|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 06/26/2008 : 22:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by just_some_guy
...I will put my trust in my Glock m21 w/ 185grain golden sabres. |
Have you ever defended your family with it?Originally posted by Dude
I have only correlation: The crime rates in FL have decreased every year (except the last one or two where data is available) since the implementation of concealed carry legislation. Certain crimes locally to me (carjacking mainly) have become almost unheard of in local news.
There just isn't any data out there (that I am aware of) that can settle this particular aspect of the gun vs no-gun argument in a way that will satisfy a skeptic audience. |
I'm not looking for a final settlement. I just want some numbers so that the discussion can move on. Until the data is available, this will never progress from (in the kindest possible terms) "responsible gun owners" versus "even responsible gun owners have accidents."
By the way, I heard an NPR report back a few months that said that the Florida crime lords have realized there's a more lucrative industry than drugs and stolen cars: Medicare fraud and stolen durable medical equipment (like wheelchairs). The switchover may have coincided with concealed carry, and there's not a lot of use for carjacking if you're trying to get off hospital grounds with 25 brand-new walkers in the back of an unmarked van.
What is the concealed carry rate per capita, anyway? Do concealed carry permit rates correlate well with income (people don't carjack crappy old cars very often)?Originally posted by Boron10
Dave W., you should also include an estimate of the number of crimes that have been averted because the potential victim might have a weapon. The idea of a "hard target" may work. |
I'm willing to forego such estimations (along with an estimate of the number of accidental shootings that go unreported or unsolved) until after we get some numbers that should be much easier to get.
Besides, Dude brought up concealed carry, and I'm not sure how much of a deterrent it actually is. Guaranteed that the "League of Concerned Heroin Addicts Who Might Need to Steal Purses at Gunpoint to Feed Their Habits" weren't lobbying against the concealed carry laws. Someone who looks like a "soft target" is going to be targeted by the desperate whether they have a concealed weapon or not. If we want to make people hard targets, then we let everyone pack a six-shooter on their hip right out in the open. You put a sign outside your house saying, "I am armed to the teeth in here, go somewhere else," the same way you put stickers in your windows and little signs in your yard saying, "Protected by ADT Home Security" and have that little blinking red LED inside your car.
In other words, I've got a feeling that a not-insignificant percentage of people who want to conceal their deterrents are actually dreaming of the day that they get to draw down on some punk, and some number of them are either going to pee their pants while fumbling for their concealed weapon, or they're going to kill someone over a couple of twenties.
My buddy who almost shot his mother-in-law had a concealed-carry permit. He was a pizza-delivery guy at the time, and carried a teensy-weensy .22 in his back pocket while delivering pizzas. He never used it, and never needed to. He knew that pizza deliverers would occassionally get robbed. He wasn't ever one of the unlucky few. His permit and his weapon may have helped him feel more secure, but they didn't lower his odds of getting robbed any more than simply having the ability to carry concealed might have (while the fact that he carried a weapon certainly increased his risk of accidentally shooting himself or others).
Has a concealed weapon ever stopped a crime against an innocent person better than that innocent person carrying a weapon in the open would have deterred the same crime? Just to be clear: "I have a holstered handgun right here" is a definite deterrent, while "I need to whip out my concealed handgun" means that an attempted crime has not been deterred, the attempt is in progress and needs to be stopped. Both "robbery" and "attemped robbery" are crimes. An openly carried weapon can deter both, while a concealed weapon itself can deter neither (the concealed carry laws can deter some attempts, yes, but the concealed weapons themselves are useless until an attempt is in progress).
If one is going to argue for the right to bear arms, then one should argue for the right to actually bear arms. Forcryingoutloud, the citizens of Tombstone freakin' Arizona are allowed to openly wear holstered sidearms in public! |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 03:18:59 [Permalink]
|
Here in NC it is legal to carry in an ourtside holster, the laws applying as to where being the same as for concealed carry (you can't carry anywhere alcohol is purchased & consumed, nor in a government facility, nor anywhere you have to pay an admission, and so forth). A goodish number of people, joggers and so forth, do just that, although I don't know the percentages -- I'm sure they're pretty low. And a great many people stash one in their vehicles. This is legal as long as the weapon is in plain sight should a law officer approach that vehicle. You pull it out and place it on the dashboard, and everything's cool.
I very much doubt that I will ever fire my little pocket pistol in anger beyond using it to euthanize an animal (twice), nor have I any desire to put myself in a position where I'd have to. One of the biggest reasons I got a concealed carry is so that I can buy, sell or trade a firearm without going through a waiting period. After filling out a bit of paperwork, I can simply walk out with it, deal done.
The great majority of firearm accidents are caused by people playing with them other than using them on the firing range -- showing off like an idiot counts as "playing." Not knowing the gun is loaded counts as "playing" (in my case, this is not a problem because it most likely is). Allowing one to get into the hands of children is "playing," and guns are serious shit. You don't play with them.
When the 2nd was written, it was a black powder, pour-it-down-the-spout world and the leading military small arm, if memory serves, was the smoothbore Brown Bess musket, a flintlock. In this fledgling country, most had a rifle and/or a fowling piece around, and often a pistol as well. Militamen often were expected to bring their own weapons, powder & ball being supplied. "Arms" could be interperpreted to be anything from a hand cannon to a butcher knife, and still can. Whether that applies today -- smokeless powders, automatic weapons & all -- is open to argument. However, modern fed & state laws pretty much cover most if not all contingencies.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 05:25:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I don't know anyone who has successfully defended themselves with a firearm. I do know a guy who almost shot his mother-in-law with a shotgun. And I know a guy who was trying to make sure that a rifle was unloaded when it went off and shot his buddy in the foot. And I know a guy who was cleaning an old rifle, decided to put a cartridge in it to check the bolt action, and shot the end of his thumb off (the doctors actually transplanted one of his big toes onto the stump).
So my personal experience says that firearms are all risk and no benefit (sports shooting aside for the moment).
|
My oldest brother loves guns - the way a 12 year old loves guns. He and my youngest brother were playing with his handgun collection and my nephew (son of oldest) - who was maybe 3 at the time - picked up a handgun, pointed it at my youngest brother and pulled the trigger before either could react. It wasn't loaded. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:04:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| In other words, I've got a feeling that a not-insignificant percentage of people who want to conceal their deterrents are actually dreaming of the day that they get to draw down on some punk, and some number of them are either going to pee their pants while fumbling for their concealed weapon, or they're going to kill someone over a couple of twenties. |
Pure pipe dream there Dave. And who cares about your feelings in a discussion like this?
Get some crime data from a country with a similar form of government to the US that has also bannned or placed strict limitations on handguns. Oh, wait... that data is readily available from the UK. To bad their crime rates are not much different from ours in any area.
If the insane minority of liberals who are so afraid of guns wants to make their case, they (you) need to prove that taking away the right to own guns will significantly reduce crimes. If you (they) could have done that, you (they) already would have.
From a political perspective, the gun issue is a loser for democrats. It is one of the reasons why democrats lost control of the senate in 1994. Not the only reason, but one of several big issues that republicans played on heavily.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:07:02 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi said:
| My oldest brother loves guns - the way a 12 year old loves guns. He and my youngest brother were playing with his handgun collection and my nephew (son of oldest) - who was maybe 3 at the time - picked up a handgun, pointed it at my youngest brother and pulled the trigger before either could react. It wasn't loaded. |
Your brother is an idiot. You don't leave a gun (loaded or not) in the reach of a 3y/o. Ever.
Hope he learned that lesson.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Coat Of Arms
Skeptic Friend
USA
58 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:10:34 [Permalink]
|
Owning a gun is serious business. You have an obligation to be a responsible person. You should be familiar with your state laws. Guns should be secured at all times. Safety should be the number one priority of a gun owner. I made no mention or were my intentions to discourage anyone from possessing a gun. Mace is a very efficient weapon for someone who does not wish to be subjected to taking gun safety courses or the responsibility of owning a gun.
Mace and a baton are secondary non lethal weapons carried by law police agencies all over the world. Carrying mace in the state of Massachusetts is considered a dangerous weapon when used as such and requires a permit. Mace is an alternative weapon for someone not wishing to own a gun. Mace requires no practice, you are only required to aim at a persons face.
As a former police officer and Vietnam Vet and former certified firearms instructor I have a very good under standing how much practice it takes to be comfortable firing a weapon. It takes far more practice to be able to make accurate shots. Most police officers are efficient with their duty weapon, not all become expert marksman, and all police officers must qualify at least twice a year depending on department policy. Police Officers shoot to stop a dangerous felon, not to kill.
Police Officers are trained to fire the weapon in a manor using a double tap. This is a shooting technique where two shots are fired quickly at the same target. The term hammer is sometimes used to describe a double tap in which the firearm's sights are not reacquired by the shooter between shots. After the first round is fired, the trigger is quickly pulled again while maintaining the same point of aim. Ideally, both rounds should strike anywhere within the center of the target. All of this requires correct breathing a steady hand and a front rear sight picture.
|
Paul C. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:18:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
chaloobi said:
| My oldest brother loves guns - the way a 12 year old loves guns. He and my youngest brother were playing with his handgun collection and my nephew (son of oldest) - who was maybe 3 at the time - picked up a handgun, pointed it at my youngest brother and pulled the trigger before either could react. It wasn't loaded. |
Your brother is an idiot. You don't leave a gun (loaded or not) in the reach of a 3y/o. Ever.
Hope he learned that lesson.
|
He's still an idiot. I recall years ago him declaring to my mother he didn't have to lock up his guns because none of his 4 children would DARE touch them. They all survived their childhood without getting shot, or shooting someone else, and in the course of his divorce I found out he does keep the guns locked in a cabinet today. (That was one of the few things he took with him when he moved back into my parents house (at the age of 45 (can you say "loser?"))) He may have always kept them locked and was just yanking my mother's chain - he does that sort of thing to people.
EDIT: My youngest brother did learn his lesson, btw. He keeps his guns locked up tight and I don't even think his kids knew they existed before his youngest was 5. Coming face to face with being shot dead will do that to you. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 06/27/2008 07:21:27 |
|
|
|
just_some_guy
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 07:44:29 [Permalink]
|
@ Boron
| Have you ever been MACEd? Can you vouch for its lack of efficacy? |
I have never been maced/pepper sprayed, but from what I have seen of its use I have no doubt that it hurts like the dickens and makes for a good choice when less then lethal force is required.
That being said I hope not to imply that a firearm should be the end all of home protection. To me it is the last option and should be for any gun owner. The steps to ensure home security should start well before a gun is even brought into the house. Good locks, secured windows, a well lit exterior, neighborhood watches, visability to the street, alarm systems are just some of the deterrents that can guard against the home invasion, along with having a secured place to store your weapon(s).
That being said, if a person bypasses all of your defenses and enters your home I have to assume that they mean to inflict bodily harm until I can be assured differently. That does not mean 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach either. In the event of home intruder my first reaction would be to reach for the phone before I reached for the pistol, then make it well voiced that I have phoned the police and that I am armed.
| Have you ever looked into the statistics of childhood deaths for gun owners vice those for non-gun owners? Are you really ensuring the safety of your family? |
Yes, I have seen some numbers of childhood deaths, and it is rather sobering. Firearm ownership is very serious business, and even more so with childern in the house. I have no kids myself and live in a adult only household. If that was to change I am not sure if I would want a gun anywhere but in a locked safe. Guns are not toys and childern tend to think that everything is, and have a knack for getting into everything. I can honestly say, that with childern, I would not be so sure if the I was bettering the safety of my family verus the potential accident by keeping a loaded weapon within my reach of my bed.
| Why? What about Coat of Arms's post causes you to doubt his former profession as a policeman? What about his post rings alarm bells "loud enough to wake the dead?" |
I do not doubt him being a former policeman, I just find it unsettling when people in general seem to not want law abiding citzens to have a lethal option, especially those that have that option themselves. It has more to do with my general distrust of armed authorities and an unarmed populace. I should not have spoken as such in retrospect, I have no doubt that he served well and wants us all to be safe, both from the bad guys and from ourselves. I fully understand the logic behind having a go first option of less then lethal force, I just feel a bit more secure knowing that a lethal option is available to me. Of the police officers that I have spoken with, some being neighbors, all have recomended a firearm for last option defense for your home.
| Care to back that up with some evidence that owning a gun enables self defense? |
I confess that my wording is often poor when trying to get my thoughts out(one of the reasons why I should attempt to post more). Simply owning a gun no more enables self-defense then owning a hammer enables carpentry, it is the willingness to use the gun to protect life and limb along with the training of proper firearm usage that can enable self-defense. Along with the knowledge of the actual physical handling of the firearm should also be the knowledge of what you can legally defend with it also, but in the end it is going to come down to the drive of self preservation.
I also hope that I make it clear that when I speak of the right of gun ownership that I am also referring to the training and responsibility in regards to exercising one's rights. I think all of the rights that we have should be exercised more, but one should also take the care not to abuse those rights. Much like the all too familiar example of screaming 'fire' in a crowded theatre is in no way an exercise of free speach, nor is having a very deadly tool lying about with out taking the precautions to make sure that oneself and those around are kept safe.
|
|
|
|
just_some_guy
New Member
19 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 08:11:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave aks me
| Have you ever defended your family with it? |
No, I have had the very good fortune of never having to use it as such. The taking of a life even in the defense of my own is not something I ever want to do. I wish we lived in a world in which the idea of even having to think of defending yourself from the actions of others was absurd, and maybe one day that world will be a reality.
I can say, however, that my mother twarted off an intruder trying to come through our back window when I was a child. The person was attempting to gain entry through me and my younger brother's room. Us kids were at a stay at our grandparents at the time and my mother was alone. She grabbed her revolver and the phone and made it clear to the intruder that she had dialed the police and was ready to shoot if that person was to come through the window at which point the person ran off. I can not say for certain if that person wanted to cause harm or merely to rob us, but I am glad my mother had a way to defend herself and was able to maintain enough calm to make a stand in defense of our home.
I can also mention how my friend's father was able to defend off a group of drunks that threatened and started fight with him and he had to shoot an assailant when he thought his life was in danger. I can say that he never seemed proud of this action, but he made it clear that if need be he would do it again. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 08:18:27 [Permalink]
|
Well sigh...
I have debated this before and I really have nothing new to add accept to say that I still favor stringent gun control laws. If it were up to me, hand gun owners would have to keep their handguns at the shooting range where they could visit them now and then.
I keep waiting for the news story where a person successfully defended themselves against an intruder. What is mainly reported are the tragic accidents that happen. Perhaps that is a media bias. I dunno.
Anyhow, my opinion hasn't changed and I am pissed that the supreme court didn't call me and ask my opinion on the issue before issuing theirs. But then, they hardly ever call me...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 08:37:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If the insane minority of liberals who are so afraid of guns wants to make their case, they (you) need to prove that taking away the right to own guns will significantly reduce crimes. If you (they) could have done that, you (they) already would have. |
But that's just my point: the data is missing. There's no data that says owning a gun (concealed or not) has a significant impact on crime rates, either. As you said, all you've got is correlation.
The problem with the crime data is that it doesn't tend to break down into weapon categories well. The homicide data for the U.S. is so broken down (firearms versus "other"), but I've never seen overall crime statistics which were.
If you're making the claim that such data already exists, then where is it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 09:51:33 [Permalink]
|
Crime rates don't need to be broken down to specific "weapons used" for my point to be valid.
The rate of murder in the UK and in the US are not far apart. The UK has very tight rules on gun ownership, the US does not. You can conclude that the UK gun rules do not impact murder rates.
The burden of proof is on those who want to restrict a freedom, not on those who want to keep it. As I said before, if you want to make a case for restricting gun ownership then you have to prove that the restriction will reduce crime rates (crime rates are tracked closely by all significant countries).
If the case could be made for gun restrictions reducing crime rates, it would be a simple matter to show it. Just find a major country of similar government to the US (European democracies would do fine), and show that the rate of crime is less in countries with tight gun laws.
This case can't be made though. The crime rates (even murder) are not significantly different in those countries.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 10:40:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
...he didn't have to lock up his guns because none of his 4 children would DARE touch them...He may have always kept them locked and was just yanking my mother's chain - My youngest brother...keeps his guns locked up tight and I don't even think his kids knew they existed before his youngest was 5... |
Just heard over NPR today that San Francisco lawyers are bracing themselves for NRA legal challenges starting with rescinding laws forbidding hand guns in SF housing projects and further possible NRA challenges to current laws requiring gun owners to use trigger locks and lock boxes. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 11:11:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by just_some_guy
.
.
.
I also hope that I make it clear that when I speak of the right of gun ownership that I am also referring to the training and responsibility in regards to exercising one's rights. I think all of the rights that we have should be exercised more, but one should also take the care not to abuse those rights. Much like the all too familiar example of screaming 'fire' in a crowded theatre is in no way an exercise of free speach, nor is having a very deadly tool lying about with out taking the precautions to make sure that oneself and those around are kept safe. |
Re-reading your previous post and this one, I now see what you are trying to say. Thank you for this clarification. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/27/2008 : 12:57:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
This case can't be made though. The crime rates (even murder) are not significantly different in those countries. |
Where is this data?
And then, tell me if an accidental non-fatal shooting is a crime. Of course the case cannot be made when Dick Cheney faced no prosecution for shooting his buddy.
'Cause I've been talking about reducing harm and risk, not reducing crime rates. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
SCOTUS Hand Gun Decision
