'm still gob-smacked that you didn't think of asking the elderly couple to simply leash their dogs, instead of reaching for your gun.
It is insane that you would genuinely think you had behaved well.
You contributed NOTHING to improving the situation, you contributed nothing to helping or allowing law enforcement to deal with any risks inherent in violation of a leash law, which would make the park safer for other people as well as the wildlife people enjoy in parks - squirrels, birds, etc.
AND, you potentially INCREASED the danger of the situation,in the event the dogs identified your action as a threat.
Sorry teacher, your response scores a D-. You could have made it worse if you had fried your weapon, but your response was still bad enough..
Sheesh
Missing from Greg's narrative of events is whether he had determined that any rounds he fired would go into the bodies and only the bodies of the two scary dogs that were about to attack him. Were the elderly couple who were, one must assume, behind their dogs, wearing body armor? Was the area behind them devoid of life that might be injured or killed by an errant round?
ReplyDeleteHere's a chart on .45 ACP ballistics:
http://www.ballistics101.com/45_acp.php
Here's another link to ballistics information:
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html
I did not read both articles in their entirety. I did read enough of both articles (and several others that I googled to learn that most information about the maximum range of lethality for pistol and rifle rounds is apocryphal. That is some scary shit.
I'll have to make a SWAG, here, but I'm thinking something as heavy as a .45 ACP round is going to fuck up somebody's day at a distance of several hundred yards, at least. Assuming one is in an urban environment ( I assume the park is in a city or town) knowing what is downrange of the intended target is flat out impossible. Using a handgun in such a situation is inadvisable if one is concerned with "collateral damage" to bystanders.
My point exactly, Democommie--a firearm in an urban, or even suburban, area with any population density is moronic.
ReplyDeleteIt is hardly "the best possible item" for self-defence in such a situation.
More to the point, anyone who reaches for their firearm instead of asking the people with the dogs to leash them clearly does not think properly about what to do with situations.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who argues that someone attempting a robbery or theft for a nominal item or small amount of money should be shot dead - and one should never draw their firearm unless they intend to use it, and are prepared to use it to kill - is opposed by every major religion and system of moral and ethical thinking on this planet - currently, and from an historical perspective.
That is the bullshit pathetic justification of people too eager to shoot other people. Having a firearm should be about careful and limited - extremely limited use that preserves life, not that makes use of any stupid pretext, no matter how trivial, to shoot another person (or animal).
Reaching for a gun before,or instead of a cellphone?
That is moronic. It is gun lunacy.
The dogs had run many yards out in front of the couple. I was standing on a bit of a rise at the side of the path. Any rounds that went through the dogs would have gone into the soft ground behind the dogs.
ReplyDeleteBut you've decided to make the worst possible interpretation of every situation in which a gun owner uses a handgun defensively. All of you really ought to turn your critical eyes back on yourselves once in a while.
GC whines
ReplyDeleteBut you've decided to make the worst possible interpretation of every situation in which a gun owner uses a handgun defensively.
Yes, GC - gun violence SHOULD ALWAYS - NOTE ALWAYS be subject to review and criticism. Or were you unaware that occurs in every police-related shooting as well?
You incorrectly identified a dangerous situation. You then made a stupid choice to have a gun and reach for it, instead of asking the couple to leash their dogs, and/or notify authorities that there was a problem with a potentially dangerous violation of leash laws.
And then you patted yourself on the back for your stupid, ill considered bad response justifying that you hadn't done anything WORSE.
And NOW you want a different standard for evaluating gun killings than the one we use for law enforcement? You clearly have a willfully uncritical standard for anything done by someone with a gun. Shame on you - and if there were ever a basis to fault your critical thinking that would be a perfect example.