"Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People"

People use guns to kill, and people err.

Now that that's off the table, can somebody please explain to me what people mean when they throw around this nonsensical phrase? What does it mean in their mind?

:popcorn:

The point of the phrase is that a firearm is an inanimate object; it has no agency of its own, and the only way it can used to commit murder is if it is wielded by a person intent upon murder. The problem is that said individual would still be intent upon murder even if he were unable to acquire one legally (or indeed illegally), and that therefore gun control laws are of limited utility in reducing violent crime, because the agents of violent crime are the people who commit them, not the implements they use.

Does that help?

people who had NO intention of killing anyone.

Happens all the time.


Tikki

but that applies to a lot of things.

Not even the electric chair and that's never accidental.

What's that moral cud you're chewing on? Care to spit it out for the rest of us?

Cough it up or swallow it..

I just want you to actually say it instead of trying to insinuate it..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x292384

The intended use of handguns is to kill humans. That's what they are designed for. That's what they are sold for. That is what they are usually bought or stolen for. If you want to use it for something else, like a fashion statement, that's up to you. If you've convinced yourself you wear one for self defense, good luck with that. If you decide to use it for it's intended purpose, then you'll live with the consequences, or not, as the case may be. I'm not here to talk about good and bad, but to impart some common sense into fellow democrats.
I post enough threads here to make it clear where I stand and if you follow them you will see that I am not as rigid as most. I do not hate guns. I do not want to ban guns. I do not think all who carry handguns are irrational, paranoid freaks.
I think that the indiscriminate, routine carrying of concealed weapons by ordinary citizens is foolish, dishonest and unhealthy for society as a whole.

But you just can't make yourself say it.



I have used a handgun for the purpose for which I carry it. The display of the handgun was enough to deter a person with a knife approaching me offering me a choice between everything I have and my life.



Yes, I've read and participated in many threads with you. What I see is someone talking around their central concept without stating it up front.

Here, let me just leave this here.. you slunk away the last time we discussed this-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=392628#394509

I post enough threads here to make it clear where I stand and if you follow them you will see that I am not as rigid as most. I do not hate guns. I do not want to ban guns. I do not think all who carry handguns are irrational, paranoid freaks.

Most of whom -- the small handful of regular posters here who advocate firearms control? Are they sufficiently representative of some significant body of thought and segment of the population that they need mentioning/disowning?

I don't "hate guns"; I think hatred of objects is irrational and I don't know anyone who actually holds or expresses such hatred, except perhaps as hyperbole (and anyone who thinks it is anything other than hyperbole just isn't being honest with themself).

I don't "want to ban guns". I do want to prohibit private possession of handguns where I live. That isn't "want to ban guns" as I am pretty sure you meant it.

I don't think that "all who carry handguns are irrational, paranoid freaks" and I have certainly never said so.

I don't like straw people wherever they crop up.

I prefer to state my own views and leave others to state theirs, and argue them if they will, myself. I don't need to distinguish myself from them, any more than I need to argue their case for them if it is not one I adopt.


I think that the indiscriminate, routine carrying of concealed weapons by ordinary citizens is foolish, dishonest and unhealthy for society as a whole.

I don't disagree, in fact I have said words to the same effect, and I don't think most who advocate that it not be permitted would disagree.

I do advocate firearm control, but not by banning all guns. I think where and how guns are carried should be highly restricted. I think the types of firearms available to the general public should be highly restricted. I would support UK type legislation and have stated so many times.

But again, that's at least very close to a straw person.

Anyone who advocates "banning all guns" is a distant outlier, far beyond the fringe of the discussion. No one could possibly defend that position. So any such person can simply be ignored. (Or, in this place, outed for the troll they commonly are.)

Distinguishing one's self from such a person, assuming there is one, is just giving weight to the straw person argument so often employed in service of the gun militant agenda. They have to be hypervigilant, they have to exercise their right to tote guns around in public, they have to fight every firearms control proposal, because somebody is trying to ban all guns!

In the case of reproductive rights, that is certainly the position I take: fight the bastards on every front, give not one inch, because they will be wanting the whole bolt. They don't want "reasonable restrictions on abortion", they want to outlaw all abortions. And of course there are no "reasonable restrictions on abortion", so I'm not going to pretend there are in some effort to placate them and hope they won't go after more. They will.

This is not the case in the firearms control discussion. I don't want to "ban all guns", nor does anyone actually involved in the firearms control cause in the US: no one does but the most ignorant/thoughtless fringe element, if it really exists. The "ban all guns" brigade is a bogeyman employed by the right wing and its gun militant brigade to rile up the troops. I prefer not to lend that effort any legitimacy.

and broad brush labeling by toters of me, you and others as "antis". I dislike the negative connotation of the word "anti". I am pro restriction of handguns and automatic weapons. I am pro gun free zones in all urban areas and places of public gathering. But I do believe we have at least one total banner here and I doubt he is employed by the right wing. He just appears to live in the same black and white, all or nothing world, as most toters. I'm not sure that his position is so unusual, or fringe, as you say. Maybe on a par with the CC crowd.
Fact remains that the vast majority of folk are more aligned with our way of thinking and that includes Republicans. Toting in public is a teabagger/libertarian badge of honor and when Dems resort to the same kind of behavior, I see it as being fracturous to the party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=196970&mesg_id=197018

followed by

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245448&mesg_id=245844

et seq.


Another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=142566&mesg_id=142792

and post 32 thereafter.


Barrel o' monkeys ... or maybe it's shooting fish in a barrel ... ;)

I think that the indiscriminate, routine carrying of concealed weapons by ordinary citizens is foolish, dishonest and unhealthy for society as a whole.

Indiscriminate concealed carry would include violent criminals, delusional and hallucinatory mental patients and toddlers. I don't approve of their carrying concealed weapons, and thus I largely agree with your statement's literal meaning.

However, I think you meant something entirely different.

I am curious as to how a sane, law abiding adult carrying a concealed weapon in accordance with the law is dishonest. People conceal many things, even those who favor gun control. Why should a person who carries a gun reveal that fact to someone--except to repel that someone if they were to threaten the carrier or another person?

Should a retired special forces expert in martial arts who is easily able to kill 99% of the people he meets in a few seconds reveal that fact to everyone he is around, or even to anyone he hangs out with? Is it dishonest for him to keep it to himself?

I really don't get the dishonesty charge.

If you really wanted to repel someone, you either have to wear it OC or use it. The only person who's going to be surprised is the innocent bystander, when you reveal what you were hiding.

The only person who's going to be surprised is the innocent bystander, when you reveal what you were hiding.

It's hard for me to accept that you believe that.

If they carry, the odds are they're into guns just as much as anyone here and may well recognize your designer pouch from some ad and just say "Fuck it" and shoot you or you pull out your gun and shoot him and others around don't know whats going on. Who's the good guy? Who's the bad guy?" or maybe a fellow toter gets it all backwards and opens up and welcome to the Alamo.

If I'd had a gun when I was abducted, that would have meant I was living in a place where guns were readily accessible to just everybody.

So duh. If somebody is implementing a plan to abduct and assault women and perhaps kill women (as was plainly the plan in my case), is he not going to take along a gun of his own -- and pull it first, and then use it?

I'm still here because nobody in the situation had a gun, not because of my amazing luck at getting away alive without a gun. If I'd made my break from someone with a gun aimed at me, I wouldn't be here.

75 percent of our violent criminals criminals (other than murder) do not use guns. In IIRC, 2009 North Dakota had zero murders with a gun.

don't get abducted down here,for God's sake.

Ah, youth and the 60s.

I avoid the issue by avoiding the place, these days. ;)

Sure, it would be anecdotal evidence, but at least it would be evidence as opposed to unsupported "it-stands-to-reason" conjecture, which is all you seem to be capable of presenting.

that sets things in motion. The gun does nothing without the person - "didn't mean to do it" might lessen the criminal charge, but it sure doesn't shift one iota of responsibility to the gun.

By analogy, consider a headline like "Child Killed By Runaway Truck" - do you ever doubt that the real cause was some human who neglected the parking brake or mashed down on the accelerator? IOW, the truck didn't do it, the human did. Now it's true that there are genuine cases where a vehicle's mechanical faults cause it to run away without human agency, but anything analogous to that in the firearms world is rare to the point of nonexistence...

Guns kill because that is what they are made for. They are killing tools and your runaway truck analogies are beyond ridiculous. "Child chokes on cornflake" Cornflakes kill.

As petronius correctly points out above, it's still not the gun discharging itself; it's a human being causing it discharge (as you yourself word it "discharged by people"). The only difference is that one person is acting maliciously and the other negligently, but they're still the ultimate cause of the victim's death.

The incidents of children killed by accidental discharge of a firearm have been on a steady decline for nearly 15 years, even as the number of firearms in civilian hands has grown by over 100 million. Hunting accidents involving firearms have been on a very steep decline for a number of years. The National Safety Council data suggests that children are in far greater danger from electrocution and drowning.

The reasons for this decline are numerous and include hunter safety requirements, increase in the number of people acquiring firearms (see above), and the attendant instruction in their use; the shift from traditional wood & glass gun cabinets (our family had one) to locking safes and separate ammunition storage, and use of "hunter orange" clothing when in the field.

How many children killed by guns is an acceptable number to you?

for all causes or just guns?

the banning of private guns? How do you achieve this magic number?

And is protecting kids a valid reason to restrict (in a "reasonable" manner of course) any civil right? Is the death of a single child not worth the unrestricted exercise of any civil right?

More accountability might be a good start. And yes, protecting kids is a valid reason to restrict any civil right. I try to watch my language in front of children. It's called self control. Restrictions don't have to come via legislation. Common sense is usualyy a good starting point.

is there any limit to what you feel you can impose on me if it has the potential to harm a single child?

That's your choice and your responsibility. Again, I express my thoughts, not my feelings. I am not here to elicit an emotional response, but to share thoughts and ideas and hopefully contribute to a more sane and peace loving society.

Perhaps you have no problem with electricity and pools?

a person with murderous intent will more than likely use a gun because it is the most efficient, quick, pretty much guaranteed to do what it is supposed to do, and portable way to kill someone, without needlessly endangering the murderer - i.e.- he or she does not have to be within physical reach of the victim to attempt to kill them, as, say, a knife (not a throwing one) would be, and all you have to do is to cock the gun, aim, and fire. Put another way, a gun in the hands of a killer pretty much raises the odds that the killer will accomplish his goal with minimum personal risk.

Namely that if you're genuinely interested in reducing violent crime (including homicide) you're better off identifying the reasons why certain people (try to) commit homicide in the first place and addressing those; i.e. dealing with the why, not with the how. That way, you don't have to worry about "method substitution."

But gun control isn't really about reducing violent crime.

Unless somebody wants to say they think that firearms control advocates don't realize that guns are inanimate objects and don't do anything at all ... which of course would be very rude because it would amount to saying that firearms control advocates suffer from delusional mental illness.

The problem is that said individual would still be intent upon murder even if he were unable to acquire one legally (or indeed illegally) ...

Actually, the problem with this "logic" is that vast numbers of murders in the US are not committed by people "intent upon murder" at all. They are intent upon getting hold of someone's wallet or the contents of someone's cash register, or they are engaged in a pattern of abusive behaviour directed at their intimate partner, or they are shooting at each other in prosecution of a war involving drug-dealing territory and they hit a kid standing in the vicinity, etc. etc. etc.

Ah, the mythology of gun militancy, it's always a fun place to visit.

... and that therefore gun control laws are of limited utility in reducing violent crime, because the agents of violent crime are the people who commit them, not the implements they use.

Except for the fact that it's just not true that gun control laws are of limited utility in reducing violent crimes, well, this might be true.

One of the most interesting comparisons to make is robberies in Canada and the US. The rates look kind of similar. Until we realize that the rate of homicide-during-robbery in the US is considerably higher than in Canada, and those robberies don't show up in robbery statistics, they show up in homicide statistics. And the great big distinguishing feature between robberies in the two countries is the high incidence of handgun use in robberies in the US and the extremely low rate of handgun use in Canada.

So if you don't mind getting killed while you're being robbed, the US is the place to be! And you can go to your grave saying that gun control laws are of limited utility in reducing violent crime, and just ignoring the difference they can make in the kinds and levels of violent crime experienced.

How often were handguns used in crime before 1934 in Canada? Machine gun use, less regulated than handguns, if I read the firearms center website correctly, until 1977 criminal use was nonexistent.

"I am guessing you are basing this one one of the 'studies' funded by the Joyce Foundation echo chamber?"

You have this in a 'quote' box. What or whom are you quoting?

Whoever it is had better keep their day job.

I don't base anything I say on anything to do with the Joyce Foundation, and I don't have the least idea what you might be talking about.

One minute, I'm the damned Canadian.

The next minute I take marching orders from some outfit in the USofA.

Go bleeding figure.

misplaced my box. So I guess I was quoting myself. The Joyce Foundation is foundation that does some worthwile projects in the Chicago area. One of them, at least in the view of my side, not so worthwhile. They are major funders of the major gun control groups in the US. Including, ironicly, the only FFL holder in DC (assuming the Josh Sugarmann renewed it last year) Since the groups have no grassroots support, they would be screwed without the foundation's money. They also give grants to a group of economists and MDs to turn out questionalbe studies on gun control. More on that later. Many are cited in various posts. Hence, an echo chamber.

Correct, but it does have a purpose, which is to shoot people (talking handguns here). So, why would anyone have a handgun if not to shoot someone, should that desire arise.

self-defense being the number one reason.

But beyond that - guns are fun to shoot. I have owned various guns for 40 years and have never killed anyone. Are my guns defective or perhaps responsible gun ownership is possible?

Just remember one thing - criminals will always have all the guns they want. Just like they have all the illegal drugs they want. You want to disarm the potential victims - do you understand why some of us don't accept that?

and I'm sure I could come up with lots of valid reasons to shoot any number of people, but like you, I have also owned guns, found them fun to shoot and never killed anyone, nor even pointed one at another human. Of course responsible gun ownership is possible.
Some criminals, a small minority, will always have guns. Does that mean the rest of us should carry them around in public?
That's every individual's choice. Where did I say I wanted to disarm anyone? I just think it's idiotic to tote on a regular basis and if people are going to do it around me, then I would prefer to know about it, so I can avoid them. I prefer not to be around anyone who thinks they need to do that. Do you understand that many people feel the way I do?

when you show an actual public harm, then we can discuss your reasonable restrictions. I have the right to carry a gun - it is an enumerated civil right. You do not have the right to be protected from scary things or scary people - it is a made up right. Show a genuine harm or threat and perhaps I could understand.

I'm not denying your right. I think the practice of toting is foolish. It's just my opinion. I think CC should be illegal. That doesn't take away your right. Just makes you honest. It isn't scary to me, but I prefer to choose the company I keep and that is my right, enumerated or not.

you can see why, in the grand scheme of things, letting other people restrict your civil rights because your exercise of them makes them feel "uncomfortable" might not be a good thing for society? That's why the legal standard is simple - no public harm no restriction. You have yet to demonstrate any real public harm - your feelings don't count.

So you're in favor of open-carry, I take it then? Since that way you can know who is packing?

but better the devil you know... as the saying goes. I respect the honesty of OC. They aren't ashamed or afraid to display their guns in public. Rather the exhibitionist than the insecure deceiver.

When I OC people almost never notice it. I have heard the same thing from other OCers as well

Do really think people are going to laugh in your face or glare at you when you're carrying a gun? Trust me, they notice. I guess your lack of awareness is a testament to your behavior.

"I have heard the same thing from other OCers as well"
Talk about the blind leading the blind.

"When I OC people almost never notice it"

There's a reason firearms come in many different types--handguns, SMGs, shotguns, rifles, assault rifles, machine guns (light, medium and heavy)--and that's because they don't all serve the same purpose. If they did, there would be one basic design of firearm, and any new R&D would go into optimizing that design.

If your intent is to inflict human casualties, your best choice is a machine gun, capable of putting a lot of comparatively high-powered rounds on target in a short amount of time.
If your intent is to kill a single game animal swiftly and humanely, but don't want to destroy too much of the meat, a rifle is your best choice.
If your intent is to kill a single small game animal, you'd be better off using a shotgun.

Everything else involves a trade-off in some way. Assault rifles (by which I mean actual full-auto-capable assault rifles, not rifle-type so-called "assault weapons") trade away a large amount of range, firepower and lethality (compared to a machine gun) in exchange for portability. Sub-machine guns trade away range and lethality per round (compared to a rifle) in exchange for short-range firepower and portability. Handguns trade away damn near everything for portability and, to some extent, concealability.

It deserves note, moreover, that the applications of different types of firearms are not permanently fixed. The application to which a type of weapon is put depends greatly upon what other types of firearm are available. During the Second World War, SMGs were issued to one or two men in a line infantry squad to provide short-range firepower, but with the introduction of assault rifles, SMGs were increasingly relegated to use as personal defense weapons for support troops (signalers, truck drivers, supply clerks, cooks, etc.), whom there would be little point in issuing full-size infantry rifles.

During the American Civil War, units like Mosby's Raiders used handguns--cap-and-ball revolvers, to be precise--as offensive weapons because a brace of revolvers provided a far greater volume of fire than almost any long gun of the time, at least at short range and for short periods of time, which was all Mosby's Raiders needed, as well as being more manageable from horseback. But since then, with cartridge ammunition facilitating the development of repeating rifles and combat from horseback falling from use, handguns have, for military purposes, been relegated to use as last-ditch self-defense weapons, to the point that if any soldier needs to fire his handgun in combat, it's a clear indication that something has gone wrong. Similarly, when law enforcement perceives that a situation is likely to have to resolved through use of armed force, they don't (time permitting) rely on their handguns but break out the shotguns, "patrol rifles" or SMGs (depending on the agency; most European police forces keep SMGs in the trunks of patrol cars).


You seem to be implicitly assuming the veracity of the "virgin killer" thesis; that the bulk of homicides are committed on impulse, during a brief burst of rage, by people who would, absent a firearm, have remained generally law-abiding. Despite the pervasiveness of this notion, there is no evidence to support it; see Kates & Polsby, "The Myth of the 'Virgin Killer'" (2005) and Kates, "The Right to Arms" (2010; the latter article rehashes a fair amount of, and expands on, the former). Survey after survey of homicide perpetrators, in the U.S. and in other countries, indicates that typically, something in the order of 2/3 - 3/4 of murderers have prior criminal records, and a large number of the remainder have been previously suspected (albeit not convicted) of criminal offenses.

Individuals who are generally law abiding (by which I mean people who do not engage in mala in se like various forms of theft and assault, and are not involved in the illicit drug trade) do not carry firearms for the purpose of "shoot<ing> someone, should that desire arise." They carry firearms as a means of stopping a violent attack, such as an assault or robbery; this may be (and usually is) achieved merely by displaying and possibly presenting the firearm, but should that prove insufficient, then the option exists of employing actual lethal force. This is not to say any desire to shoot someone exists (as if anyone wants to undergo the ensuing hassles with the criminal justice system); what exists is a perceived need in the interest of self-preservation.

Always reminds me of the slogan from a local tire store: "If it's in stock, we've got it."

(Edited for health purposes -- didn't notice which forum this was B-) )

Jamaica, Costa Rica, Russia, Cuba? Want to see the whole list of countries that have higher murder rates than we do? Jamaica has a total ban on private ownership of guns. They have a lot of gun murders and murder by other means. Their murder rate is about 60 per 100K. Ours is 5. That is 12 times worse than ours and four times that of Mexico. Costa Rica's murder rate is 11.

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


Intentional homicide rates per 100,000 population
by region and subregion, 2004<6>
Rate
Southern Africa
37.3
Central America
29.3
South America
25.9
West and Central Africa
21.6
East Africa
20.8
Africa
20
Caribbean
18.1
Americas
16.2
East Europe
15.7
North Africa
7.6
World
7.6
North America
6.5
Central Asia and Transcaucasian countries
6.6
Europe
5.4
Near and Middle East/South-west Asia
4.4
Oceania
4
South Asia
3.4
Asia
3.2
South-east Europe
3.2
East and South-east Asia
2.8
West and Central Europe
1.5

Pretending that when people talk about "gun control laws" they are talking about laws that there is no way to enforce or no effort to enforce?

Try comparing yourself with some comparable country, hm? And that ain't Jamaica or Russia or Mexico. Or Brazil.

Try countries that have effective measures in place to reduce criminal access to firearms.

since the murder rates were the same before the laws were passed as after, can't do that. Guns are rarely used in murder or any other crime in Russia.

Murder rates were the same where before what laws were passed?

How do you know what the murder rate would have been without the laws, anyhow? When you have a rate as low as the UK's, it's pretty damned hard to get lower, for instance.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100325/dq100325b-eng.htm



http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292-eng.htm#a6

"One of the major changes in robbery over the past decade has been a decrease in the use of weapons. In 2009, robberies with a firearm accounted for 15% of all robberies compared to 20% in 1999. Robberies committed with other weapons such as knives have also declined, from 36% in 1999 to 30% in 2009."

So ... robbers decided guns were not good tools for committing robberies ...


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11292-eng.htm#a6

Chart 5
Attempted murder and homicide, police-reported rates, Canada, 1979 to 2009


Again: you get your homicide rate under 2/100,000 and let me know how quickly it declines then.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008002/article/10518-eng.htm

Chart 2
Firearm-related violent crime, 1998 to 2006


Chart 3
Firearm-related violent crime, 1998 to 2006


That one's pretty telling, I'd say.


And then there's the other thing I was saying:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/100720/dq100720a-eng.htm

not a may or may not corrorlate. Our drop in violent crime coincides with liberalized conceal carry laws in most states, but the two have nothing to do with each other.

by firearm in Canada -- to 1/4 the rate it was 30 years ago? (I mistakenly said 1/3 in another post.)



There was a whole set of firearms legislation and regulations introduced during that period that would operate in this situation.

- licensing requirement for long arms possession
- safe/secure storage requirements
- registration requirement
- requirement that spouse sign off on licence application, and ability of spouse to report misconduct / fear and seek revocation of licence / removal of firearms

The total spousal homicide rate didn't drop anything like as sharply -- and of course part of the decline was driven by the sharp drop in firearms homicides:



Can you think of some other factors that would have produced this spectacular decline in spousal homicides of women by firearm (and in particular by long arm, the weapon of the "non-criminal" in this country), and not an equivalent decline in spousal homicides by other methods? I actually can't, but I'd consider any theories.

one would be the murder rate peaking in 1974 and dropping since. Another maybe that misogynistic Canadian male is becoming an endangered species because of the wider acceptance of equality. Domestic about abuse is not always about misogyny. What are the child abuse statistics for the previous generation? Child abuse prevention programs in the previous generation? Does Medicare cover mental health?

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

One element in that law may have helped was this

requirement that spouse sign off on licence application, and ability of spouse to report misconduct / fear and seek revocation of licence / removal of firearms

but I fail to see how registration etc. had anything to do with domestic violence. Why does it have either or? How about CCGC, NFA, and the CSSA along with professionals who study this stuff and reform the laws? Keep the stuff that both agree on and would help prevent criminal access, and discard the rest. It is doable.

Some things I would recommend:
amend the young offenders to keep violent offences unsealed. If they are violent as minors, they won't magically change when they turn 18 or 19.
Temporary Removal of firearms and licenses in domestic violence cases, Amend the firearms Act to ban gun possession by those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

How about CCGC, NFA, and the CSSA along with professionals who study this stuff and reform the laws? Keep the stuff that both agree on and would help prevent criminal access, and discard the rest. It is doable.

I don't give a flying fig what the extreme right wing in its various outcroppings agrees to.

Surely anyone who has watched the battle over women's reproductive rights in the US, and the "deals" that have been struck in an effort to appease the right wing, should understand the reasons for that.

One does not bargain away other people's rights, and one does not bargain away the public interest.

Quite apart from whether a word that comes out of the right wing's mouth is ever true. They don't "agree" that the firearms registry has had a positive effect on spousal homicide, for instance? I don't agree to believe them.

"Professionals who study this stuff"? Google Anthony Doob. He's an actual criminologist. How about a psychiatrist?

http://advocacynet.org/wordpress-mu/emandelman/tag/gun-control/

Dr. Kane became interested in firearms legislation prior to the passage and implementation of Canada’s Firearms Act, when she experienced firsthand just how difficult it was to remove firearms from the hands of individuals either dangerous to themselves or to others.

During our interview, Dr. Kane stated that often times in the field of mental health, situations escalate swiftly, and quick actions are necessary in order to control the circumstances. Thus, in a 1993 article published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Kane made the argument that physicians should have more of a voice in whether or not their patients are stable enough to own firearms.

... Dr. Kane made this argument because she found that prior to the registry, when she contacted law enforcement officials with concerns about the safety of one of her patients (or that of their friends and family as a result of the patient), they were unsure of what actions to take and had no way of telling whether the person of concern owned any firearms.

Since the implementation of the registry, however, when a concerned physician contacts law enforcement, they can easily determine whether an unstable individual has a firearm registered to them, and can act quickly to take it away, if necessary. In Dr. Kane’s opinion, the registry has been very useful in aiding mental health professionals and the police in removing firearms from the hands of dangerous individuals.

Find an actual professional in a relevant field who opposes Canada's present firearms control policy (hint: Gary Mauser isn't one) and I'll fall over.

Besides, your premise is not shown to be correct: that anything needs to be done to Canada's present firearms control policy (i.e. something to reduce its reach / make it less stringent). A bunch of yahoos bleating on about how they don't like it doesn't amount to demonstrating that premise.

What persuasive argument has anyone ever made against firearms registration in Canada?


but I fail to see how registration etc. had anything to do with domestic violence.

I'm sorry, but after reading what I posted and understanding that violence against women was one of the reasons for registration, I fail to see how you could fail to see that.


Some things I would recommend:
amend the young offenders to keep violent offences unsealed. If they are violent as minors, they won't magically change when they turn 18 or 19.

You treat young offenders your way, we'll treat them ours, if it's all the same to you. Ours actually can be shown to have some efficacy.


Temporary Removal of firearms and licenses in domestic violence cases, Amend the firearms Act to ban gun possession by those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors.

There is no such thing as a "misdemeanour" in Canada. Minor assaults may be prosecuted as summary conviction offences.

It is almost automatic that someone convicted of a crime of violence (or drug-related offence) receives a firarms prohibition order as part of their sentence.

The Firearms Act does not "ban gun possession" by anyone (i.e. any adult). The only people prohibited from possessing firearms are people subject to firearms prohibition orders; obviously anyone else who wishes to possess firearms must have a permit. All permit applications are considered on their own merits.

We do things differently. We tend not to restrict the exercise of rights based on membership in any class (see, e.g., voting rights for inmates, same-sex marriage, etc.). Mandatory measures like that tend to be struck down by the courts (e.g. minimum sentences except in certain situation where the courts defer to the government in respect of public policy).

That's because our constitution says:

Legal Rights

Life, liberty and security of person

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

We have more than due process, and substantive equality, not just procedural.


I am sure there are a number of reasons
one would be the murder rate peaking in 1974 and dropping since.

And the question was: why have spousal firearms homicides of women dropped 4 times faster than the homicide rate?

No,

Another maybe that misogynistic Canadian male is becoming an endangered species because of the wider acceptance of equality.

... I really don't think that's it. Wider rejection of violence against women, more resources for women victims of abuse, maybe. Except that firearms homicides of women are common in rural areas and small towns where there are no such resources.

Why would we want to take your advice and gamble with women's lives? Is there some argument for doing that? I have never seen one.


Any idea what happened to our exchange about the "divine right of kings"? I'm not finding it.

Bottom up, grassroots. Governance is top down. Edmund Burke is alive and well and his spirit is in Canada I see. How do you define "extreme right wing?" How are NFA and CSSF extreme right wing? LUFA is obviously right wing.
Because the support the Tories at the moment? They do only because the Tories serve their purpose. If the Conservative party platform changes and the Greens were to be against the registry, they would be supporting the Greens. Just like the NRA supporting progressives like Howard Dean.

I'm not saying you should take my advice about anything. Just offering ideas based on my understanding of your system. I think money would be better spent providing resources for rural women. I did not say trash the law entirely, just trash the theater. Use the savings for provide those services. (Or, money saved after a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, something we should do too.)

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around why domestic abuse is that high in the rural areas there. I grew up in a small town in the west. Domestic abuse was not wide spread and misogyny nonexistent, at least openly. Not that it did not or does not exist, just not common. The only time we heard about was when the abuser was shot. That was at the hands of a classmate of mine, grade 7 IIRC, killed his step father to save his mom from being beaten (possibly to death) during one of his drunken rages. It was ruled justifiable homicide, but he spent a lot of time in therapy. Where I am from, the woman is usually beaten or stabbed. The abuser is shot or stabbed.

Of course, Wyoming is not Alberta by a long shot. Wyoming's culture is different than Utah for that matter. It the registry does indeed do what it is supposed to do, by all means.

Our problem with being behind the times on gay rights etc. has to do with the Christian Taliban that came over after getting kicked out of Europe. It counterbalances the Enlightenment views of the founders influence on the our culture. How religious fundamentalists (who tended to be socialists 100 years ago) went right wing and became associated with guns today escapes me.

It simply is not. I don't get to bargain away anybody else's rights, and nobody gets to bargain away mine.

Bottom up, grassroots. Governance is top down. Edmund Burke is alive and well and his spirit is in Canada I see.

And I see you're still living in the 18th century. And still accusing me of things you have not the slightest shred of evidence or reason for. This really is as offensive as offensive can be.

I said nothing, nothing, not a single thing, about "top down".

I have explained over and over and over again that Canada has a constitution that protects individual rights and freedoms to an extent seen in few other places. (Places that have modeled their rights instruments on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms are the best places to look for such similarities.)

None of that came "top down", except to the extent that the Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau, saw it as essential that the constitution be reformed, and persuaded most of the rest of the provinces of this, after years of public and parliamentary debate, etc.

What entitles you to insinuate this whole false claim of anti-democratic sentiment on the part of myself or my country into this all over again?

Are you familiar with the concept of "liberal democracy"? You live in one, so I would hope so.

In liberal democracies, the rights of individuals and of minorities are respected and protected.

They may not be bargained for or away.

On other matters, liberal democracies balance competing interests.


How are NFA and CSSF extreme right wing? LUFA is obviously right wing.
Because the support the Tories at the moment? They do only because the Tories serve their purpose.

LUFA is very obviously extreme right wing. I frankly neither know nor care much at all about the other two, any more than I do about any other tiny fringe group. And it is dancing in a circle to say that someone supports a right-wing party because it serves their purpose. The fact that the party serving their (self-defined) interests is a right-wing party and that no other party serves those interests just makes the whole thing a tautology. No right-wing party has ever served my purposes.

Anyway, I think you mean CSSA:
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/
And they're parrots of the US right wing:
http://www.cdnshootingsports.org/2011/07/on_the_right_to_self_defence.html
If that ain't a steaming pile of right-wing shit, I don't know what is. And what exactly does "the right to self-defence" have to do with shooting sports?


I have a hard time wrapping my mind around why domestic abuse is that high in the rural areas there.

Well, you haven't been trying hard enough.

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/inbriefs/domesticviolence/domesticviolence.html

Rural Women: Very little quantitative data exist on women in rural communities, but qualitative data suggest they too experience higher rates of domestic violence(Websdale, 1998)(Adler, 1996). Poverty, lack of public transportation systems, shortages of healthcare providers, minimal insurance or lack of health insurance and decreased access to resources are many barriers faced by women living in rural communities(Johnson, 2000).

www.rno.org/journal/index.php/online-journal/article/view/31/160

The third issue of violence against women living in rural areas is that firearms are often present in the home (Adler, 1996; Websdale, 1998). The rate of homicide is lower in rural communities, but the use of guns and knives in threatening exchanges toward women is higher. Physical isolation, social isolation, and the increase use of guns and knives in violence against women contribute to unique issues for women living in rural communities. Research is needed to determine the ways to identify and support women living in rural areas who are threatened by violence (Websdale, 1998; Ulbrich & Stockdale, 2002).

It is hardly surprising that when you were growing up you were not aware of spousal abuse going on around you, is it really? Even now, statistics are obviously lacking.

Let us not forget that I have pointed out before that firearms are used to intimidate and that women in rural areas and small communities are particularly vulnerable to intimidation, and intimidation stops women from escaping abusive situations.


Our problem with being behind the times on gay rights etc. has to do with the Christian Taliban that came over after getting kicked out of Europe. It counterbalances the Enlightenment views of the founders influence on the our culture. How religious fundamentalists (who tended to be socialists 100 years ago) went right wing and became associated with guns today escapes me.

Because "gun rights" has nothing to do with the Englightenment. The Enlightenment would be rolling over in its grave. It is all about the right wing agenda, period.



html fixed

I was not talking about the PM in a formal manner. In an earlier post (about a week ago) you said the role of the MP is to educate the constituents on the issues, rather than representing the interests of the people who live in the riding. To me, it does remind me of this Ed Burke quote




I was talking about policy about a specific issue that has nothing to do with taking away anyone's rights. How you went there escapes me.

I never said it did not exist, just not wide spread. When it was made public, the abuser was usually the gunshot victim. You make it sound like it is epidemic in every rural area. It may be in Canada. The links mentioned the challenges of being an abused spouse in rural areas, but did not tell me how bad or where. I will have to research the subject on my own for any detail. Some link repeating CCGC propaganda is just as full of shit as NRA or NFA.

CSSA, what does self defense have to do with shooting sports? Ask them, I did not come up with the name.

Shall I bring out the Thomas Paine quotes? Oh yeah the rich conservatives split for Canada after we and the French kicked the Crown out.

In an earlier post (about a week ago) you said the role of the MP is to educate the constituents on the issues, rather than representing the interests of the people who live in the riding. To me, it does remind me of this Ed Burke quote ...

I said what, now??


You make it sound like it is epidemic in every rural area. It may be in Canada.

Violence against women, in particular by intimate partners, is epidemic in every area, including in the US.

A lot of people like to make it sound like there is no firearms problem in rural areas. For many abused women, there is a firearms problem. Again, I don't limit myself to homicide stats when I say that. The stats for firearms homicides of women by partners in Canada just happen to be an interesting phenomenon.


CSSA, what does self defense have to do with shooting sports? Ask them, I did not come up with the name.

You asked me to "bargain" with them. I don't bargain public policy with right-wing scum. I attempt to elect governments that will protect the public interest against them.


Oh yeah the rich conservatives split for Canada after we and the French kicked the Crown out.

Yeah ... and they brought all their Yankee lingo with them. Better than the right-wing religious fanatics who moved north to colonize Alberta, anyhow!

I guess they were among the ones at this end of the Underground Railway, eventually, though. Must've been some good in 'em. Not sure whether "conservative" is what they were, or that it is always a dirty word. I don't use it that way, myself, unless it has a capital C.

As far as kicking the Crown out ... how's that working out? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Is there a George III in the pipeline? ;)


Some link repeating CCGC propaganda is just as full of shit as NRA or NFA.

You seem to be harkening back to the text I linked to that gave a timeline for recent firearms control measures in Canada. If you want to just come out and say the facts there were false, you really should just do it and then substantiate your allegation.

didn't demonstrate the essential truth of that claim??

:rofl:

Gore won the popular vote, and would have won the electoral college if the SCOTUS did not stop the recount. So, no. The powers that be installed Bush. You have this Harper guy on the other hand.......................

And you do know what percentage of the population voted for him?

What we have is the first-past-the-post electoral system.

Canada and the US are among the last holdouts in that regard.

What's actually the interesting point about that is that we have had a flourishing multi-party system even despite first-past-the-post, while down there it has successfully squelched the emergence of third parties.

Actually I suppose it's money has done that in recent decades, but first-past-the-post doesn't help.

I'm all for a degree of proportional representation.

And none of that transferable vote crap: if I wanted my second choice to win I'd have voted for them; that's what I get under the current system -- what I want is to have my first choice represented with some degree of fairness. Amazingly, this time around, first-past-the-post benefited us as compared to the Liberals, the huge losers:

party -- % pop vote -- seats
CPC ------- 39.6 ------ 167
NDP ------- 30.6 ------ 102
LIB -------- 18.9 ------- 34
BQ -------- 06.1 -------- 4
GR -------- 03.9 -------- 1

but you can still see the hugely disproportionate representation for the Conservatives: 54% of the seats with 40% of the vote. A substantial majority of Canadians voted against Harper's party.

a gun is an inanimate object. It has no free will and can not function without a sentient being operating it. That is where the people come in.
People sometimes use guns to kill. The person used the gun to kill. Just like another person used a knife to kill. Do knives and baseball bats kill? No. People kill with the knife, gun, baseball bat, car, whatever.

Sometimes people use a gun to save their life or health from a home invader, rapist, robber etc. The vast majority of those times, no shots are fired. Are you going to say the gun saved a person from harm? I doubt it. I would not, I would say that person prevented becoming a victim with a gun.

That simple. Now how is that nonsensical?

you speak of defense using a gun as a deterrent, whether or not the gun is fired.
The OP speaks of using a gun to kill people. The two are not the same. That simple.

without human direction. In fact, you said it yourself: "The OP speaks of using a gun to kill people." The gun kills no one (on its own), the user does...

Can someone just answer that question?

If not, then try again. What is the point of the bumper sticker?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/10/AR2011011006308.html
"but it was the gun and our insane gun laws that resulted in six deaths."
"Even recognizing that some of those deaths were suicides or accidents, the gun is what did it."
"Six people are dead and 14 wounded in Arizona not just because a man went crazy or political rhetoric has gotten too raw, but because they were shot. It's the gun that did it."

Also, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=441777&mesg_id=441777 & http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/norway-shooting-and-gun-laws_b_910909.html
"Actually, guns do kill people."

in the disingenuous "interpretation" of the phrases.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mashek/2007/04/18/guns-kill-people-period
"Guns kill people. Period."

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/brady-campaign-guess-what-guns-do-kill-people
"Guess What? -- Guns do Kill People"

a gun is an inanimate object. It has no free will and can not function without a sentient being operating it. That is where the people come in.

Now, you know something of me. I'm an advocate of heavy duty firearms control.

Do you think that I don't know that a gun is an inanimate object? Do you think I believe that a gun has free will?

If not, can you explain the point of saying that it is and it doesn't?

To make someone somewhere think that people who advocate firearms control are delusional?

Yes you do.


I'll start here.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x441428#441495
No, many do for their own reasons. Some genuinely think that it will make a difference than I do. I put you in that category. Some is regional/sub-cultural bigotry.

There are those who suspend critical thinking for ideological purity. These are the ones that reject objective science carried out by respected criminologists because his or her result is not to their liking. They repeat personal smears of said criminologist. The ironic thing is that said criminologist's is a liberal Democrat whose personal view on guns is counter to the NRA's. Not as extreme as yours, but no "gun militant."
On the other hand, these same people cling with religious zeal to half baked shill jobs that if it were any other subject would have raised all kinds of red flags. I am working on an entire rant on that subject.
most of these people are misguided and misinformed. There is a tiny minority on both sides (but the ones on mine seem to make the news more) I would call delusional.

A disingenuous post by a known ... gun enthusiast? Your post in it which does not appear to be related to my questions here?

There are those who suspend critical thinking for ideological purity.

There are indeed. They are the people who say things like this:

These are the ones that reject objective science carried out by respected criminologists because his or her result is not to their liking.

because they are either incapable of understanding or refuse to acknowledge the repeated demonstrations that said "objective science" is bullshit based on bias.

They repeat personal smears of said criminologist. The ironic thing is that said criminologist's is a liberal Democrat whose personal view on guns is counter to the NRA's. Not as extreme as yours, but no "gun militant."

The truly funny thing is that it seems anybody and their dog can call themself a "liberal Democrat" and get a whole lot of people to believe that it's true. Try this one on for size:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=115229&mesg_id=116831

I don't give a toss what label somebody applies to themself. People who produce junk "science" like the person and the garbage we're talking about is what they is.


I still have no idea why anybody thinks "guns don't kill people" is a meaningful statement.

Can you provide evidence that Kleck is "junk science", other than the fact you don't like his results? The only counter to his work I found was one done by an economist named David Hemenway. With his Joyce Foundation grant, Hemenway went to work to counter Kleck's study. Like Wolfgang, Hemenway could not find any flaws in his methods, so he used red herrings to inflate the number of false positives and ignored all false negatives. In order to do this, Hemenway used up a lot of space speculating on why there were so many false positives. He provided not evidence for any of it, but it seems to accepted as gospel by some around here. The smear I speak of, is below. It has been repeated here in DU, when pressed no evidence is given. Because the originator did not provide evidence.

Kleck put's it best in his rebuttal


Hemenway was projecting and making shit up. Like I said, Kleck's personal view is not that much different than some of his detractors.



This one is one of my favorites, but an example the lengths Hemenway went to stuff the data to fit the predetermined result.

the whole thing can be found here:
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern)
87 (1997): 1446.

A side note on Mr. Hemenway, The time period this study came out, his closest and most frequent collaborator on gun-related research is Douglas Weil, who was research director of CPHV, Hememeway also co-edited pro-control propaganda with Dennis A. Henigan, legal counsel to HCI and CPHV at that time. HCI has since changed it's name to Brady and Henigan is still there.
The amusing thing about studies like Hemenway's, and other JF funded projects, they tend to get results they don't like but hand wave like hell.
Junk Science, my ass.

Can you provide evidence that Kleck is "junk science", other than the fact you don't like his results?

It's the whole thing called "civil discourse". One does NOT initiate a discussion, in civil discourse, by making a false assertion about one's interlocutor.

I don't "like" or "dislike" his results. So "the fact that" I don't like his results isn't a fact. So it can hardly be evidence (even were it a fact) that Kleck's survey/analysis is junk science.


You quote:

We assume that most RS who respond affirmatively to UFO questions are having a little fun with the interviewers, though a few undoubtedly are serious. On the other hand, we find it harder to believe that RS would regard questions about crime victimization and DGUs in so frivolous a light.

and I guffaw.

Anybody with the ability to read can see that for what it is. No one said that any respondents regarded the questions in a "frivolous light". What was said was that some had motives for responding inaccurately, inflating, etc. "Let's pretend" -- "let's pretend that someone said that the motives of / reasons for false-positive UFO responses and false-positive DGU respondents are the same" -- is not a rebuttal.

I think we can call that just plain junk. Junk science, junk logic, junk rhetoric, junk discourse.

In addition, this analogy ignores the fact that all it took to be counted as a UFO spotter was the one-syllable response "Yes," while it took as many as 19 logically consistent responses providing details about the incident to be counted as a defensive gun user.

I'd like to see the details. I'm sure one of those questions was the one about whether the respondent believed that a life was saved by their "DGU". Given the nonsense result of that one, I'd think that the questions may rather have reinforced the respondent's investment in their answer. And if we don't think that a lot of firearms owners have a lot invested in that status and what they regard as their "rights" in that respect ... well, we ain't reading the Guns forum at DU.

I like this critique of the critique:

http://stason.org/TULARC/society/pro-guns/1-1-b-2-5-million-defensive-uses-of-firearms-each-year-can.html

Further, the NCVS never asks directly whether the respondents used a gun to protect themselves, and only asks its general question about self-protection after respondents have already reported the location of their victimization incident, which in most cases is reported as being away from the victim's home.

Heavens to Betsy! Imagine asking respondents first whether they have been victimized before asking them whether they used a firearm defensively in the situation! That couldn't possibly seem wise, could it? ROFL.

Oh look, I'm not the first Canadian to raise this question. This is from a research paper prepared by the Library of Parliament (no copyright issue):

The two other types of surveys may give different answers because they are measuring different phenomena. The NCVS measures victimization by asking about crimes that have occurred or crimes in progress that were not completed. The other surveys may also record that a gun was used to avoid a crime, by, for example, scaring off a suspicious character before a crime occurs.

Finding enough respondents who used a gun defensively for sampling analysis is a problem. McDowall, Loftin and Presser selected a national sample from commercial lists of likely gun owners. Over four fifths of the eventual respondents had a gun at home. The Survey Research Center at the University of Maryland conducted the interviews by telephone. Confidentiality was promised for all answers. Out of 3,714 households, 3,006 completed the interview. Within the household, the interviewer asked randomly to speak to the male head of the household three out of four times, and the female one in four times.

The approach was to ask each interviewee the same questions from both the NCVS and the other surveys. For statistical control, the order of the questions was randomized so that half answered the amended NCVS questions first and then the other survey type questions. The other half of the respondents were interviewed with the other survey questions first. The NCVS questions are called CRIME, and the other survey GUN.

CRIME
NCVS screening questionnaire
e.g., “Was something belonging to you stolen in the past
twelve months?”

If a positive response is given, the NCVS incident
questionnaire is filled in, including the direct question of
whether a gun was used in the incident for self-defence.

This question above would be repeated with different crimes substituted for stealing. The other surveys, e.g., Kleck and Gertz or Cook and Ludwig, used the following question layout:

GUN
The basic question was:
“Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used
a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or
someone else, or for the protection of property at
home, work, or elsewhere?”

If a positive response is given, additional questions were
asked similar to those in the other surveys.

If the NCVS and the other surveys are measuring the same phenomena, then the responses to the CRIME and the GUN questions should be the same.

... The CRIME questions showed that only 1% of respondents were involved in a criminal incident in which they used a gun in self-defence. The ratio of civilian-to-civilian gun uses vs. law enforcement and security work gun uses of 24 to 5, nearly five times, should be interpreted with some caution because the survey codes only the most recent use of a gun.

The more open ended GUN questions contain some responses in which having a gun would apparently be reassuring to the respondent but would not count as a substantial example of self protection. Some respondents counted target shooting as practising for self-defence. In some cases, there was a suspicious noise, the interviewee picked up a gun to investigate, but found nothing. Leaving aside these cases to concentrate on incidents in which an offender was clearly seen, there were twice as many firearm uses reported for the GUN questions compared to the CRIME questions.

... McDowall, Loftin and Presser argue that there is a basic ambiguity about the incidents covered by the GUN type questions of the other non-NCVS surveys. The surveys have to rely on the respondents’ assessing the potential for a crime to be committed and consequent danger to the respondents. The person who was assessed to be a robber might have just been a panhandler. The implication, according to McDowall, Loftin and Presser, of the higher response to the GUN questions relative to the CRIME questions is that the other surveys overestimate the extent of armed defence against crime. They criticize Kleck and Gertz for comparing their own estimate of defensive gun use to the NCVS victimization figures to find that protective gun uses are about three to five times as common as criminal uses, because the two figures are measuring different phenomena.

McDowall, Loftin and Presser conclude that the wording of the question does matter a great deal, but unfortunately their survey design does not allow a closer analysis of how wording changes affect the results. They were not able to test for direct falsification, which would involve manipulating question order and content and finding some method of separating out any differential carryover effect.

And that's just one very specific problem with Kleck's methodology and results.

Can one find a copy of the actual survey questionnaire and interviewers' script someplace, btw? I haven't actually bothered to collect a bibliography on this.



edit: I omitted the link for Lib of Parlt research paper:
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/2006/820.doc

Hahaha. Courtesy of Garry Breitkreutz MP. Hadn't noticed that when I looked at the "quick view". ;)

At no time did I say that the Kleck survey was definitive. Apparently there have been at least 17 surveys with numbers ranging from couple hundred thousand to a couple of million. My favorite is one done by Phillip Cook, funded by the Joyce Foundation, used Kleck's methods and got within Kleck's margin of error. To keep the grant, he spent ten pages hand waving how the result could not have happened. Of course, the conclusion did not match the body. Earlier you and a few others said Kleck was dishonest. I pointed to most common source used to support the claim.

The UFO question, It was no less absurd than Hemenway using it to explain false positives. So yeah, it was a proper rebuttal. The NCVS also used a smaller sample size than Kleck. If any of these studies were done today, the number would be lower because the crime rate is lower.

Legitimate scientists test and counter each other's results all of the time. That is how the truth is found. My problem is with shills like Hemenway. I doubt the actual number will be known. It really does not matter that much. All of them have defensive uses out numbering offensive uses.

I am curious if any such studies have been done in Canada. A LUFA propagandist wrote 80K a year with no citation. I seriously doubt that number. In the US, that would be conservative estimate. Canada, given the population, crime rate, and storage laws, there is no way.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Bullets kill people, not guns. A gun is just a vehicle for throwing a piece of lead at someone. An empty gun is about as useful to kill people as a brick.......

Try pushing a bullet into someone with your fingers; I doubt you'll kill them.

And people have been killed by blank rounds, which have no bullet.

Nobody's ever been killed solely by the propellant in a blank round. The problem is that some blanks use a wad to keep the propellant in, which is then ejected with sufficient force to inflict trauma. In the (in)famous case of Brandon Lee, the blank expelled a bullet which had been lodged in the barrel after being fired from an improperly prepared dummy round (the crew had removed the propellant from the cartridges, but not the primers, creating "squib loads").

At the same time, a cartridge that "cooks off" in a fire cannot, in the absence of a firearm's breech, chamber and barrel, generally focus the expanding force of the propellant sufficiently to impart lethal velocity to the bullet. Available evidence strongly suggests that the bullets will fail to penetrate protective clothing like firefighters' coats.

In short, you need a full round of ammunition (the propellant won't combust without a primer) discharged in a firearm.

The thigh bone connected to the

Knee bone; the knee bone connected to the

Shin bone, the shin bone connected to the...

Lack of oxygen to the brain brought on by Cardiac Arrest kills 100% of the people on this planet.

So said one of my EMT instructors many moons ago

my safe, though they are subject to animation due to WHOEVER TAKES HOLD OF ONE. Otherwise, they are steel, wood, and synthetics.

As far as the expression outside of quotes...

People use guns to kill, and people err.

I don't normally use that expression, and don't hear it often, though people do use guns to kill. The problem is with "...and people err." Many do not err, but in fact kill intentionally; hence, people kill, and are arrested, tried and convicted (or not) of such human actions. The firearm is not "tried and convicted," though it may be destroyed by LEOs after the case is closed. Those who kill in error must be responsible in some fashion, though such responsibility may not be criminal.

There are some miss-guided folks who believe that weapons DO INDEED KILL, and have sought to enact various prohibitionist schemes to somehow eliminate weapons. You will note that there are restrictions on the possession of knives and other instruments in some countries. This is merely the extension of object-prohibitionism.

Hope this helps.

If prohibition has a chance of working, it has to both close off choke points of production/importation, and it must enlist overwhelming and unquestioned support from the public.

Attempts at stopping the importation of nuclear weapons enjoys the latter and to some extent benefits from the former.
Attempts at drug prohibition enjoy neither.
A theoretical prohibition of autos potentially enjoys the former, but not the latter.

I can't say this is iron law, but it's a good way to see the limitation of prohibition. One form of prohibition that lurks on the horizon is smoking tobacco. The prohibition groups enjoy fairly wide-spread public support, and the potential for choking off production in this country. The the borders are porous, and cigarette smuggling is now becoming big, due to the tax rates on legal cigarettes alone.

Alcohol, cigarettes, narcotics, firearms: which one doesn't belong?

A theoretical prohibition of autos potentially enjoys the former, but not the latter.

Nonetheless, it could still work. The fact that it doesn't enjoy widespread public opinion is one reason why it would not be tried, there being of course many more operative reasons.

And then, of corse, there is the question of who is trying to prohibit possession of firearms.

Just to digress: we all, every one of us, knows that "prohibition of firearms" makes no sense.

There is no such thing as "object prohibitionism". It's just a cute little turn of phrase used in service of the gun militant agenda. Like "pro-rights" and all the rest.

Laws prohibit conduct. Not objects.

So indeed, there are some laws, and some proposals for laws, that prohibit possession of certain firearms, and that prohibit certain people from possessing firearms, and that prohibit the possession of firearms in certain circumstances, etc. etc. etc.

Prohibitions on certain conducts can be ineffective if they are not accompanied by measures to prevent the conduct.

Enforcement of laws is one such measure: speed limits will have greatly reduced effect if no one is ever charged with speeding and no one ever loses points or is fined or otherwise punished. The level of certainty of punishment, and not the severity of the potential punishment, is recognized by people who know about such things as being the best deterrent in most situations. People amenable to deterrence, people to whom those consequences are meaningful and who generally tend to obey laws, will be deterred from speeding.

Interference in the ability to break the law is another such measure: speed limits will have no effect on some drivers and instead their ability to speed must be impaired. Speed bumps, street and intersection narrowings, stop signs, neighbourhood landscaping and other variations in street design have this effect: they are effective at reducing speeding.

But somehow, I guess, conduct that involves firearms is, er, exceptional, and prohibitions on certain such conducts that are accompanied by measures to prevent the conduct -- deterrent measures aimed at people actually amenable to deterrence, and interference in the ability to break the law -- will be ineffective. In a pig's ear, of course.

Please explain how they are analogous to firearms.

Thank you.

You will note that I never mentioned "addiction;" nuclear weapons hardly constitute addiction. But since you brought up the term, I was hoping you would define it.

So if you want to dance yourself dizzy rather than defend your own assertions, you have a party.

In case you've confused yourself: you are the one who said that nuclear weapons as an "object of prohibition" work because of widespread public support for the idea.

You are the one who proposed that alcohol, drugs, tobacco and firearms -- NOT nuclear weapons -- are analogous.

You are the one who needs to demonstrate that your analogy is a good one.

Pretending to ignore that huge big elephant-sized DIFFERENCE between firearms and the others -- that firearms are not a substance on which people are prone to becoming physically and psychologically dependent, that no one needs to constantly replenish their supply of firearms because of that dependence -- isn't the way to do it.

The subject was object-prohibition and its failings, which centered on overwhelming & widespread public support, and choke points of production and distribution. My contention was that all forms of object-prohibition suffer from these failings. Guns, cars, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc. You brought up something about gun "addiction" without defining your terms, but in any case your comments seemed tangential at best to the subject at-hand.

and this is one of the great big reasons why your attempt to portray alcohol, drugs, tobacco and firearms as ANALOGOUS as "objects of prohibition" (and as why such prohibition is doomed to failure) rates a big fat zero.

You do not expect the world to accept your analogy when you have disregarded fundamental differences between the items you claim are analogous, in particular where those differences are fundamental to the argument you are using the analogy for.


My contention was that all forms of object-prohibition suffer from these failings. Guns, cars, tobacco, booze, drugs, etc.

My contention, apart from the fact that "object-prohibition" is a stupid and, er, inaccurate meme, is that the objects you are alleging are analogous ARE NOT analogous, and you therefore have NO BASIS for alleging that public policies affecting the object "guns" would achieve the same success or otherwise as public policies affecting the objects "alcohol, drugs, tobacco".

You could have included "nuclear weapons" in your list, but you DISTINGUISHED them and claimed that the public policy in question was successful in large measure BECAUSE OF that distinction.

I have DISTINGUISHED guns from alcohol, drugs and tobacco and I have claimed that there is no reason to claim that a public policy seeking to restrict access to guns would be unsuccessful because public policies seeking to restrict access to alcohol, drugs and tobacco have been.

You get to do it, but I don't?

A huge reason why such public policies in respect of alcohol, drugs and tobacco are difficult to implement (without potentially even more serious unintended adverse effects) is that people are ADDICTED to those substances, and will go to enormous lengths to obtain them.

Either you demonstrate that this factor is irrelevant in the failure of policies in respect of those substances or you demonstrate why the absence of that factor is irrelevant in predicting the failure of policies in respect of firearms.

You don't just say "it didn't work for a bunch of apples so it won't work for potatoes too".

I mean, you do, if you don't care whether your argument is coherent and are just trying to persuade people who for whatever reason don't see it for what it is.

There are some miss-guided folks who believe that weapons DO INDEED KILL, and have sought to enact various prohibitionist schemes to somehow eliminate weapons.

Your evidence that anyone who has ever (and forgive me for not using your loaded and misrepresentational language) proposed firearms control measures "believe(s) that weapons DO INDEED KILL"?

Hand it over, please.

And perhaps you would then explain why you even bother to mention the "beliefs" of people suffering from delusional mental illnesses. That being the only kind of person who believes that objects DO anything.

You will note that there are restrictions on the possession of knives and other instruments in some countries. This is merely the extension of object-prohibitionism.

Actually, it's an expression of conduct prohibitionism. Pretty much like any other criminal law is. There are prohibitions on committing theft, and prohibitions on carrying weapons. Both are acts. Both therefore fall within the subject matter addressed by criminal law: human conduct.

If objects were the subjects of law -- i.e. if laws were based on the belief that objects do things and are blameable for the things done -- objects would be charged, prosecuted, tried and punished. We did in fact do that in the past; I assume you know enough legal history to know that. We actually don't do it anymore, you may have noticed.

Good flick:
http://www.reelviews.net/movies/a/advocate.html
"In the Middle Ages in France, the laws of the time applied not only to humans, but to some very unlikely subjects. Since it was the common belief that everything was created by God, all things - including animals, inanimate objects, and natural phenomena - could be held accountable for crimes. It is in this setting that The Advocate spins its web of satire and drama. "

See, e.g.,

Berman, Paul Schiff, Rats, Pigs, and Statues on Trial: The Creation of Cultural Narratives in the Prosecution of Animals and Inanimate Objects (1994). New York University Law Review, Vol. 69, p. 288, 1994. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1430586

(paid access only)

Sounds impossible to some I know but it's true.

my best buddies twin 10yo girls, my 9yo and 6yo we had a great time at the range....not one injury.


Guns may be some of the best family time that can be had for chump change after the initial layout for the firearm.

or any other living creature for that matter.

I seriously doubt anyone will deny the fact that a gun is a weapon.

From Wikipedia:

"A weapon, arm, or armament is a tool or instrument used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings or artificial structures or systems...

weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary.”

Lions and tigers and bears and people kill people. Tools and instruments, ANY tools and instruments do not.

Semper Fi,

That's what it means to me.

Outlawing (blaming) guns diverts attention from the real problem, be it murder or irresponsible negligence.

Prosecute murderers. Demand that people act responsibly. Make progress on those two things and you improve this entire world in a whole host of ways.

Outlawing (blaming) guns diverts attention from the real problem, be it murder or irresponsible negligence.

If someone/something is BLAMED for, say, a murder, surely they/it must be charged, prosecuted and tried, and, if the evidence meets the standard, convicted and punished.

I may be insufficiently familiar with the totality of legislative proposals in the US; I seem to have missed these proposals.

Who is blaming guns for something, and what punishments are they proposing?


Prosecute murderers. Demand that people act responsibly.

Now that's interesting.

"Demand" that people act responsibly.

But don't BLAME them -- actually HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE -- when they don't??


Make progress on those two things and you improve this entire world in a whole host of ways.

Can you tell us what progress you are aware of being made when demands were made that people do something?

What if they just don't want to?

:rofl:
In your world, somebody blames guns for something, but you apparently don't want to actually blame people and hold them accountable for harms they cause.

Interesting.

You asked "... can somebody please explain to me what people mean when they throw around this nonsensical phrase? What does it mean in their mind?" regarding 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.'

I said that to me that phrase means (is equal to) 'Don't blame guns. Blame people.' And I agree with it.

I think attempts to control guns, when it is PEOPLE who are committing murder, and PEOPLE who are being irresponsible, are misguided and wasteful.

Instead, we should focus on the people. The blame, the wrong doing, the fault, lies in people. Prosecute them when they murder. Penalize them for irresponsibility.

Don't really know how that could have been misunderstood, or made clearer.

You allege that someone blames guns for something.

This makes no sense unless whoever is blaming guns is proposing that guns be punished for their misdeeds.

See?

I said that to me that phrase means (is equal to) 'Don't blame guns. Blame people.' And I agree with it.

Hell, so do I. It would be pointless to say to anyone, though, because if I were talking to someone who was blaming guns for something, I WOULD BE TALKING TO A PERSON SUFFERING FROM PSYCHOSIS.

I think attempts to control guns, when it is PEOPLE who are committing murder, and PEOPLE who are being irresponsible, are misguided and wasteful.

Now, let's phrase it accurately.

Attempts to control PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO GUNS, when it is people who are committing murder, and people who are being irresponsible, are wise and useful.

Because NOBODY IS TRYING TO CONTROL GUNS.

For the simple reason that GUNS DON'T DO ANYTHING.

You can play the equivocation game over the catchphrase "gun control" if you want, but you KNOW the truth, which is that "gun control" controls PEOPLE'S ACCESS TO GUNS.


Instead, we should focus on the people. The blame, the wrong doing, the fault, lies in people. Prosecute them when they murder. Penalize them for irresponsibility.

But do not do one single damned thing to interfere in their ability to commit murders or be "irresponsible".

That's all I hear. Weep over the dead, throw the killers in jail, back to regularly scheduled programming.

Blame is a Puritan game. The modern world tries to solve problems, it doesn't just sit around pointing fingers.


Don't really know how that could have been misunderstood, or made clearer.

It was quite clear. I responded to it quite clearly. You just chose to pretend otherwise.



typo fixed

So we agree that laws regarding murder, manslaughter etc, should be enforced. Where we differ is on the issue of controlling access to guns.

How far should gun control should extend? Should any firearms be allowed to exist? Which ones? In whose hands? If there should be far fewer guns out there, how are we to reduce their numbers, including those in criminal hands?

Are we to to apply those same standards to other dangers life?

I am going to repeat everything I have said in this forum in the last decade.

Got google? You'll find my name is unique. Have at it.

"What does it mean in their mind?" do you really think that people who think like that have fully functioning brains?
Stupid is as stupid does.

Depending on what kind of bomb you're talking about, they're generally inert unless fitted with a fuse or detonator to set off the main charge, and it takes a human to do that and deliver it to the target area (whether it's by dropping it from an aircraft, planting it in a building, or driving and parking it, or just driving it into, the desired location).

The difference is that it's... tricky to use an indiscriminate area-effect weapon like a bomb for self-defense.

Defensive weapons are designed to defend not kill. The purpose is to protect the defender by shielding or by incapacitating the attacker by inflicting minimal damage. Otherwise the weapon is basically offensive. Of course, offensive weapons may be used defensively, by using rubber bullets, for example, or buckshot, or maybe just displaying the weapon, but the norm seems to be aim for the center mass with as much firepower as possible, followed by one or two shots to the head. To call that defensive is more than dishonest.

Not one rooted in law, or common sense, but hey, you stick with it if it works for you.

All weapons can be used in an offensive or defensive manner. Tasering someone who has a heart condition, or is in a precarious position can lead to death. Shooting the throat or face of someone with rubber bullets can lead to death. Macing someone who is perched on a ledge can lead to them falling to their death.



Semantic masturbation. It is the use to which people employ an item that determines its role. A kitchen knife at dinner is neither an offensive or defensive weapon. A kitchen knife wielded by a madman is an offensive weapon. (Ask the parents of the students in China.) A kitchen knife wielded by a person in response to a violent home invasion is a defensive weapon.

Some weapons aren't particularly suited to a defensive role, at least not in self-defense (a singular person). A bomb may be part of a defensive perimeter in combat, but its indiscriminate / area effect nature doesn't lend itself well to self-defense.

Using a handgun to stop an attack is a defensive use. The goal is to stop the attack. A consequence of stopping a threat may be death of the attacker. That's true of all weapons, regardless of some nebulous 'intent' of a designer, far removed from the uses to which people put them.

I really wish you'd spit out whatever moral stand you're trying to make. If you're trying to tar people who carry firearms for self-defense as wannabe killers, then speak up. Your vague moral flailing is getting tiresome.

You can try to put words in my mouth, but it isn't going to happen. I'm talking about common sense, rational behavior versus irrational, as I see it. I'm talking about the betterment of society versus the detriment, not morality.
You make such generalizations like "Using a handgun to stop an attack is a defensive use. The goal is to stop the attack."
It may be appropriate to use a gun to stop an attack as a last resort. Do you get attacked so often that you feel justified in toting everywhere? Have you ever been attacked and had to use your gun? Or are you just a very defensive person by nature?

No, you won't come right out and say it, you'd rather imply it and leave the dot connecting to the readers. Transparent.

Yes, I've used my handgun in a defensive manner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=436499#436557

Each of us makes his/her decisions based on their personal experience. I respect your decision to take whatever precautions you deem necessary for your safety. I have been threatened a few times in my life. One guy tried to run me over after I gave him a ticket for expired registration, another crazy guy with a machete and a few who were obviously bigger and stronger. Fortunately, I was able to extricate myself from these situations without getting physical and no harm was done. I have no idea how things may have turned out had I used a firearm. You, apparently decided to carry after being attacked and having made that decision, you took on a huge responsibility. There are definitely dangerous areas, especially in your line of work. I wish you well.

With..



Choice is fine, as long as nobody exercises it? And it's 'unhealthy for society' when people do so choose?

:shrug:

I respect your decision to carry, but I disagree with carrying concealed.

Either you.. "respect your decision to take whatever precautions you deem necessary for your safety" or "think that the indiscriminate, routine carrying of concealed weapons by ordinary citizens is foolish, dishonest and unhealthy for society as a whole."

The 'precaution I deem necessary' is carrying a concealed firearm.

You're being subjected to something of a "good cop, bad cop" routine.


Your current interlocutor claims to prefer that you open carry.

Another claims that open carriers do so to intimidate.


Frankly, I think both of them have the same goal- What best way to discourage the carrying of firearms for self defense?

I note both avoid empirical evidence concerning crime statistics, and talk about 'needs' and 'feelings'.

I respect your decision to arm yourself but not the manner in which you do it. I hope that's clear.

how incoherent your feelings are?

Concealed carry is wrong because its "sneaky".

Open carry is honest, but wrong because it's inflammatory. Anyone who open carries is a "potential killer" because of deeply hidden malicious intent.

Funny how you can always find some hidden agenda driving the presence of a gun.

Your distortions and misquotes are becoming tiresome.
"Concealed carry is wrong" where did I say that. I said it is foolish and unhealthy for society.
Funny how you cannot have a discussion without distorting what others say.

As regards hidden agendas for toters, I suggest they consult their therapists if they are unsure of their motives. I don't ascribe any hidden agenda. Do you?

"foolish and unhealthy for society" is right? You think concealed carry is dishonest. Dishonesty is wrong. And then when people are honest about it and open carry you accuse them of malicious intent hidden deep in their psyche and the inflammatory display of a weapon.

You have yet to produce so much as a cogent argument much less any evidence, and yet you are quick to show your displeasure at every opportunity. The danger of course is that you associate your personal dislike with moral rectitude.

You don't have to prove your feelings, but you have to support your assertions. You have asserted that gun owners harbor malicious and mendacious motivations. Prove your assertion.

What right do you have to claim anyone would like to lie to you or hurt you? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

What right do you have to demand others not carry a firearm?

If you can't answer those questions we are just talking about your feelings which are moot unless you can use them to inspire others to share them. Insulting people isn't the best way to go about it.

I think that is rather obvious. Dishonesty is dishonesty. You consider it wrong. Apparently your average toter does not consider it wrong, so you maybe want to discuss that with them. I don't recall accusing anyone, CC or OC of malicious intent or anything hidden deep within their psyche. That's either your imagination or misreading/interpreting again.
The rest of your diatribe is again about my supposed feelings. I have no idea where you get these impressions, but certainly not from anything I have said. Not of your questions refer to anything I've said.
What part of my stating that I think it is foolish and unhealthy for society do you see as a demand on my part that people don't carry? You are just talking about feelings, not me. I don't discuss my feelings with people I don't know. I'm here to discuss thoughts and ideas, not feelings. Let me know when you get that and we can have a rational conversation.
Meanwhile, I suggest you find a dog to throw the bones for.

someone who wishes to carry a gun has any obligation to inform you of that fact?

there can be no lie of omission. Concealed carry is not dishonest.

You have already expressed doubt that someone with a gun could kill to save their own life. If you saw someone across a restaurant with an open carry firearm, how could that person be a potential killer and a threat to you?

I wouldn't bat an eyelid.

I thought it was inflammatory and bad for society?

Doesn't mean I get all bent out of shape about them. I remember you posting that you saw a guy with a gun on his hip, i think in a restaurant. You, obviously thought it worthy of posting. I see open toting occasionally, especially in rural parts of the country. Big deal, they're cowboys. It's a way of life. I'd find it a little odd in a Starbucks in NYC or LA, but would assume the guy is plainclothes LE with his jacket off on a warm day, or maybe a suicidal nutjob. It's all about context.
That said, as I've stated before, it's CC that I think is dishonest and in my experience, dishonest does as dishonest is. And the condescension of those who say "I carry concealed so as not to offend others" is the height of hypocrisy IMO. It isn't the GUN that offends me, it is the dishonesty.

that someone who carries concealed has no obligation to disclose that fact. How can there be a lie of omission without obligation to disclose infarmation?

To your question "Have you ever been attacked and had to use your gun?" My answer is yes. The first time was against an armed burglar in my home. The second was a violent car jacking.

In both cases I did not have to fire a shot.

In both cases I was fully prepared to empty the magazine into the bad guys and the bad guys knew it.

In both cases I did not give a hoot-in-hell if my actions were good or bad for society.

From personal experience, I can guarantee when anyone is being violently attacked, the last thing on their mind in how society might "feel" about the fact that they will do ANYTHING possible to successfully defended themselves.

Semper Fi

I can also understand why many may carry a firearm in a vehicle, which is an extension of your home. I'm talking about indiscriminate concealed toting by ordinary folk in their daily lives. Like church, classrooms, restaurants, Walmart etc.. And if they feel they need to carry then I would prefer they do it openly. I think the general public has a right to know if individuals are armed.

I know that criminals and crazies can attempt to violently harm or force their will on others any time, any where. No paranoia here only historically documented facts.

I know that I don't know when, where, or if I will ever need to defend myself again against violence.

I know that I do know when, where, or if I ever do need to defend myself again against violence, I will be armed.

Open carry is not legal in my State, but I would not do it even if it was legal. I constant carry concealed as a personal choice because:
1. I personally consider open carry to be insensitive to others, and
2. Surprise is an extremely powerful weapon of deterrence against low life predator-type bad guys.

In the many years I have concealed carry I have never once displayed my gun in public or been asked if I was armed. I have been asked why I carry two wallets to which I reply "it takes two wallets to hold all of my money:)"

Semper Fi,

But unless you are in a very unusual situation, like a battlefield, the odds of being attacked by a crazy or criminal are so remote that carrying a handgun around is equivalent to carrying an umbrella in southern California between May and October. I fail to see why you consider OC to be insensitive to others. That's like not wanting to upset your spouse by telling her your cheating on her. I don't want my children or grandchildren to be around anyone who feels a need to carry a handgun, unless it is a part of their job. That is my right, enumerated or not.
I don't see surprise as a deterrent. On the contrary, OC would be far more effective as a deterrent. In fact you may find you have the entire street to yourself.

even if you had your way, don't you agree that you will still be surrounded by concealed weapons carried illegally by criminals and other people who can't carry legally? And aren't those kind of folks also more likely to use that weapon against you? So how the hell are you safer?

Just remember - violent felons and other criminals don't open carry. And they are the danger - not the guy who jumps through all the legal hoops to get a CCW permit.

As an aside, don't you think it irresponsible to leave guns in a car where they can be stolen? And don't you agree that parking lots are prime places for crime - a gun locked up in your car is useless on that walk from the restaurant to the car.

but the more you guys keep buying them, the more will be manufactured and sold and stolen and be in circulation. My preference would be, as I have stated many times in this forum, that all handguns be eliminated worldwide, then nobody would have them. I realize that this is not going to happen, and won't even come close in this country.
I do find leaving a gun in a car irresponsible, except maybe in the trunk, but responsibility comes in degrees and I consider it a lot less responsible to take it into a restaurant.

as the number of guns in circulation has skyrocketed, it would appear that your fears have been overtaken by reality.

How do you equate being unarmed with fear. From what I read here, people tote because they are afraid of "bad" guys, "thugs", young guys with big muscles, and the scariest of all, the tool oglers. And today, for the first time, we heard about dangerous goblins in our nation's capital.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After all it would let others know who was CC at any time.

"I think the general public has a right to know if individuals are armed."


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

like a large visible badge, a tall cone shaped hat with a "G" on it, or a sandwich board advertising the fact. Just think, more stuff to sell at the good old gun show. Get a big "G" hat with every fashiionista fanny pack. The onus should be on you, not on others to figure out if you are on some list. That has to be the silliest question of the day, but at least you're starting to think outside the box a little.

It is estimated that more than 75% of all communications is non-verbal. My body language announces that I am a very nice old man who refuses to be a willing victim.

The only time anyone needs to know I am armed is if my gun must be deployed to stop a violent situation.

Semper Fi,

All except for the gun part. How do feel about grumpy old men with guns?

and for many of us, our guns are a primary reason we have lived long enough to become GOMWG:)

The longer we live, the more we tend to value life. We GOMWG do not intend to give up what little we have left easily.

(This was fun!)

Semper Fi,

You know, the yellow six pointed star? It would please you to require that of CHL holders?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

So why not show your gun? Maybe a 5 pointed star on the big pointy hat would suffice.

Starboard Tack (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-03-11 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #147
150. I think if you are carrying concealed you should wear something to alert people of that fact.
like a large visible badge, a tall cone shaped hat with a "G" on it, or a sandwich board advertising the fact. Just think, more stuff to sell at the good old gun show. Get a big "G" hat with every fashiionista fanny pack. The onus should be on you, not on others to figure out if you are on some list. That has to be the silliest question of the day, but at least you're starting to think outside the box a little.

Just making sure.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

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

This is a loophole in Godwin's Law, since you are talking about stars and triangles, but I am not comparing anything to the Nazis.

Godwin's Law has exceptions, sometimes there are common reference points most people would recognize, like the Warsaw Uprising, White Rose Society that would be a proper fit.

who is armed and living in Texas asked me if he and other concealed toters should be on some kind of list, available to the public. Of course, I couldn't agree more with him, but a list in itself wouldn't really help much, unless you wanted to know if there were toters on your street, or something like that. So, I suggested it would be more appropriate to wear something distinguishable, so that others would be aware that he was carrying a killing tool. Something like a badge with a "G" on it or maybe a big pointy coned shaped hat with a "G" on it. You know, like a logo or badge of honor, kinda cute. Anyway, our friend ONESHOOTER, armed and living in Texas, suggested a 6 pointed star like the "Germans" (not Nazi's, God forbid), but the good old "Germans" (many of whom live in Texas, lovely folk), had other Germans wear at one time. Well, I thought that would not be appropriate, because everyone knows it was the Nazis, not the good old Germans who did that, so I suggested maybe a 5 pointed star might be more appropriate, being in Texas and armed and all.

And now here you come talking about Nazis and all kinds of nasty stuff and they weren't nice people at all, but not all the Germans were Nazis, and I'm sure ONESHOOTER, armed and living in Texas, didn't mean to infer that.

But, after hopefully clarifying, you must admit he did come up with a good idea. Just needs some fine tuning.

"Do you support the publishing of the names of permit holders? How about their addresses?"

Simple enough to answer. Either "yes" or "no".
Do you have a problem with that?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

People put up signs "Beware Dog" out of common courtesy as well as to deter intruders and avoid lawsuits.
Very good idea. I applaud you. Obviously the addresses are essential. That way we can choose who and what we live next to, which should be a right.

No weapon is inherently exclusively defensive or offensive, though some lend themselves more readily to one role than to the other. The distinction you make between offensive and defensive, moreover, is one that makes no sense.

The two are not mutually exclusive. That the use of force against an attacker may result in the loss of the attacker's life does not make that use of force not defensive; you can argue the degree of force used was excessive compared to the threat the attacker posed, but that doesn't turn a defense into an attack.


Maybe so, but what do you mean by "minimal damage"? See, if you mean "the minimum amount of damage required to reliably incapacitate the attacker in as little time as possible," then the "Mozambique drill" fits the bill. The "Mozambique drill" is also known as the "Failure to Stop" drill, and consists of two shots to center mass, followed by a momentary assessment whether those two shots have succeeded in stopping the attacker, followed by a shot to the head if they have failed to stop him (hence "Failure to Stop").

If, however, by "minimal damage" you mean a level of injury that isn't going to require a medical professional to treat, let alone risk killing the assailant, there is no weapon that'll do that and that can also be relied upon to incapacitate a target quickly enough. That's why police carry firearms, not just in the United States but almost everywhere.

As I explained in a response to another post of your recently, the American criminal justice system wields a fairly simple criterium: certain weapons, including blades, most bludgeoning implements, and firearms are all considered to constitute lethal force. As a private citizen, you're justified in using lethal force to stop what you reasonably believe to be an imminent threat of permanent injury or death to an innocent (the relevant criteria are Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy, which I'll be happy to explain if you so desire). In other words, in these circumstances, you are legally justified in risking killing the attacker if that's what it takes to make him stop. By definition, using lethal force means you are risking killing the attacker; if you can't justify taking that risk, you aren't justified in using a potentially lethal weapon at all; there's no "hitting him with the flat of the blade" or "shooting to wound" bullshit.

Once you are legally justified in inflicting a level of trauma on the attacker sufficient to possibly kill him, it makes good sense to aim for the torso, rather than for the limbs: hurting him in the torso (where most of the major organs are) is more likely to incapacitate him before he can complete his attack, and there's less risk of a bullet missing and going stray, with all the attendant risk to bystanders (even if you've made sure there are no innocent bystanders behind the attacker, it's hard to predict where ricochets may end up).

Argument from incredulity with an argumentum ad hominem attached. The fact that you cannot or will not believe the explanation does not imply the speaker is lying; it may just be that you're incapable or unwilling to understand.

...wrapped up in a warm whole-wheat flour tortilla.