We often hear there are 80 or 100 million gun owners in the United States. Some estimates say there are as many individual guns as there are people. Naturally, all these guns and all these gun owners do not fit into one single group. So, to simplify matters here's what I've come up with.
First we divide the group called "gun owners" into two smaller groups. Let's call them the "good guys" and the "bad guys." Immediately our first problem arises. How do we qualify them? A generally accepted rule of measurement is, since we all believe in the presumption of innocence, felony convictions. Anyone with a felony conviction who owns a gun is one of the "bad guys." Let's throw in those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and those who've been adjudicated mentally ill. I realize the definition of that last one needs some fine tuning, but for argument's sake, let's say those are the folks who make up the group called "bad guys."
Everybody else who owns a gun is in the other group. They're all "good guys." Do you see the problem already? They include all the folks with clean records who buy guns for criminals and gun traffickers. They're called straw purchasers. Some do an occasional deal to make a couple bucks on the side; others are professionals and in many states they can safely buy ten or twenty guns at a time with no questions asked. Until they're caught, they belong to the group called "good guys."
Also in that group are many criminals and gang members who've yet to experience their first arrest and conviction. As they do, they slide from the one group to the other, but at any given time the group called "good guys" contains many of them. That's the price we pay for that extremely important presumption of innocence.
The straw purchasers and criminals who somehow have maintained a clean record are what I call "hidden criminals." No one knows what percentage of the "good guys" is made up of "hidden criminals."
Additionally there are all the types I outlined in The Famous 10%, the bad drinkers, those who abuse prescription medication, the rageaholics, etc. All these and more belong to the "good guys."
The final type of gun owner who makes up the "good guy" group is the responsible one. He not only has a clean record but is intelligent enough and sober enough and safety conscious enough to pose no threat to anyone. He is the responsible one. Guns in the home are properly stored. He trains regularly. He keeps on top of the laws so as to be always in compliance. With him, safety comes first, always.
The problem is that he is in the minority. The group called "good guys" is too heavily populated with hidden criminals and 10%ers. The solution is simple, in a phrase, gun control laws.
The gun-rights crowd is wont to clamor that we have so many laws already on the books, adding to them won't help. That's nonsense. What we have on the books is a mish-mash of easily circumvented laws. What we need is a federally issued set of simple but comprehensive gun control laws. Straw purchasing could be eliminated, theft could be greatly diminished and many of the unfit characters, the "hidden criminals" could be identified and disarmed.
The most amazing thing is the responsible gun owners among the "good guys" fight tooth and nail against any additional regulations. Taking their marching orders from the NRA and the gun manufacturers, they refuse to budge on any of the most common-sense issues raised by the gun control folks.
I'm optimistic that eventually reason will prevail. As tragedy after tragedy is daily reported in the main stream, rather than becoming inured and desensitized, people will begin to see that gun availability to unfit people is something we can and must address.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
The most amazing thing is the responsible gun owners among the "good guys" fight tooth and nail against any additional regulations. Taking their marching orders from the NRA and the gun manufacturers, they refuse to budge on any of the most common-sense issues raised by the gun control folks.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with that comment.
My opinion is that these are people who are afraid of registration for whatever reason. That would take them out of the "responsible gun owner" category.
A responsible gun owner should have no problem with these measures.
Or legally offloading their weapons.
I find the reticence of the gunloon to be troubling and counterproductive to the claim of being "law abiding" and "Responsible".
Ok here is my proposed federal regulations:
ReplyDelete1. The federal government will establish the database for instant background checks accessible to anyone for free. All sales will have to be run through this database which would simply involve calling a phone number and giving the serial number from the gun and the seller's and purchaser's social security numbers. The feds will maintain the records and therefore all guns will be registered federally and all sales will be tracked.
2. The federal government will establish shall issue laws such that any non prohibited buyer is legally allowed to carry either openly or concealed in all public locations.
3. States will be required to provide all information to the federal database for prohibited buyers.
I am sure this needs to be fleshed out some, but it looks like a win win to me. Only the "good guys" would be able to purchase guns and all guns would be registered. There would not be a mish mash of carry laws between the states and the legally allowed carry people would be guaranteed their right to keep and bear arms as they believe they are entitled to.
Jim said...
ReplyDeleteOk here is my proposed federal regulations:
1. The federal government will establish the database for instant background checks accessible to anyone for free. All sales will have to be run through this database which would simply involve calling a phone number and giving the serial number from the gun and the seller's and purchaser's social security numbers. The feds will maintain the records and therefore all guns will be registered federally and all sales will be tracked.
No. Maintaining this service and this data base costs money; there should be a nominal fee for each transaction, particularly since some of thees transactions will be producing a profit.
In MN, for example, running someone's name through the BCA data base (Bureau of Criminal Apprehension) costs $10. It is used by employers who have to do background checks on potential employees for certain jobs. It should not be a prohibitive fee, but it should be a nominal one, which can be tacked on to the cost of the weapon. It is fair for a firearms transaction to cost the same.
2. The federal government will establish shall issue laws such that any non prohibited buyer is legally allowed to carry either openly or concealed in all public locations.
Not unless you can figure out a way to check for substance abuse and mental health, as well as an eye test that is repeated periodically to ensure that someone really CAN follow the firearms safety rules. Ditto a requirement for education in the law. I see no justification whatsoever for carry by anyone except those with an occupational need for a weapon, or who is approved by a judge to carry because of a clear, specific, documented threat - not the 'it could happen, maybe, although probably not' that we have now.
There IS NO LEGITIMATE reason for anyone else to carry firearms, or other dangerous weapons 'on spec'. If you are that damned insecure, your state of mind is a concern. For most other situations, either a taser and/or pepper spray are more than adequate.
3. States will be required to provide all information to the federal database for prohibited buyers.
That should have ALWAYS been required, and the states should also be required to PAY for their data bases. You are apparently expecting us to be all excited that you are doing the right thing, instead of having done it all along.
I have a 4th. to add - any mental health professional or OTHER HEALTH PROFESSIONAL who has a reason to be concerned that a patient is a potential danger to themselves or others is REQUIRED to report that to authorities. That report other than for use to protect the person and others must remain confidential, but protecting others WILL include putting their name in the NICS data base. This includes health concerns like senility and diagnoses of dementia / Alzheimers.
In an aging population that is a legitimate concern.
5. Anyone who fails to do a background check a person prior to a sale of a firearm, or who does not exercise similar care in loaning a firearm, or who does not adequately secure a firearm so as to make it difficult to steal has to have 'skin in the game' for what is done with that firearm. Failure to do any of those things is negligence, and as such if a person is harmed, the original possessor of that firearm should face fines and/or jail if THEIR weapon is used to harm someone else (including suicide), especially children, and lose their firearm rights permanently. If it results in someone losing property - if the weapon is used to threaten someone in a robbery, or if someone is caught with that weapon during a theft / burglary, they should be held partially responsible for that weapon being in the wrong hands, and pay a fine, and lose their firearm rights.
ReplyDelete6.Annual drug testing of firearm owners, including for alcohol abuse. There are any number of tests, including tests of hair, which show patterns of substance abuse over time. We legally prohibit drug users from owning firearms because substance abuse alters the brain, and in particular adversely affects impulse control and judgment. IF we are going to prohibit drug use in connection with weapons-and we should-, we damn well should test if it is occurring.
7. Any accident with a firearm that results in harm to a person, you're done, you lose your right to firearms. A case in point would be the Amish girl who was killed in Ohio.
8. More than a nominal number of firearms - say a half dozen, but the number is negotiable - requires a collectors license. If you have a collectors license, authorities should be able to inspect your collection or monitor your additions to that collection to ensure they are in your possession, and with an eye towards the potential for stockpiling, but allow legally for larger numbers of firearms. This goes to preventing would-be domestic terrorists from stockpiling quantities of weapons - like the NC (alleged) terrorists, like the extremist militias who have done so, as well as restricting those who are funneling firearms to drug cartels over the border. This is an excellent opportunity for firearms owners to work WITH AUTHORITIES to keep us all safer, instead of resisting the efforts of authorities to do so. It is a reasonable request in the face of very real threats in that regard.
I would also point out, re the last point, that in the two recent shootings in MN, one in north eastern MN, one in south eastern MN, more than one firearm was in the possession of the shooter. In many shootings, there is more than one firearm involved with a single shooter, therefore it is a legitimate concern.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why we can't offer any deals with these people. They won't give us anything, but we have to give and give and give. Until they're willing to trade us something that we want for something that they want, there can be no deals.
Mikeb302000,
I challenge your percentages. I don't know how you arrive at your numbers, but I'm sure we can expect clarification from Dog Gone, the guardian of all data. Does it occur to you that there is likely significant overlap in the "bad" categories? Those categories aren't mutually exclusive. For example, a person can have problems with rage and be a straw buyer. Other such overlaps can exist. It seems more likely to me that the percentage of "bad" owners is a small minority.
No. Maintaining this service and this data base costs money; there should be a nominal fee for each transaction, particularly since some of thees transactions will be producing a profit.
ReplyDeleteWhy not take it out of the 10% excise tax (26 U.S.C. s 4181) that is already assessed new/complete firearm sold...
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteWe all know that your definition of responsible gun owner is the government only. We private citizen gun owners can be responsible and at the same time oppose registration or other control measures.
Dog Gone,
There is no legitimate reason to carry a firearm because of the potential risk of an attack? Actually, that's not so. Legitimate means conforming to the laws or rules. In Arkansas, a carry permit is issued to any qualified applicant who wishes to carry a handgun for self defense. There's no additional requirement for a direct or immediate threat to allow carry. That means that under current law, I have a legitimate reason to carry.
"Thus the need for the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act.
ReplyDeleteDecember 21, 2011 9:10 PM"
Because that money is already being used. You don't like that? write your congressman. I'm sure if he's like most reptilicanteabaggists he will be more than happy to take a day off from working against gaymarriage or requiring welfare and unemployment recipients to be drug tested to stand in the house and rail against the unfairness of using that money for whatever it's already being used for.
"There IS NO LEGITIMATE reason for anyone else to have a high-speed internet connection, or other means of rapidly disseminating information 'on spec'. If you are that damned insecure, your state of mind is a concern. For most other situations, either dial-up and/or a twitter account are more than adequate."
ReplyDeleteMoonshine........who made the comment you quoted? I don't see that here....
ReplyDeletedog gone,
ReplyDeleteMoonshine quoted you. You can find it in the third comment ... where you responded to Jim's point number 2.
I take exception to your assertion that, "there IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON for anyone else to carry firearms ... 'on spec'." (In your previous sentence you stated that only people with an occupational need or people who cleared a specific documented threat with a judge could carry.)
You wish to exclude even people who have a clean criminal record, passed appropriate training, passed physical requirements, passed drug screenings, and passed a mental health screening. To even entertain such a thought, you have to show me data that demonstrates people who meet that extensive list of criteria are harming the public more than they help the public. Where is the data. If it doesn't exist, there are two possible reasons:
(1) The people who satisfy that criteria help the public more than they harm the public.
(2) No one has recorded the data.
If number one is true, then your proposition would harm the public and it is not about helping the public. If number (2) is true, you are demanding that people who have no criminal record, no indication of substance abuse, and no indication of mental illness, give up a Natural Right based purely on speculation.
If speculation is sufficient to justify taking away a Natural Right, then why isn't my speculation sufficient to sustain a Natural Right? The beauty is that I don't have to speculate. There were 1,246,248 violent crimes in the U.S. in 2010 according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Assuming that no one was the victim of two violent crimes in 2010, then one in every 248.7 people were victims of violent crime in the U.S. in 2010. That is sufficient justification in my mind.
And I can give you a case in point. A friend of mine is a Human Resources manager. His occupation doesn't require him to carry a firearm. No one had ever threatened him. He has a concealed carry license "just in case". He recently had to announce to an employee that the company was laying off the employee. A short time later, my friend and his wife were walking their grocery cart to their car when someone called his name. He looked up to see the former employee and a partner approaching. Both men had the physique/stature of professional football players. They announced that they were going to severely beat/kill my friend (and presumably his wife who would try to intervene). My friend backed away and told them to leave himself and his wife alone. The two men continued toward my friend and his wife anyway. At that point my friend, fearing for his life, drew his gun, pointed it at them, and told them again to stop. They turned and ran away without my friend firing a shot. My friend called the police who found and arrested the two men. The justice system later convicted the two men of appropriate felony assault charges. My friend wasn't convicted of anything.
Under your system, my friend and possibly his wife would have sustained a severe, life threatening beating. And for what?
You can check my numbers in the following FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Please noteNow I'll up the ante. According to a recent FBI Uniform Crime Report, the Baltimore-Towson Maryland Metropolitan Statistical Area for example had 685.3 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. Again, assuming that no one was the victim of two violent crimes, then one in 146 people (100,000/685.3) were victims of violent crime. And when you consider a common family of four, one in 36.5 families (146/4 == 36.5) had at least one family member who was a victim of violent crime.
ReplyDeleteIf that isn't adequate justification for a "good guy" -- a person with no criminal background, no mental illness, no chemical abuse, adequate physical abilities, and adequate training -- I don't know what is.
Oh, and in case you think a no guns utopia would fix all this, think again. Just to put us in the ballpark, remember there were 1,246,248 total violent crimes in the U.S. in 2010 which means one in every 248.7 people were victims of violent crime in the U.S. If we remove all the violent crimes where criminals used a firearm and assume that criminals would not increase use of other weapons (which is not realistic but the best case scenario for the gun control crowd), then there would still have been 881,173 total violent crimes in the U.S. without guns in 2010. That is 284 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants ... or one in 352 people ... or one in 88 families of four. And that is spread across the U.S. In areas such as the Baltimore Metropolitan statistical area we know the violent crime rate would be considerably higher.
You can check my numbers in the following FBI Uniform Crime reports. Note that there was no report indicating which weapon rapists used so I estimated 50% -- a number that was less than the percentage of murders where the criminal used a firearm but higher than the percentage of all other violent crimes where the criminal used a firearm.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl14.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl07.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10aggvtbl.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10robtbl3.xls
Greg, The overlap factor in my Famous 10% has been discussed ad nauseum on this blog and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteBasically, I halved the numbers and in some cases halved them again to make up for exactly that. The "10%" is really a code word for "between 30% and 50%."
Think about it. Among the gun owners you know, who drinks too much, who takes too many pills that maybe they don't need, who has a problem with rage and who gets really depressed every once in a while?
Those are rhetorical quesions, food for thought, if you will. I don't expect you to admit anything.
Mikeb302000:
ReplyDeleteHow dare you impugn the virtue of OLAGO,WWNBTLUTD,ODOP*!
* Otherwise Law Abiding Gun Owners, Who Would Never Break The Law Unless They're Drunk, On Drug Or Pissed-off
You have people with sexual desires. Naturally, all of these people with sexual desires do not fit into one single group. So, to simplify matters, here's what I've come up with.
ReplyDeleteFirst, we devide the group called "people with sexual desires" into two samller groups. Let's call them the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Immediately, our first problem arises. How do we qualify them? A generally accepted rule of measurement is, since we all believe in the presumption of innocence, sexual preditor convictions. Anyone with a sexual preditor conviction is a bad guy.
Everyone else, they're all "good guys". Do you see the problem already? They include all of the folks that have yet to be convicted of a sexual crime. How can we let all of these suposed "good guys" live next to schools and parks and places where children play? How can we allow these alleged "good guys" work in candy stores and exercise there God given, Constitutionally protected right to live where they want to live?
Excuse me for not using my real name, you see, I'm one of those "bad guys" who hasn't gotten a permit to exercise my rights protected by the First Amendment.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with your numbers. If your numbers are correct, then basically the whole population is crazy. But I work from the idea that most people are sane and decent. There are a few bad actors. They tend to have multiple problems. Most of us, though, are healthy, mentally and morally.
someguy:
ReplyDeleteOh, how very clever of you!
Trouble is, everybody isn't born with a gun. Nor is everyone born with the desire to right the wrongs of the world by fucking bad people to death. I'm not saying that there AREN'T tons of really bad people out there whose dicks (or feminine analogs) shouldn't be registered as dangerous weapons and controlled by an external authority. I'm just saying that we're all born with some sort of sex organ (except for those with some birth defect), guns? not so much.
Actually, I don't think that there are any "Gun offender" registries which require that people found guilty of armed robbery or some other crime involving their use of a gun have to let anyone else know where they live when their sentence is completed (including any parole). In fact, killers, according to more than a few commenters here and elsewhere should, like any other criminal, have their rights to own gunz restored when they've served their sentence. Paedophiles don't get that deal. Not that I'm a paedophilephile but, what's up wit dat?
Before you and a couple of the true idiots here start running around shrieking and pulling hair out, I am not suggesting that paedophilia is not a serious crime OR that paedophiles should not be monitored and "kept in the system".
democommie,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting idea on an equivalent to the sex offender registry for criminals who used firearms. Off the top of my head I like the idea; I would have to think about that a while. The only down side I see are people that were truly innocent but pleaded guilty for a short sentence because they have a really shaky defense. This actually happened to my wife's uncle. Rather than risk a decade in prison, he pleaded guilty to a crime he didn't commit to ensure he spent only 6 months in jail. But it seems like the firearm thing would be more clear cut.
I know that people are not born with firearms. What they are born with is a right to live and defend themselves. If it is morally right for someone to defend themselves with their fists, feet, pepper spray, or a club, what makes it morally wrong to defend themselves with a pistol or a shotgun?
Interesting F.Y.I. In one particular state, it has historically been illegal to carry anything that you could use for self defense. The formal list included knives, dirks, daggers, stilettos, swords, clubs, bludgeons, blackjacks, brass knuckles, tasers, pepper spray, and all manner of firearms. That particular state recently allowed pepper spray with up to 10% O.C. and may soon allow people to carry tasers. The only defensive weapon that state allowed was concealed handguns and then only with a license to carry it which was next to impossible to acquire in many areas.
Add in any manner of physical disability or weakness and quite often the only potentially effective choice is a firearm.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteTo address your original comment, gun owners oppose registrations, background checks, and various regulations because all of those have been used (whether in the U.S. or in other countries) to disarm "good guys" en masse.
I submitted a poignant post in the other article "Fix the Gun Check System" that would end all of this. I'll bet gun rights advocates would agree to all sorts of background checks, registrations, etc. if there were a Constitutional Amendment that stated all of those systems/databases/registries could only be used to disarm individual criminals. And the amendment would also have to forbid laws that either prevent or have the effect of preventing "good guys" from owning, carrying, and using guns.
And we would need a mechanism to guarantee swift personal criminal and personal punitive action on authorities who work against the Amendment. Right now authorities all over the country impede the ability of "good guys" to own, carry, and use firearms. Since most people cannot afford a civil lawsuit to invoke an injunction against the authority, and because the government employees who hold that authority face no criminal or civil liability for impeding the "good guys", they keep doing it. As they say a policy or law "is worthless if it doesn't have any real teeth".
Would you agree to that?
democommie:
ReplyDelete"Oh, how very clever of you!"
Thank you.
"Trouble is, everybody isn't born with a gun.........."
But everyone is born with the Right to own and carry a firearm. Everyone is born with the Right to protect themselves and gun control laws infringe on that right.
someguy, you wish that were true and so you guys keep repeating it like so many children whistling in the dark. The truth is owning and carrying a gun is not a basic human right. The fact that many of you guys say it is, doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteLet's back up a little.
(1) Is everyone born with a right to live?
(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?
(3) Explain why we cannot use "force multipliers" to defend ourselves from attack. Force multipliers include the likes of rocks, staffs, clubs, slings, archery equipment, firearms.
And MikeB,
ReplyDeleteExplain why we (humans) don't have a right to own and carry a gun for the purpose of defending ourselves from violent attack?
Every creature in the world defends itself from attack with every possible means it can muster. Grizzly bears use their teeth, claws, weight, and strength. Spitting cobras spit their venom or bite and inject venom. Elephants use their weight and strength. And guess what, if you happen to be an "innocent bystander" next to a person that threatened one of those creatures, there is a very good chance you will get injured/killed in the fray.
Now I didn't make that last comment to justify firearms owners acting irresponsibly. What I am illustrating is that it is natural for all life to defend itself ... and that the act of defending oneself from a violent attack sometimes spills over into the surroundings.
Capn Crunchy wrote
ReplyDeleteLet's back up a little.
(1) Is everyone born with a right to live?
Yes. And there are thousands of deaths from firearms every year, nearly all of them avoidable. Those deaths occur from causes like the following:
1. legal guns where a previously lawful gun owner stops acting lawfully; OR
2. legally owned guns transferred to criminals who use them in 40% of crimes,OR
3. guns purchased by legal buyers for criminals in straw purchases OR
4. criminals got previously legal weapons that had then passed into the hands of OTHER criminals
(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?
To a point. That has to be non-lethal force rather than lethal force wherever possible. Most of the pro-gunners who want this right don't make that effort; they don't use or carry a cell phone which could get them help, they do not also carry smaller, lighter, less lethal weapons like tasers and/or pepper spray. They only carry the most lethal weapons they can manage. They then dehumanize potential people they would shoot, and glamorize shooting them. This negates the premise that this is about anyone's safety. And they resist strenuously any tracking of those weapons through registration or any REASONABLE and useful efforts to restrict firearms to the safe and responsible people. They also resist ACCOUNTABILITY for the actions of shooting someone who scares them, even if they are unreasonably scared, not objectively fearful. All of which argues that this is not REALLY about anyone's safety, it is about an emotional relationship to weapons that have no objective or practical basis in self defense.
(3) Explain why we cannot use "force multipliers" to defend ourselves from attack. Force multipliers include the likes of rocks, staffs, clubs, slings, archery equipment, firearms.
Because the number of instances where your LETHAL force multipliers are used in bad ways far far far outnumbers the number of people helped or saved by them.
There is a big difference between the non-lethal 'force multipliers' - call them what they are, WEAPONS- and firearms, a very specific type of weapon. None of us here are arguing that you shouldn't use any of the above OTHER than firearms. The difference is the degree of lethality. And that extends not ONLY to the bad guys not getting killed so they can go through the legal process and consequences, it means that those NON LETHAL weapons are also not going to be useful to hurt others nearly as much as the firearms are.
The REALITY - not your frantically death-gripped myth - is that those firearms make YOU less safe, and they sure as hell make the rest of us less safe also.
THAT is why we advocate to restrict them. You are not as a group all that damned law abiding- ie. people like Mark Meckler in New York. You don't respect other people, you don't respect life, and you don't respect law ENOUGH.
""Trouble is, everybody isn't born with a gun.........."
ReplyDeleteBut everyone is born with the Right to own and carry a firearm. Everyone is born with the Right to protect themselves and gun control laws infringe on that right."
Argument from fallacy.
The vast majority of humans do not have constitutions with guarantees of the right* to keep and bear arms.
* A right which is disputed in many conlaw arguments--it is NOT settled law, obviously.
mikeb302000: Well, the SCOTUS and the constitution disagree with you.
ReplyDeletedog gone: "'(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?'
To a point. That has to be non-lethal force"
Negative ghost rider. You want to save the life of a criminal attacking me, tell him don't attack me and his life won't be put in danger. Now on a more personal note. I once had to use my trusty ole .45 to protect my wife from being attacked. She was chased through our front yard into our house where she closed and locked the door. The fellas chasing her began to bang on the door as she's telling me what's going on. I grabbed my pistol, opened the door as they were trying to get it opened and pointed the gun at head of one of the aggressors. No shots fired, no blood in the streets, no carnage in the driveway. Just one fella who wet himself and the other who soiled himself. Me, I stayed dry and clean and my wife stayed safe. You see, dog gone, it was less than lethal force that I used, but at least I wasn't limited to that.
democommie said: "The vast majority of humans do not have constitutions with guarantees of the right* to keep and bear arms.
* A right which is disputed in many conlaw arguments--it is NOT settled law, obviously."
The constitution doesn't bestow rights on the people, it recognizes and protects rights that already exist. Obviously you are not familiar with SCOTUS rulings on this matter. You see, the court has already ruled that yes, people do in fact have a right to protect themselves and that they have a right to use a firearm to protect themselves.
someguy wrote"Negative ghost rider. You want to save the life of a criminal attacking me, tell him don't attack me and his life won't be put in danger.
ReplyDeleteWrong, someguy. What I wrote was ". That has to be non-lethal force rather than lethal force wherever possible. "
That is because you don't get to execute someone when less force will end the confrontation. Using greater force than necessary is illegal for the police, and it is illegal for you.
And most of you make absolutely NO effort whatsoever to employ less force where it is appropriate. You do not carry anything except the greatest possible lethal force, in some cases like Greg, not even a cell phone to contact emergency assistance.
That tells me you have no interest whatsoever in allowing law enforcement to do the job they're paid to do, and that you are ONLY interested in lethal force wherever you can possibly find a pretext to use it.
Case in point, the one you described. Once your wife was safely in the house, behind a locked door, you could have called 911. Did you? Were either of the men pursuing your wife armed that you could see?
Not per your description. Instead what you allowed to happen was that by your description, two somewhat dirtier for wear bad guys are still a threat to the safety of others. Further in cases where there are two assailants to one person with a gun, often one or both will grapple with the armed homeowner for the weapon. Any advantage that a firearm provides of lethal force at a distance from one's adversary was lost.
You would have been safer to call the cops and everyone else who the bad guys might prey on would be safer as well.
Once your wife was safely in the house, you could have opened the door and blasted the two bad guys with pepper spray, AGAIN, rendering them helpless until law enforcement could arrive. Did you do so? No. You went for the most lethal force which left them loose on the public.
But you want us to believe that you are somehow making good decisions, that you have excellent judgment.
Doesn't sound like it to me. What it sounds like is you had an occasion to wave around your big penis substitute and got a fetish rush out of the deal, judging from your swaggering description of an incident that could have been described in less emotional terms. The emotional swagger is why we allude to firearms as fetish objects.
The same advantages would exist with a stun gun.
There are situation that require deadly force. There are many more which do not and where it should not be used, and not only to avoid KILLING the bad guy before he can go through the rule-of-law judicial process rather than vigilante execution. It also makes it far far safer for bystanders and often the victim as well.
Had you popped off a snap shot at the two men on your doorstep -- what would be behind them, should the bullet either miss or go through a part of one of them?
How far away was anyone potentially, and how clear a line of sight to the nearest residence/building, vehicle, or pedestrian did you have?
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI had asked,
(2) Is everyone born with a right to protect themselves ... to defend themselves from attack?
Part of your reply was,
"... pro-gunners ... don't use or carry a cell phone which could get them help, they do not also carry smaller, lighter, less lethal weapons like tasers and/or pepper spray. They only carry the most lethal weapons they can manage. They then dehumanize potential people they would shoot, and glamorize shooting them. This negates the premise that this is about anyone's safety."
I disagree with your sweeping assertions and you can post your sources another time. There are three problems with your response that are obvious at face value. First, some states do not allow citizens to carry tasers. So that option is off the table in various jurisditions. That leaves us with pepper spray. Aside from the fact that pepper spray has limited ability to incapacitate anyone, you have to be at arms length to administer it. At that point you are in mortal danger of the attacker's fists, feet, knives, clubs, or any other weapon. As for a cell phone, the worst thing you can possibly do when a criminal engages you is take your eyes off of the criminal and your surroundings to try and call for help on a cell phone ... that is if your cell phone even works at that location. And what do you think an attacker is going to do when they see you reaching for your phone? Politely wait while you call and describe the situation to a dispatcher? You also fail to recognize the most effective non-lethal defensive weapon of all: a gun pointed at a criminal without firing a shot. Common sense tells us that criminals will turn and run almost every time someone points a gun at them. Commonly available statistics support that. And I have seen countless surveillance videos that confirm it. Plus there is another benefit. If the person holding the gun mistakes a citizen for a criminal, the citizen doesn't get hurt and the person holding the gun goes to jail for assault (and loses their carry license to boot if they have one)!
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI had asked,
(3) Explain why we cannot use "force mulipliers" [e.g. rocks, clubs, firearms] to defend ourselves ...
Part of your reply was,
"Because the number of instances where your LETHAL force multipliers are used in bad ways far far far outnumbers the number of people helped or saved by them."
I have provided several hard numbers from FBI Uniform Crime reports. For example there were 232 justifiable homicides by citizens with firearms in 2010 ... a "bad use" in your mind. And I mentioned the Violence Policy Centers' Concealed Carry Killers where they list something like 300 people with concealed carry licenses that have murdered someone since 2007. I mentioned the State of Michigan's annual concealed carry license holder crime report that indicated none of that state's almost 300,000 concealed carry licensees murdered anyone in 2010. And I mentioned the dearth of news reports indicating the same. Any way you look at it, citizens, whether armed at home or carrying in public with concealed carry licenses, are only killing something like 380 people per year. And there is no evidence that these armed citizens are spraying bullets and injuring any more. I keep asking and you keep avoiding it: provide numbers from credible sources!!!!!
And you also replied,
"The REALITY - not your frantically death-gripped myth - is that those firearms make YOU less safe, and they sure as hell make the rest of us less safe also."
I already listed in another post how one in 36.5 familes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Statistical area had a at least one family member who was a victim of violent crime in 2010 (assuming a family of four people) -- that is a fact, not a myth. I also stated how one in 52 families in the Baltimore Metropolitan Statisticaly area would have had at least one family member who was a victim of violent crime in 2010 (assuming a family of four people) even after subtracting all violent crimes where the criminal used a gun. That is a fact, not a myth. I didn't make up those numbers. I got them from the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
And I have asked repeatedly for sources that list the thousands or even hundreds of events every year where armed citizens have sprayed bullets into innocent bystanders. You haven't produced a single documented instance much less thousands of instances.
I have simple, hard numbers ... facts, not myths. Where are your facts? Show me that your fears and assertions are rational.
What you propose may decrease the statistical probability of a violent crime affecting my family around 10%. The problem is that 10% decrease in the probability of an attack would come at the expense of having no means to defend my family during the few seconds of a brutal attack. How does that increase my family's safety?!?!?!?!?
You know who really gains from your proposal? Criminals. And maybe some people that would have ended their lives through suicide. While I hate to hear about anyone committing suicide, at least they had a choice in the matter. Under your proposal, you strip my family's choice to defend ourselves -- people who care about saving our lives deeply -- in favor of people that want to end their lives.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteYou really don't see your own contradictions, do you?
In one statement you tell someguy,
"Further in cases where there are two assailants to one person with a gun, often one or both will grapple with the armed homeowner for the weapon. Any advantage that a firearm provides of lethal force at a distance from one's adversary was lost."
And then you say,
"Once your wife was safely in the house, you could have opened the door and blasted the two bad guys with pepper spray, AGAIN, rendering them helpless"
First you criticize the homeowner for a course of action that could lead to him losing his advantage of distance. Then you tell the homeowner to give up his advantage of distance!!! AND you tell him to open the door AND try to apply pepper spray to the tiny target area of the attackers' eyes.
dog gone: you said " Using greater force than necessary is illegal for the police, and it is illegal for you."
ReplyDeleteand you are incorrect. The police are restrained, yes, but not the homeowner. You see, there is this thing call the "Castle Doctrine" and in my state, if a person lawfully occupies a building or automobile, and someone is unlawfully trying to gain entry into said building or automobile, and the lawful occupant feels that they, or someone else, is in danger of death or great bodily harm, lethal force is allowed. If two guys chase my wife home and try to come inside, I'm not assuming they're wanting to have a tea party. Simply put, if you don't want to get dead, don't break into someone's home.
You go on to say that I should have blasted them with pepper spray. Why, simply pointing a firearm at them did the trick.
you also said "You went for the most lethal force which left them loose on the public." Now you're advocating that I should have killed them so that they couldn't further their criminal activities after they got out of jail?
My firearm is not a big penis substitution, that's what the truck if for.
Then you said "There are situation that require deadly force." Yep, you're absolutely correct, and that's why I have a firearm.
someguy is such a tough talker defending the castle doctrine like that, wrongly too, but that's no nevermind. The point is he's a tough talker.
ReplyDeleteI always remember bullies in the school yard when they occasionally met their match and ran home crying to mama. That's how the tough-talking gun owners would do. When finally faced with a real-live danger they'd first piss their pants and then fall down begging for mercy.
Real tough guys don't have to talk tough.
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYour response was really lame. All you can do is make a sweeping statement that firearm owners are cowards. How about something of substance. Tell us what tactical mistake someguy made: explain the error, how it was bad for public safety, and what he could have done better.
I touched upon the tactical mistakes of dog gone's suggested course of action. She advocated giving up the advantage of distance, superior force, cover, and concealment (the door and home furnishings). Further, she recommended that someguy, being outnumbered without any backup on the way and without training in police tactics, engage the criminals and try to subdue them with pepper spray. What she described gets law enforcement officers injured and killed every year.
And all of this came from dog gone, who suggests that no one in the public should be allowed to carry much less use their firearms because they do not have police training.
mikeb302000: Really? I honestly thought you had more class than that. I guess when you run out of argument, you have to jump to personal attacks. I'm really not surprised, though. You're the one who would blame a homeowner for shooting an intruder instead of blaming the intruder for putting himself in that situation. By your way of thinking, if a woman get's raped, it's her fault for not wearing a chastity belt.
ReplyDeleteSince you seem to think that I am wrong on the Castle Doctrine please explain to me how I misinterpreted it. Here's a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
After reading my post above, I fail to find any tough talking and bullying, please point that out to me as well.
"Your response was really lame. All you can do is make a sweeping statement that firearm owners are cowards. "
ReplyDeleteOnce again, a criticism of a statement that was not made.
This:
"If two guys chase my wife home and try to come inside, I'm not assuming they're wanting to have a tea party. Simply put, if you don't want to get dead, don't break into someone's home."
would certainly qualify as "tough guy talk" in my book, but that's not the point.
Mikeb302000 did not lump all gun owners into that group. Actually he didn't mention gun owners, except for this:
"That's how the tough-talking gun owners would do.".
Okay, I can see how MikeB's comment didn't refer to all firearm owners democommie.
ReplyDeleteMerry Christmas
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteHappy Holidays!*
* I'm not only Gunless, I'm GODless, as well;>)
someguy, you sound like a bullshit tough-talker and a bully to me. That's my opinion. Capn Crunch on the other hand seems to have a bit of reasonableness about him.
ReplyDeletemikeb302000: and I'm still waiting for you to correct me on the Castle Doctrine.
ReplyDelete