Defense with guns (DWG) #1

You asked for them COLiberal, you got them...

Link

Bystander shoots suspect during robbery at ATM

<snip>

William "Don" Strickland takes his small-caliber handgun wherever he goes, just in case any criminals cross his path.
On Thursday, the former iron worker on permanent disability used it -- when he saw a young woman being robbed at an ATM and the robber trying to get away.

<snip>

But it would be easier for you just to scroll down the page to view them................

isn't it?

:-)

...

al?

"et al"

B

You seemed a bit down. I thought I may cheer you up. It's a bit like my "adamant" joke.

Don't let it get you down. I don't have anything against CO, Mr B is just a screamer without a clue, and since I'am a working man I don't have time to read the longwinded posts of our Canadian friend. If this makes you feel better today I pickup a Colt series 70 Govt model reissue in S/S that has been on layaway and a NIB Marlin 1895 LTD-5 I found in Washington state.

"So, MrBenchly, iverglas, et al, you've almost "won". Too bad it's going to be a cheap one."

Nothing like face-saving. So much cooler just to wander off and not perform the ritual "I'm leaving but I'm really winning" dance. That's what I always do when I get bored, just go.

"Instead, what I've found is a bunch of derisive, bickering, and downright nasty people who do not care about the subject at hand, but are all too eager to stoop to low attacks, etc."

Damn, I feel pretty much the same way. Only I've got good reason.

Now, what you want to do, is do yourself a wee search to where I debuted in this particular forum. There was a person by the name of ... I'm not going to be able to remember it, two initials and a surname I think, who turned out to be some right-wing gun nut auteur, as I recall it; I missed the brouhaha when he was outed and departed. Whoever he was, I offer him as a reference. Many a civil little chat we had.

Aha: khbaker. I even got little PMs from him notifying me when he'd updated one of our conversations, and when he'd be absent, as I recall.

And here we are: a wee example of a pretty civil discourse between us, in which I took no more shit than I have of late, but was actually offered a little less of it than I have been of late.

And of course I get little PMs from other people too ... people so disgusted by the virulence and illiberalism of the firearms fanatics down here that they can't bring themselves to post, but offer handshakes to those of us with the elephant hide it takes to do it.

.

"never mind"? Uh oh. Too late. You not leaving after all?

I'm not leaving. I'm fed up with the level of the posts here in J/PS as of late, but that's no reason to throw in the towel.

There are scores of DUers who specifically stay out of the conversations down here because every thread turns into a flamefest. Those that post here should try to maintain the intellectual high road and keep the conversations civil.

Heated conversations are OK, and show a particular passion for the subject matter. Emotive posts such as "pantloads", etc, only keep people away from participating in our conversations.

We need to get all DUers involved in this discussion, as it is one that I think the Democratic party has gotten a lot of bad press for. If you agree with this, and know of any way to get others involved, I'm all ears.

Brian

is to all stop claiming to be so distressed by the *form* of the discourse, and pay a little more attention to raising the level of its *substance*.

"Is so", "is not" simply is not discourse. Regardless of how politely it's said.

On an issue of public policy that involves conflict between individual rights/freedoms and collective security interests (don't they all?), not knowing what one is talking about does not make one a worthwhile interlocutor.

I very much hesitate to single out anyone in this respect, so let me use the words without being understood to talk about the person, if I may.

"Inalienable rights". Yeah, fine. That looks to me like "Is so". Or "Is not", depending on the context.

Then there are the opinions. You know, those things everybody has. The things that so few people seem to feel any need to explain, provide foundation for, respond to the reasons for other people's of, and all that. Who really cares what anyone else's opinion is, especially when they've heard it several thousand times already? Flinging opinions back and forth doesn't really accomplish anything. Who needs to spend time on a discussion board doing or reading that? If somebody doesn't want to discuss his/her opinion, why would s/he be here?

And I am not by any means suggesting that this problem is unique to this forum of this site. Noooo.

Of course, I'm irrelevant! Not only do I not agree that the Democratic Party has "gotten a lot of bad press" over this issue (since I would not likely characterize the press as "bad" other than in terms of the source) -- it doesn't matter what I think. My agenda is not yours, in so many ways.

But if you want my advice, somebody oughta be standing up and demanding a little more respect from anybody who posts here. I think that readers, and anyone who expends the effort to acquire and present knowledge, explain policy positions, and listen to somebody else's, deserves the respect of having the people s/he is talking to do the same.

Go ahead and ask me whether I'm on drugs or whether I've never read a book -- just offer something to back up the surmise! Facts, argument, something that speaks to the issues.

And of course, something that speaks to what whomever one might be addressing actually said ... not what one might wish s/he had said, or would like others to think s/he said, or can come up with to avoid acknowledging what s/he did say. Is anything more boring and time-wasting? Is anything less respectful of both the interlocutor and the audience?

I do a fuck of a lot of work to learn about what I'm talking about. This particular subject is not one of my major concerns in life, I assure you. Like abortion, it is an intellectually attractive issue -- so much to know, so much to think about -- but as a Canadian, they aren't things I need to be overly concerned about. I'm self-employed and my work relates to these issues in a broad sense, so the time I spend at this is not entirely wasted; I frequently find that something I have "researched" for an internet discussion board post is a valuable bookmark for the next job that lands in my inbox. But apart from that, I just find it personally worthwhile because it's interesting. Reading "is so, is not, sez me, sez you" just isn't.

I know that this second-amendment business of y'all's is of crucial importance to your deliberations. I just find it well and truly bizarre, and you'll notice I stay out of it. I find your collective overall approach to constitutionalism fairly bizarre too, all this "what did the founding fathers think, over 200 years ago" business, and I'm not persuaded that it's representative of left/liberal thought in the US, but again, it's yours, not mine, so there ya go. What I don't understand, of course, is the closing of minds against learning and considering alternative approaches. That just seems, to me, like such a normal way of examining universal sorts of issues that I don't know why anyone wouldn't want to do it.

On the other hand, of course, there is all the pseudo-information that circulates about things outside the US experience and tradition. That's quite the opposite of wanting to learn and think about alternatives; it's an "everything's all about me" attitude, a way of approaching the world that ensures it is seen from only one angle, one perspective, that distorts it and that does no one any good for anything. I do object to the exploitation and reframing of others' experience for one's own purposes.

Now, you've caught me after one of my famous all-nighters, when I get either scathingly hilarious (to me) or bumblingly incoherent. I think incoherent may be pulling ahead today; getting too old for this. And have probably lost any audience that doesn't have me on ignore at this point. (God, that "ignore" business is moronic.)

Anyway. Some common foundation of knowledge is simply essential if these sorts of things are to be discussed. So I'm once more going to recommend my favourite thumbnail sketch of US constitutional scrutiny:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/home.html
Exploring Constitutional Conflicts
(I just found it by chance, so if anyone knows of other better things, do tell)

and particularly

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

and oh look,

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
A Right to Bear Arms?
The Issue: Does the Second Amendment Give Individuals a Right to Bear Arms?

Very simplistic for some of the older hands here, I imagine. But the pages of the site do even come with discussion questions, along with primary source links and related links (pretty heavy on the "RKBA" side those last ones, I see). Perhaps a somewhat more structured discussion here from time to time, one that has a clear issue agreed to by the participants, who agree to speak to that issue *and* to what others have to say about it, maybe in reference to something like that as a common source and guide rather than to the latest anecdote from the newswires, might be wise.

Okay, I'm done.

.

Just Kidding!!!

On opinions and laws:
1) An opinion is formed, by the public.
2) Lawmakers (ideally) embrace the public's opinions and desires, and make laws.
3) Discussions (here on DU and in government) revolve around opinions and facts.

Thanks for your post, though. I can tell you put *a lot* of time into it and it is appreciated.

Brian

Now wasn't that a breath of fresh air?? :)

and let the crap begin :)

;-)

Exactly which part of shooting the car tyres and leg of an unarmed man who is LEAVING after robbing someone else "self defense".

Sorry, I'm not being deliberately awkward, and to be honest don't really give a shit if some guy got shot while he was robbing a woman, but in what possible way is this "self defense" or legal?

I'm genuinely curious.

"Strickland, who does not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, said the gun had been lying on the dash of his car." - WTF? Lying in full view? Unsecured? Sounds responsible to me...

P.

It really brings me no grief to know that the robber was shot, armed or unarmed. Maybe the gunshot wound will make him think twice about crime.

OK, so you've endorsed the vigilante shooting of a criminal. Thanks.

How does that answer my question?

P.

I've been asking that very question, and remarking on the irrelevance of the standard answer (and how completely incompatible the approval of such deeds is with the rule of law, and the permitting of such deeds is with the existence of generally recognized individual rights), for quite some time now ...

.

and a 1000 shoots.
http://www.healylaw.com/self-def.htm

Show me one gun-grabber who has ever had to fight for his life!


all dates approximate:

1972
Riding home with neighbor and friend driving.
A drunk at a light gets offended that my buddy had smiled as if mocking him.
He followed us to the parking lot, where we both had apartments.
Said drunk emerged with a dbbl barrel 12 ga shotgun .
We spread apart until I drew and fired my .32 auto, grazing his scalp with a badly aimed shot.
We disarmed him and survived the encounter.

1975
Dodge bumps the back fender of my motorcycle repeatedly, on the interstate.
I finally fire a couple of 9mm jacketed rounds into the radiator and then, finally, a couple into the windshield.
Car stops trying to run me over, exits the road.
I stop & surrender to a Highway Patrolman at the next rest stop & and report the incident.
No charges against me were filed.
Self defense.
1987
Father & son neighbors get offended that my permit for a septic tank threatened their illegal homesteads.
They run the County Plumbing inspector off at gunpoint,
then come after me.
Ensuing gun battle as I attempted to reach Sheriff's Substation
& they tried to kill me before I could file charges against them, made the front pages.
One year of trials and two Grand Juries later, my only fault was not killing my assailants/ according to the Judge who ruled me innocent
and justifiable self defense.

Point intended is that defensive use of a firearm need not result in the death of the attacker.
Ideal result is everyone lives and the criminals go to jail.

Point intended is that I would have died several times over if not legally armed and trained in the defensive use of firearms.

Show me one gun-grabber who has ever had to fight for his life!

For the last time, "gun control" and "gun confiscation" are NOT synonomous.

And I'm sure that over the years there have been dozens of what you call "gun grabbers" who have had to fight for their lives .... after they were shot.

This is, after all, the group that is currently trying to pimp guns for the blind.....

Like, who actually are grabbing guns practically all the time...? :think:

"Show me one gun-grabber who has ever had to fight for his life!"

On the assumption that you are including me, someone who believes that access to firearms by private individuals should be pretty restricted and that certain stringent conditions should be imposed on that access ... well, you musta missed the story I have recounted a few times about how somebody abducted, sexually assaulted and planned to kill me. And here I am, despite the fact that I've only once touched a firearm, for a split second, in my whole life.

The fighting I did wasn't actually successful; had I had a firearm at the time, in the particular circumstances, I'd almost certainly have been dead these nearly 30 years now -- I'd be no better at hand to hand combat in the front seat of a locked car with a firearm than without, I'm quite sure. Ultimately, it was my wits that kept me alive. Running away when the opportunity presented itself *was* the safest and best solution.

'K now?

.

First- why does your experience convince you nobody should be able to defend themselves?


An untrained person who pulls a gun is just furnishing the gun to their' assailant.
I agree that might have been the result of your experience.


Please note the girl who testified against Ted Bundy was the one who fought him and got free.
All those who cooperated died!

Anyone who chooses to carry a gun should FIRST get training and a Concealed Carry Permit.

Then Carry it Concealed on your person!
A gun in your hand is useless if you don't use it.
A gun in a purse is useless if you can't get to the purse.
A gun in the dash is useless if you can't get to the dash, etc.

A nail file, hatpin, can be used in a close struggle like you indicate.
A small gun in your bra might work if you are trained and willing to use it.

Nobody should ever pull a gun unless the law would justify using it.

Training, such as martial arts training works because it puts people in situations they might later encounter.
Hypothetical training loses to actual hands on every time IMHO.
eg: I know of several 'black-belts' who have been severely beaten by bar fighters.



Nobody has to be a victim!

Your Police Department can recommend Self Defense Classes.
If anyone/ even a Cop says to cooperate in hopes of escaping injury.

They are recommending you join Ted bundy's victims in the graveyard.