I'm arguing against the inane logic so often evidenced in the gungeon that there is no overlap between "law-abiding gun owners" and "criminals." The belief that the two are eternally separate, and the claim that all weapons used by all criminals are obtained illegally.

My point isn't that owning a gun absolves you of all criminal liability. My point is a mockery of the idea that there is no overlap between "gun owners" and "criminals." Yes, what I posted was absurd; that's the intent, to expose the tortured logic.

After all, if "law-abiding gun owner" and "criminal armed with illegally-obtained firearms" are absolutely mutually exclusive and indelible, then... Doesn't that make this guy NOT a criminal? Doesn't that make Zimmerman not a criminal?

tl;dr version: My point is that there is overlap; gun owners become gun criminals. This overlap is usually vehemently denied here. And I was mocking that.

You posted that in the Gungeon, we believe that. It's more than absurd; it's a lie. It is simply not true.

Of course there is overlap between gun owners and criminals.

There's also overlap between car owners and criminals.

Yet, for the vast majority of car owners, they actually ARE legal, law-abiding citizens right up until the moment when a tiny handful of them cross the line into criminality by drinking and driving, or by driving recklessly.

I really DON'T see your point, still, because I don't think anyone here has ever said that criminals don't own guns, nor have we said that law-abiding citizens don't occasionally commit crimes with those guns. If I'm wrong, if someone has said that, I'd love to see a link.

I believe the much more prevalent view here is: You don't get to restrict my rights or take away my guns just because a few people misuse or abuse that right or engage in criminality with their guns.

I'll keep you in mind next time I see it.

Although I have a feeling I'll be waiting a rather long time.

a genuine claim that:

there is no overlap between "law-abiding gun owners" and "criminals." The belief that the two are eternally separate, and the claim that all weapons used by all criminals are obtained illegally.

Partially because I think most DUers on both sides of the aisle are smarter than that.

rather than an observation based on evidence.

I've never seen any examples of this, either. I'd love to see links of such claims, if they exist.

fellow gun culture members right up until they shoot an unarmed, innocent teenager. And a bunch of gun culture folks still support them even after they shoot someone

.

Just a link or two will do.
Or was this another one of those "Has a pickup truck and cowboy hat, but doesn't have any cattle" posts that we've come to know?

Hoyt (6,747 posts)
27. OK - I'll change my No vote. But, then, why not just go to

Outdoor group?..... and tic off the peaceful hikers, campers, runners, rock climbers, canoers. Bird watchers, etc., with gun toting topics.

Still no change of vote.

Oneshooter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117242069#post27

and so far all have agreed with me that Zimmerman fucked up when he pursued Martin after having been warned not to by a dispatcher.

I understand that you dislike those who legally carry a firearm for self defense and that is your right. However I will point out that over 800,000 people who live in Florida have carry permits and many carry on a daily basis. Obviously we are not all similar to Zimmerman or there would be daily incidents like the Trayvon Martin shooting.

People like me who legally carry in Florida realize that we are not cops and definitely are not vigilantes. If I see something truly suspicious I call 911 just as any responsible citizen would. I lack the training, the uniform and the badge that would permit me to confront a possible criminal and I realize it. I am not unusual in that regard.

The fact remains that while a few people have misused their privilege to legally carry a firearm in Florida many others have been able to employ their weapon for legitimate self defense and consequently avoid being seriously injured or killed. Or course you will ignore this fact as it hampers your argument. You will find a great deal of support from the main stream media who also dislikes any laws that allow an honest citizen to carry a firearm. Like you, they will largely ignore any stories that prove that legal concealed carry does indeed save lives. Any attention such stories receive will only be on a local level and never will make the national news.

Of course with the information that I currently have, I feel that Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter if not murder. However since I believe that our legal system is far superior to trail by the media, I will wait for the results of the jury who will more than likely hear the evidence at Zimmerman's trial. It's my feeling that there are enough questions about the incident to warrant that Zimmerman has his day in court. Under our system of justice he deserves to present his side of the story. If he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the jury's eye he will serve time, if not he might walk. Our system has it faults but it is better than many alternatives used in other nations.

You will probably feel that I support Zimmerman but let me assure you that I am merely being fair. He does deserve to present his defense for his actions and the evidence should prove his innocence or guilt.

Stawicki, or whatever his name, in Seattle same. Loughner......

For those who say gun culture members have come out against Zimmerman, go to right wing gun sites and see what they say. Read NRA condemnation..... if the right wingers who run that front organization ever decide to address it in public.

There are a few things you've got to do before you're a "model gun carrier" as opposed to a "lawful gun carrier." He was definitely a lawful gun carrier -- until/unless he broke the law. Same as any other American. A person is, by definition, not a criminal unless they have committed a crime.

To be a "model gun carrier," I'd require at least the following things:

1. Seek training above and beyond any permit requirement
2. Practice regularly with your carry weapon
3. Study the laws regarding guns and self-defense (just an aside, but MD needs to codify what is and isn't self-defense)
4. Learn and practice avoidance and conflict deescalation

Sure, there are "callous, bigoted, right wing gun toters" out there. Probably more than a few. Even so, they're not committing more than a handful of crimes! Even if you only look at the worst 10% of permit holders, they commit very little violent crime, and virtually no violent crime with their guns. When they do, they're subject (and should be subject) to criminal prosecution and civil liability, and permanent disqualification from owning even a single-shot bolt-action .22 youth model. Funny thing is, nobody on the anti-gun side is interested in education about lawful and unlawful use of force, avoidance, conflict deescalation, or prudent retreat. That's left entirely up to pro-gun instructors like Massad Ayoob and Kathy Jackson. Prudent gun owners strive to improve the firearms community, while you impotently try to eradicate it.

too much acceptance of guns or adding another one to the abundance of guns for crime, suicide, accidental shootings, riots, right wing militia groups and groupies, and a bunch more.

not removing the most effective tool we have for defense of ourselves and the state.

so you might be more aware of what they post than I am.

Still you are ignoring my point that since over 800,000 Floridians have Concealed Weapons Permits if all of us were like Zimmerman we would see far more similar incidents.

Obviously if you allow 800,000 people to do something a very few may screw up. We license and test drivers but some do text on their cell phones or get inebriated and cause tragedies.

You might counter with an argument that we have to accept that accidents will occur and driving is far more important than the right to carry a weapon in public. However you miss the fact that often legally concealed firearms actually stop attacks and save the life or health of the victim.

Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987. In that 25 year time frame the state has issued 2,206,324 carry permits. Only 168 of those license have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. (source: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.pdf)

I will admit that those with carry permits in Florida are not all angels and some do misuse their firearms and a tragedy results, however the statistics prove that this is extremely rare. What we can't know is how many times a person with a carry permit was able to legitimately use his firearms for self defense and save either his life or health or the life or health of another person. Statistics of such incidents are unavailable and the majority do not involve a shooting. I know of several incidents where a person merely showed that he was armed and the incident ended peacefully.

Is it better that all citizens are unarmed and unable to defend themselves against a violent attack on the street? Would it be preferable that a woman was raped or that the bread winner of a household was killed in a robbery by an armed thug?

This is no justification for treating everyone as a potential criminal.

Does wearing a seat belt mean I'm suspicious of all other drivers?

Does having homeowner's insurance mean I am suspicious of fires?

Does having smoke detectors make me suspicious of smoke?

People keep and bear arms because it is inexpensive insurance. Just like every other safety tool people own, be they flashlights (how often does the power go out?), seat belts (how often are you in car accidents?), spare tires (how often do you have flat tires?), smoke detectors and fire extinguishers (how often does your house catch of fire?), carbon monoxide detectors (how often does your furnace malfunction?).

People own all of these emergency devices, even though the chances of needing them are low, because it is cheap and easy to do so.. It is far, far better to have them and not need them than to need it and not have them.

Being prepared for emergencies does not indicate some irrational fear of disaster. It's simply prudent when the cost to be prepared is so cheap and the consequences of being unprepared is so costly.

until they commit a crime?

to take a car onto the streets?
why let them buy burglary tools like pry bars, screw drivers and hammers?
why let them carry aids for stalking and sex crimes like cameras binoculars and duct tape on the streets?


The point is a person is not a criminal until they commit a crime. Why treat people as criminals because they potentially could become such?

Such logic means women should be prohibited from wearing short dresses because they might suddenly wish to become prostitutes...
Hint: the clothing does not affect anyone's reasoning abilities

Hoyt is angling to become Commissioner of Pre Crime.

I choose along time ago to follow the laws of my particular state and get a CHL. All of your hand wringing isn't going to change that.
I never said I was special, you said it.

The purpose of any gun is to project pieces of metal at high velocity. Just as a car's purpose is to move from here to there.

Both only do what the operator directs. A car can be used to run over a group of students who pissed you off, as happened locally within the last year. Should that person have been denied a DL because he had a short temper? IIRC one dead, four injured.

A gun can be used in crime, for self defense, for recreation. A car can be used as a weapon, transportation and recreation.

I will always maintain it is the operator that is responsible for the actions of any inanimate object. If the object is inherently dangerous, as say a gun, chain saw or acetylene torch, then the operator should take all precautions as recommended by the manufacturer, as directed by law and common sense.

Duh.

As long as I follow the laws of my state concerning the lawful carrying of guns, the hell with what everyone else, including you, thinks.

You are the one who should be starting to get it.

Are you seriously suggesting that because everyone is law abiding up until the point that they commit a crime that we should treat everyone as if they are a potential criminal? That we should restrict the rights of everyone just in case they decide to commit a crime, even though almost 100% of people never do?.

Is that really what you are thinking we should be starting to get? Really?

I tell ya what. Turn in your driver's license. You can never drive again because you might drive drunk and kill someone.

If you want to make the case that CCW permit holders make you less safe, then you have to ask, less safe than what. And the only reasonable answer to that is, "less safe than the other people I will encounter out in public".

Since you cannot surround yourself only by folks who could get a permit but decided not to, you are also surrounded by people who cannot obtain a permit because of their criminal history.

I don't actually know if you can obtain a permit or not. It was just a jab at your assertion that CCW permit holders are somehow uncivilized. If you could choose to surround yourself with armed CCW permit holders or a sampling of the population at large you would be far, far safer surrounded by the armed CCW permit holders.

If its such a bad habit, why do 49 states have some form of CC laws on their books? Have you polled all the people who can get a permit but haven't yet, if not, how the hell do you know why they haven't yet?
It is so easy to pick apart your silly statements.

I'll wait for the real trial, not the trial by media/electronic vigilante "justice". Z was not part of the gun culture, he was more of a casual gun owner.

Asked repeatedly for actual evidence of something you claimed was

reads more like a broad brush smear to me. do you like to be mocked? Who exactly are you mocking?

name Names and back up your absurd assertion with links to prove your sarcastic point.

Those or your words, not ours. You can take that strawman back to the barn.

What we do claim, and prove, is that the overlap is extremely small. I have posted that prooof many times and did it again in your other thread.

In Texas, 2009, out of 402,000+ people with CHLs there was exactly one murder conviction and zero manslaughter convictions. For the general public that year there were 600+ murder/manslaughter convictions. Our record is extremely good.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

One, it hinges on conviction. In Texas. Not to bash your state, but the topic of the thread the OP links to is about a Texas man who guns down his neighbor, in the neighbor's driveway, and is using Texas' fast-and-loose "castle" legislation to defend himself. I have to assume there's precedent for that sort of thing working in Texas, else his attorney might have tried a different angle.

While I do understand the reason to sticking by convictions, you surely understand that in reality there's still a lot of wriggle room there; if nothing else, there's certainly crimes for which the suspect has not been captured or even identified. it would srrm to me that it's the homicides themselves that bear looking at, and not just hte convictions.

Two, CHL holders are not the be-all end-all of legal gun owners. Are you trying to say that out of 580 homicides that resulted in criminal conviction, only that one was committed with a legally-owned firearm?

Now, don't mistake me, I'm not trying to demonize anyone here. I just don't care much for the sort of logic you appear to be giving me that says, out of all those convictions, every single one of them - save one - was perpetrated with an illegally-obtained firearm, and thus the perpetrator was not a "gun owner."

Last edited Fri Jun 8, 2012, 09:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Off the top of my head, 3 murders that took place where I live in Upper Michigan were committed with legally owned hunting rifles. One shot his ex boss, another shot his wife while she was out walking her dogs and a former high school classmate of mine shot and killed the boyfriend of his former wife.

I'd have to do some research on this but I dare say the vast majority of homicides that have happened in Upper Michigan, which is a very rare event, in the past 20 years or so were committed with legally owned rifles.

Edit: Forgot to mention a triple homicide that took place in 2008 where a man, Scott Johnson, shot and killed three teenagers who were swimming with friends with his rifle.

OK, I did immediately jump to CCWers, and you are talking about legal gun owners. I will admit to that error, and apologize for it.

Rarely means rarely, not never, so please don't twist my words.

Criminology is a recognized field of study, and murder has been well studied. It is well established that a person who murders almost always (There are very rare exceptions) already has a criminal record, usually with multiple convictions. A New York study found that the average murderer had about 9 previous arrests for felonies. Such people are already banned from owning guns so it should be obvious to you that they were illegal gun owners. Since it is established that murder as a first offense is extremely rare then it also follows that legal gun owners very rarely commit murder.

...there's certainly crimes for which the suspect has not been captured or even identified. it would srrm to me that it's the homicides themselves that bear looking at, and not just hte convictions. You seem to be trying to charge legal gun owners with all the unsolved murders. That won't fly. Unsolved means unsolved.

The shooter being talked about set up a situation that boxed his lawyer in. He has to try the SYG law and it is unlikely to work. He sought out the confrontation and by his manner escalated the event. I don't remember where I read it in the last day or two but the attorney has admitted that he has a very difficult case on his hands. Texas precedent does not support his case.

Yet.

Therefore there can never be "overlap" between the groups "law-abiding gun owners" and "criminals". Certainly there can be gun owners who are criminals. But they're not law-abiding gun owners.

thank the gods.

The post in the link is terrible. if it is sarcasm, satire or absurdity. It failed. add to that the low count poster . . . and 2+2=4

I feel like Sally Fields over here.

how it reads at all....

I'll give it a rec too - but just for you, not the nonsense in the link...

I'm not giving a rec to the linked post.

I take issue with that. I understand this thread needs exposure . . . I think MIRT should take a really good look.

give proof of assertion. I also think a public apology is not asking too much. otherwise I think Admin need to be made aware of this.

only in the gungeon.

Owning a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility and it doesn't give you a right to misuse your weapon.

Does owning a car and having a license to drive on public streets enable you to violate the many laws that define traffic violations. Can you legally drive while you are inebriated? Can you be charged with manslaughter if you act irresponsibly while driving?

Is it possible that your question lacks Common Sense?

In the incident described in the article in the OP, Rodriguez confronted another person over loud music.

as the link demonstrates.

I should have mentioned that. Sorry.

Wait......what?