68yr old woman shoots two would-be robbers

[oneshooter]

South Precinct detectives are charging four men with attempted aggravated robbery after three of them broke into a home on Glencliff Road at 2:30 a.m. today and were greeted by a shotgun blast by the 68-year-old female resident.
The investigation by Detectives Charles McEachron, Bill Stewart and Joseph Haislip shows that Flaco Camacho, Dorian Guzman, 28, and Oliver Rodriguez, 32, were armed with pistols and used a crowbar to break into the residence. When they approached the bedroom area, the female resident, who was home with her physically challenged husband, fired at the suspects one time with her shotgun.

More Here:http://www.citizen-times.com/article/DN/20110730/NEWS03/110730007/Victim-shoots-suspect-during-break-in?odyssey=nav|head

Brave lady, should have used #4 shot.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[HockeyMom]

1. The way I feel right now

I wouldn't put up any fight at all right now at 62. It might be better than the alternative I am now facing.

[Gman]

2. BFD

Who cares?

[Hoopla Phil]

3. I agree, it IS a big deal.

And I care.

[The Doctor.]

5. I do.

I'm glad that she was able to defend herself and her husband from armed thugs.

Would you rather she died? Or are you just doing your typical generic grousing?

[SteveM]

39. "generic grousing." I like that.

[spin]

6. I suppose her husband and their children, if they have any ...

as well as their friends care. Since these four thugs were armed and willing to invade an occupied home, I also imagine the neighbors are happy that the robbers are in custody.

I also believe she handled what must have been a terrifying situation in a very smart manner. She retreated to her bedroom and fired only when the intruders, who had broke into her home with a crowbar, approached the room. The article does not say that she had called the police. It is always a good idea to have a cell phone in your bedroom.

However, I personally would not use a shotgun loaded with bird shot for self defense. Still it did usccessfully stop the attack.

[X_Digger]

25. What's your beef?

If it's the posting of a news story outside of LBN, I hope you'll apply the same standard to the 'X killed by a gun' stories that others post.

If it's because it doesn't paint the picture of firearm usage that you'd like to portray? Tough shit.

[TheWraith]

26. Presumably, her family cares that she wasn't the one who was killed.

As far as the overall significance of the story, I agree. One anecdote isn't very relevant. But that doesn't stop people from coming in here and using statistically meaningless anecdotes to say that we should have draconian gun laws, or trying to say that guns are evil. A common refrain is that any number of restrictions on law abiding people are okay as long as they save just one life. If that logic held out, which it doesn't, this could be viewed as a reason to start arming all the elderly.

[iverglas]

42. no one was killed

But what if the woman or the couple had been? That seems like a very reasonable foreseeable possibility. After all, she hadn't followed all that advice about how to stop assailants, double-tap to the torso and shot to the head with a high-calibre weapon, and all. What if they hadn't turned tail, and had shot back instead?

Would we then be seeing you proposing measures to reduce access to firearms by people who use them to commit robberies?

I think I can safely expect that you'd be spewing the same less than candid drivel as you do here:

One anecdote isn't very relevant. But that doesn't stop people from coming in here and using statistically meaningless anecdotes to say that we should have draconian gun laws, or trying to say that guns are evil.

Yup, dead people are statistically meaningless anecdotes.

[Atypical Liberal]

121. Even with no guns....

Even if no one involved had any firearms, you'd still have two elderly people facing two young men, one armed with a crowbar.

The woman would have had no choice but to flee if she was strong enough (and willing to abandon her husband), submit if she could survive submission, or engage in a physical contest of strength with her attackers.

I'd rather the bad people have access to firearms so that the good people also have access to them to defend themselves.

[cleanhippie]

30. You seem to care enough to ask who else cares.

[MicaelS]

32. If you don't care

Why are you wasting time posting here?

[The Doctor.]

4. #4? Wouldn't that have made a tighter cluster?

2 Injured is probably better than one dead. Higher probability of return fire.

Either way, good on her.

[spin]

7. Some recommendations for self defense loads for shotguns and be found at ...

SHOTGUN AMMUNITION:
SELF DEFENSE

Although birdshot is not as lethal as buckshot, even at close range, it may make sense for home or apartment defense where the opportunity exists to injure or kill innocent people behind thin walls in adjacent rooms. For defending a single family home, buffered by land, 00 buck is preferred. The choice for birdshot loads is BB or #4 birdshot. Out to a range of 30 feet or so, birdshot is essentially a solid column of lead pellets. Stopping power may not be sufficient, however, due lack of penetration potential.
http://www.internetarmory.com/shotgun_ammo.htm

[Travis_0004]

8. I would have to disagree with you.

There is a website called boxoftruth.com

On that website, somebody tested shotgun rounds through 5/8 drywall. #4 birdshot penetrated 6 sheet of drywall. 00 penetrated 7 boards. Not much difference. I'll agree that the test wasn't 100% scientific (the boards were spaced about 1" apart, but it shows that the penetration through drywall is about the same. (and most drywall found in homes is 1/2, not 5/8)

[spin]

9. I don't claim to be an expert on shotguns ...

and I will check out the site you mentioned. Thanks.

[TheWraith]

27. You're not wrong--at close range, an ounce of lead is an ounce of lead.

Although you would see a much more pronounced difference if it hit a person, where smaller shot would be more likely to stay in the perp, as opposed to finding it's way through him. Besides which, it can also be one part of a contingency plan, the other being making sure you have a solid backstop. For instance, a heavy wooden bookshelf filled with books you can afford to replace.

[oneshooter]

11. It depends on the choke on the shotgun. n/t

[DWC]

10. Successful defense - Outstanding!!!!! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

12. Good for her. Always said a good old 12 gauge will do the job

and she helped get three more handgun toters off the streets. Just don't leave home with it.

[oneshooter]

13. So to you all"handgun toters" are criminals? Talk about bias and bigoted?

[ileus]

15. I believe he means illegal handgun toaters...not honest CHP holders.

otherwise one would have to assume the poster believes anyone with a gun outside their home is a criminal.

[oneshooter]

18. If that is what he meant, that is what he would have said. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

16. No, just as all criminals are not handgun toters.

All handgun toters are potential killers.

[hack89]

17. And all drivers are potential drunken drivers? nt

[Starboard Tack]

20. If they drink too much. Of course. Your point being?

[hack89]

66. So we should have the same social policies

for "potential" killers as we have for "potential" drunk drivers? In other words, we do nothing until they actually break the law? "Potential" drunk drivers can drive all they want and "potential" killers can carry guns. Sound good to me.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[rrneck]

21. Wrong. You might want to rephrase that. nt

[Starboard Tack]

22. No. I'll stand by it. Unless you can point out what is wrong

[rrneck]

24. Your semantics presume homicidal intent.

It may be true that one might kill in self defense with a handgun carried on one's person, the term "killer" connotes a desire to do so. Your terminology, although perhaps technically correct, is inflammatory.

[Starboard Tack]

28. I think there is a big difference between homicidal desire and...

putting oneself in a position to potentially kill in self defense, or perceived self defense. By carrying a gun, one raises the ante considerably for a disastrous outcome of any confrontation. I'm not suggesting that it may not work in one's favor, but I doubt the odds are as favorable as playing Russian roulette, in spite of the anecdotal evidence often cited here to support such behavior.
I think the percentage of toters with homicidal intent or desire is minuscule and that very lack of desire will, just as likely, lead many to their own demise if they ever find themselves in a situation they think they are prepared for.

[rrneck]

31. To use your analogy

most people would gladly accept one in six odds of failure over the near certainty of same when faced with an assailant who could easily overwhelm them.

You assume a choice regarding whether or not one "places one's self in that position" while at the same time asserting that there are miniscule gun owners with a desire to use the gun which is, by definition, doing exactly that.

You question the efficacy of a gun because of a lack of desire to use it and yet refer to all those who carry as "killers".

Do those who carry a gun, beyond a minuscule few, pose a threat to their fellow citizens if a gun won't help them because of a lack of a desire to use it?

Your opinion places responsibility for control of a dangerous situation entirely on the defender who, according to you, has no desire to be there to begin with.

You refer to all "toters" as "killers", the vast majority of whom, according to you, pose little threat to an assailant because of a lack of a desire to kill.

Let me see if I've got this straight. If you carry, you're a killer. But carrying won't work for self defense because those who carry don't really want to kill. We all have sufficient control over our circumstances, but carrying is inherently dangerous because carrying a gun makes one a killer who will probably fail to kill in a situation over which he has control but placed himself there because of the possession of a gun that he has no desire to use.

Remember to move your clothes to the lower peg before you have your chit signed.

[Starboard Tack]

33. Sorry, but we cannot have a conversation if you are going to edit and distort what I say

There is a monumental difference between "killer" and "potential killer"
Try again

[rrneck]

34. I dislike the practice of

quoting someone's words back to them in response to a post. It's unnecessarily confrontational. But I guess I'll have to do it this time.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/killer
killer <ˈkɪlə>
n
1.
a. a person or animal that kills, esp habitually
b. (as modifier) a killer shark

Starboard Tack Donating Member Sun Jul-31-11 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. No, just as all criminals are not handgun toters.

All handgun toters are potential killers.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inflammatory
in·flam·ma·to·ry
(n-flm-tôr, -tr)
adj.
1. Arousing passion or strong emotion, especially anger, belligerence, or desire.

rrneck Sun Jul-31-11 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Wrong. You might want to rephrase that. nt

Starboard Tack Sun Jul-31-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. No. I'll stand by it. Unless you can point out what is wrong

rrneck Donating Member Sun Jul-31-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Your semantics presume homicidal intent.

It may be true that one might kill in self defense with a handgun carried on one's person, the term "killer" connotes a desire to do so. Your terminology, although perhaps technically correct, is inflammatory.

Sharks and habitual killers have homicidal intent. Sharks kill because they are designed to do so, habitual killers kill because they want to so badly they can't stop. Your use of the term by appending the term "potential" to it merely means that you think anyone who carries a gun in public is a potential serial killer either because they are designed to be so (mentally defective) or overwhelmed with desire (morally deficient). Your insistence on the use of the term does not obviate your own uncontrollable need to demonize people you have never met based on an inanimate object carried on their person.

Now that that tedium is out of the way, lets look at the rest of your post. You know, the part you would like to forget ever happened.

I think there is a big difference between homicidal desire and putting oneself in a position to potentially kill in self defense, or perceived self defense. By carrying a gun, one raises the ante considerably for a disastrous outcome of any confrontation.

Would you care to explain the difference between "homicidal desire", "putting oneself in a position to potentially kill in self defense" and "raising the ante for a disastrous outcome of any confrontation" in the context of the commonly understood use of the term "killer"? You appear to have assigned the same unsavory motivation to anyone who uses a firearm on another regardless of exigent circumstances. Furthermore, you place on the defender the entire responsibility for control of a situation that he or she did not initiate. It takes two to tango, and the individual who initiates the assault does so of their own volition. How do you think someone would control the the decision to initiate an assault by another if they don't know who or where they are or when they will elect to strike? Surprisingly, there is a way. Make the potential assailant think he might get shot in the attempt. Just as an individual would not sensibly put themselves in a position wherein they might be assaulted a potential aggressor will not unnecessarily risk injury if he initiates an assault on the wrong person. Of course any assailant that is unconcerned about injury or death and is determined to initiate an assault merely reinforces the need for a device that will stop him with as much certainty and efficiency as possible.

I think the percentage of toters with homicidal intent or desire is minuscule and that very lack of desire will, just as likely, lead many to their own demise if they ever find themselves in a situation they think they are prepared for.

You have yet to explain your discomfort for the carriage of firearms if you assert that the vast majority of people who carry them would be unlikely to use them to save their own lives. If the guy across the restaurant is wearing a gun that he will not be able to use to save himself, what makes you think he is a danger to you?

What makes him a potential killer?

As you can see, your words came pre distorted. That's because your opinion on this matter is incoherent. It is incoherent because you are trying to draw a specific conclusion from a mixed bag of vague assumptions and preconceived notions. You just don't like people carrying guns in public (a personal preference which is perfectly OK) and you're trying to produce a rational argument for your dislike. You are trying to turn a personal preference into a moral imperative. It won't work. Try again.

[Starboard Tack]

35. The key word potential

po·ten·tial
    Show IPA
–adjective
1.
possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.
capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.
3.
Grammar . expressing possibility: the potential subjunctive in Latin; the potential use of can in I can go.

[rrneck]

36. Attached to an inflammatory term

like "killer" becomes an emotional indictment designed to solicit moral opprobrium without evidence.

Please tell us who the "potential killers" are.

[X_Digger]

37. He seems to enjoy that subtextual moralizing

If it weren't so obvious, it'd be funny.

[rrneck]

38. It's obvious to everyone but him.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, but not a moral failing. It's just hard to get people to see it and not piss them off.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Potential killers would be those who carry guns with the thought in the back of their mind

that they may have to use that gun to kill someone. Of course, anyone getting behind the wheel of a car is also a potential killer, but the reason for driving the car is not to kill. The reason for carrying a gun is to kill, if the need, or perceived need arises.
This is a fact, nothing inflammatory about it. Carrying a gun is inflammatory, whether it can be seen or not. If it's OC it is blatantly inflammatory and routinely acknowledged here as being so by those toters who don't want to make people feel "uncomfortable". I find that reasoning highly suspect. I think they carry concealed because they don't want the embarrassment of being perceived as teabagger weirdos.

[rrneck]

46. Nope.

The term "killer" carries with it an expectation of malicious intent. That is why you use it. You believe anyone that carries a gun intends either physical or emotional harm. And it's because of your obtuse evaluation of other people's needs that some "toters" show deference to your hypersensitivity so as not to unduly upset you. Don't believe me? You have already said most people who carry couldn't kill someone if their lives depended on it.

Who are the potential killers?

How can you feel justified in accusing others of malicious intent based on your feelings about the sight of a gun?

What are your malicious intentions driving your desire to disarm everyone? Why is it so important for you to never have to face an armed citizen?

Assuming the worst of people cuts both ways, doesn't it?

[X_Digger]

47. You almost spit it out that time..

The reason for carrying a gun is to kill

No, the reason is to stop an attack. The person may die as a consequence, but the intent is to stop. But thanks for actually getting closer to verbalizing what you're fond of intimating.

I carry concealed because I want every advantage. Were I to be victimized, and I think the criminal won't be satisfied with my debit card, I'd prefer the criminal think I'm reaching for my wallet, rather than a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

48. Nice editing Mr X at least be honest when quoting me

you left out the rest of the sentence "if the need, or perceived need arises." Kinda important, don't you think? You could get a job with Fox News editing sound bites.
Anyway, to your reason for carrying a gun. "To stop an attack" I think you mean, living in the subjunctive world of toters, a possible attack, An attack that only ever happens in your imagination, until and unless it does actually occur and you get to use your gun and maybe you become a hero for a day or maybe you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed. I know, you guys are all super responsible and I believe it, but how many assholes or incompetents do you need to make a bad situation worse. If you wear a badge or have some authority then maybe, but you are not accountable to me as a public servant.

"Were I to be victimized, and I think the criminal won't be satisfied with my debit card, I'd prefer the criminal think I'm reaching for my wallet, rather than a gun."

So this is the scenario you use as a typical attack? OK you already know how the imaginary criminal thinks and a debit card is not going to suffice. What do you think he's after if not cash from an ATM? Oh, right, he's a crackhead, junkie, whatever and he needs cash to score. Fifty bucks will set him straight and he's out of your life. But no, wait a minute, I'm wearing a fucking gun and I keep it in a pouch that looks like a wallet and I think "Why don't I just pull out my gun and shoot him?" Now, returning to your subjunctive world, what does said attacker have as a weapon? Let's hope it isn't a gun and if not then do I escalate this or drop a fifty on him and wish him luck. I tell you friend, fifty bucks will get most people out of any kind of jam, and it weighs less than a gun and you don't need a permit.
So, you have declared your intent to escalate by reaching for your gun and the moment you do that you cross a line where once you've drawn it, you'd better be prepared to shoot and be shot by anyone who sees you pull your weapon. How do you see your movie ending? Same way as last time? Point the gun at his chest and he scurries off. Let's say the guy has a gun pointed at you. You still going for yours?

[X_Digger]

49. No, you assumed intent.. kill v stop

I quoted the relevant portion to the point I wished to make.

But if you're pissed that your moralizing was actually exposed, so sorry. You'll have to do better next time.

I think you mean, living in the subjunctive world of toters, a possible attack, An attack that only ever happens in your imagination, until and unless it does actually occur and you get to use your gun and maybe you become a hero for a day or maybe you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed. I know, you guys are all super responsible and I believe it, but how many assholes or incompetents do you need to make a bad situation worse. If you wear a badge or have some authority then maybe, but you are not accountable to me as a public servant.

Did you already forget that I've had a defensive gun use? That the mere presentation was enough to stop the idiot?

Nice of you to ascribe a whole story to me, complete with motivation and my thoughts. If only it had some connection to reality.

Got any other party tricks?

So this is the scenario you use as a typical attack? OK you already know how the imaginary criminal thinks and a debit card is not going to suffice. What do you think he's after if not cash from an ATM? Oh, right, he's a crackhead, junkie, whatever and he needs cash to score. Fifty bucks will set him straight and he's out of your life. But no, wait a minute, I'm wearing a fucking gun and I keep it in a pouch that looks like a wallet and I think "Why don't I just pull out my gun and shoot him?" Now, returning to your subjunctive world, what does said attacker have as a weapon? Let's hope it isn't a gun and if not then do I escalate this or drop a fifty on him and wish him luck. I tell you friend, fifty bucks will get most people out of any kind of jam, and it weighs less than a gun and you don't need a permit.
So, you have declared your intent to escalate by reaching for your gun and the moment you do that you cross a line where once you've drawn it, you'd better be prepared to shoot and be shot by anyone who sees you pull your weapon. How do you see your movie ending? Same way as last time? Point the gun at his chest and he scurries off. Let's say the guy has a gun pointed at you. You still going for yours?

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension. Implied in my statement was that if I think a robber would be satisfied with whatever I have in my pockets, I'll give it to him.

Even if he had a gun pointed at me, if I think he's going to use it regardless of my compliance, I'll use mine. Hence why I'd like the advantage of him not knowing I'm carrying one.

I have no intention of playing fair with someone who's broken the social contract by which we live.

[iverglas]

50. in a nutshell:

"you are not accountable to me as a public servant"

I've said that one many times. ;)

They have some kinda duty to be "responsible" with their guns.

Oh, and they think everybody else should "trust" them.

After all, they trust everybody else.

That's why they carry guns around!

Oops, something went wrong there ...

[X_Digger]

51. If I claimed the mantle of public servant, your point would be valid.. since I ddin't..

..

You get the idea, I'm sure..

[iverglas]

52. if you could follow a simple conversation

the things you said might make sense.

The difference between you and police is not that you don't "claim the mantle" of public servant.

It is that you ARE NOT accountable to the public as a public servant.

And that is a very large part of the reason why many people do not want you wandering abroad with a pistol in your pocket.

You are not accountable to anyone for what you do while doing that. Not just what you do with the firearm. What you do.

Cops are accountable to the public for what they do while they are on duty as cops and carrying firearms.

See? There is a distinction.

You may want to argue that it is not a relevant distinction, when it comes to who should be permitted to wander abroad with firearms. Feel free. Just don't go off half-cocked arguing against something no one ever said.

[X_Digger]

53. Well if I'm not accountable, then I can shoot up the neighborhood, right? *snort*

I'm still accountable, just not 'as a public servant'.

If I misuse my firearm, I'll be held to account. If I break any law, I'll be held to account.

Instead of an administrative hearing with a police union representative provided me, I'll be standing in front of a judge with legal counsel provided me.

But, as you say, not all my actions will be held to the same standard- because they don't apply.

As a private citizen, I can't be 'held to account' for things like 'use of police resources for personal gain', 'misuse of authority', or 'conduct unbecoming a police officer'.

[iverglas]

55. now try reading it again

and then hell, you could try responding to it.

Want some emphasis to assist?

You are not accountable to anyone for what you do while doing that. Not just what you do with the firearm. What you do.
Cops are accountable to the public for what they do while they are on duty as cops and carrying firearms.


If I misuse my firearm, I'll be held to account. If I break any law, I'll be held to account.

If you drink, you will not be held to account (perhaps you could be, depending on local law, but the odds are pretty high you won't be). If you behave like a jerk in a convenience store, you will not be held to account. If you mouth off to a stranger, you will not be held to account. If you sit in your car in a high-crime area conversing with a pimp you will not be held to account.


But, as you say, not all my actions will be held to the same standard- because they don't apply.

Duh. Do you imagine that was the point?

As a private citizen, I can't be 'held to account' for things like 'use of police resources for personal gain', 'misuse of authority', or 'conduct unbecoming a police officer'.

Or "behaving like a fool while in possession of a firearm" or "behaving aggressively while in possession of a firearm" ...

[X_Digger]

57. If you want me to be held to such a standard, then you can pay my salary..

.. and give me a car to drive. Oh, and a gun, too.

Are people licensed to drive held to the same standard as cops w/r/t driving? No, a cop can do things in furtherance of his public service with a car that I can't do as a private citizen. If I tried a PIT maneuver to take out a drunk driver, police would arrest both of us. Hell, I'd probably get a higher charge.

There are things a cop can do with his/her firearm that would get me arrested. We're held to a higher standard than police officers. Why else would so many firearms laws carve out exceptions for peace officers?

You are not accountable to anyone for what you do while doing that. Not just what you do with the firearm. What you do.
Cops are accountable to the public for what they do while they are on duty as cops and carrying firearms.

'Conduct unbecoming..' doesn't depend on them carrying a firearm. Nor does 'excessive violence'. Those are violations of the public trust placed in the officers as public employees. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're carrying a firearm.

Feel free to lobby for a 'behaving like a fool while in possession of a firearm' law. Of course, there'd be an exception for police officers in that one, too.

[iverglas]

61. and once again, you just go right ahead and ignore what you're "replying" to

There are things a cop can do with his/her firearm that would get me arrested. We're held to a higher standard than police officers.

How the hell much plainer could one make it? I already underlined the salient bits. Do you need them in giant font?

You are not accountable to anyone for what you do while doing that. Not just what you do with the firearm. What you do.
Cops are accountable to the public for what they do while they are on duty as cops and carrying firearms.

I'm sure you enjoy conversing with yourself. You evidently must.

'Conduct unbecoming..' doesn't depend on them carrying a firearm. Nor does 'excessive violence'. Those are violations of the public trust placed in the officers as public employees. It has nothing to do with whether or not they're carrying a firearm.

Who in the name of your favourite deity ever said it did, it did, or it did?

You rival oak.

Nothing depends on anyone carrying a firearm.

But WHEN THEY ARE CARRYING A FIREARM, they are ACCOUNTABLE for ALL of their actions.

When YOU are carrying a firearm, you are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for ALL of your actions.

You can get as drunk as a skunk (and if you are not supposed to, you can count on not getting caught unless and until you do actually shoot someone). You can pick fights. You can be a mouthy asshole to total strangers in public places. You can engage in all sorts of risky behaviour that could lead to situations that prompt you to engage your firearm. You can buy drugs, sell drugs, traffic in women, traffic in stolen goods -- a whole load of things that may well be illegal or may just be stupid or unpleasant, but that you can do with little chance of getting caught, but a considerably elevated risk of deciding you need to engage your firearm.

There is no public oversight of you. You move around the world unseen by public authorities. That's dandy. So do I. But I'm not toting around a thing that can easily cause harm to members of the public if I put myself in a situation where I decide I need to engage it, and that I could have avoided by behaving myself.

Cops are required to behave themselves. They may not all do it all the time, but they are accountable if they don't. (If you don't think yours are held accountable sufficiently, do something about it.)

I have no guarantee that cops will behave themselves. But they are accountable if they don't. You are only accountable, and then only maybe, if you actually do something with your firearm. You are not accountable for actions of your own that may have made it "justifiable" for you to do that.

No public oversight of people wandering the streets with firearms: no thank you.



aaargh, html fixed

[X_Digger]

65. Here let me highlight for ya..

Cops are accountable to the public for what they do while they are on duty as cops and carrying firearms.

But WHEN THEY ARE CARRYING A FIREARM, they are ACCOUNTABLE for ALL of their actions.

Cops are accountable because they're cops, not because they carry firearms.

And they're accountable when NOT carrying a firearm. You seem to be trying to tie their accountability to their possession of a firearm, rather than their role as a public employee charged with enforcing the law. A cop who never touches a firearm is just as accountable as one who carries every day. I carry to protect myself, not the public. I don't expect to run toward the sound of gunfire like an officer may. I'm accountable as much as any other citizen who is not employed by the state to enforce the law.

Why then should possession of a firearm somehow mandate the same accountability as a public servant? Because I carry an instrument that can 'easily cause harm to members of the public'? So do you. Tomorrow you could be standing on a busy street corner and shove someone into oncoming traffic. Do you carry a set of keys? Hold the ring in your fist with the keys between your fingers and you can blind or kill someone. Obviously we don't restrict (or hold 'accountable') anyone with the ability to 'easily cause harm to members of the public' based on ability alone. If that were the case, hands would have to have caution stickers and keys would be made of foam rubber. No, rational restrictions are based on the likelihood of such events occurring. And unless you're asserting that licensees are supah-dupah ninjas with mad skilz at evading capture and arrest, there's no reason to believe that the likelihood of them causing 'harm to members of the public' is statistically significant.

I get it though. You see handguns as a tool of the state. You would ban them from private possession in one's home, along with semi-automatic rifles.

You can get as drunk as a skunk (and if you are not supposed to, you can count on not getting caught unless and until you do actually shoot someone). You can pick fights. You can be a mouthy asshole to total strangers in public places. You can engage in all sorts of risky behaviour that could lead to situations that prompt you to engage your firearm. You can buy drugs, sell drugs, traffic in women, traffic in stolen goods -- a whole load of things that may well be illegal or may just be stupid or unpleasant, but that you can do with little chance of getting caught, but a considerably elevated risk of deciding you need to engage your firearm.

And if I do 'engage my firearm', do you not think that such history would be discovered? And introduced as evidence at a grand jury / trial? If I never 'engage my firearm', and never get 'caught' doing any of the 'illegal, stupid, or unpleasant' things you mention-- what then? My possession of a firearm has neither hindered nor contributed in any way to those things.

[iverglas]

67. how many fucking times?

Cops are accountable because they're cops, not because they carry firearms.

Do you imagine that by repeating what I and the poster before me are saying, over and over, you are making a point?

Cops are accountable.

You are not.

When cops are carrying firearms, they are accountable for all their behaviour.

When you are carrying a firearm, you are NOT accountable for any of your behaviour unless you get caught committing a crime.

The "when ... carrying a firearm" is the common denominator, the entire POINT.

It is the reason you need to be distinguished from cops: you are both carrying firearms. If cops aren't carrying firearms, there is no commonality between them and you when you are carrying a firearm.

This is just beyond me. How or why you would keep believing, if you do, that someone has said cops are accountable because they carry firearms ... . They are accountable BECAUSE they are cops.

They are DIFFERENT from YOU when you are both carrying firearms IN THAT they ARE accountable for their behaviour.


You seem to be trying to tie their accountability to their possession of a firearm, rather than their role as a public employee charged with enforcing the law.

No, I do not. I seem to be doing exactly what I am doing: saying that cops are accountable to the public for their behaviour.


Why then should possession of a firearm somehow mandate the same accountability as a public servant?

IT DOESN'T. IT CAN'T. Will the gods not take pity on me?

That is the whole POINT. There is NO WAY to exercise oversight over you.


And unless you're asserting that licensees are supah-dupah ninjas with mad skilz at evading capture and arrest, there's no reason to believe that the likelihood of them causing 'harm to members of the public' is statistically significant.

I have loads of reasons for believing that it is unwise, as a matter of public policy, to allow people to parade around in public carrying firearms.


I get it though. You see handguns as a tool of the state. You would ban them from private possession in one's home, along with semi-automatic rifles.

I don't see ANYTHING as "tools of the state", so take your "you're a commie slash fascist" bilge and shovel it elsewhere. If I want to know what the loonytarians think, I'll go take their stupid quiz again. I like it that they hate me.

I see handguns as too often used and too easy to use to facilitate and commit crime when members of the public are permitted to possess them -- and I am actually talking at least as much about pig-ignorant members of the public who allow their handguns to be stolen by criminals as about anything else.

I see them as unfortunately necessary in the hands of peace officers, particularly since they are very often facing people with firearms themselves, but generally because they may need to be able to act from a distance in order to protect the public. In order to protect the public, you see? And yes, a police officer acting in self-defence is acting to protect the public, because they only reason they're in the damned situation in the first place is because they were acting to protect the public, and if someone is trying to harm them there is obviously a risk to the public.


And if I do 'engage my firearm', do you not think that such history would be discovered?

What, that you cut someone off in traffic and endangered their family, and then got all scaredy-cat when the driver turned out to be a big hulking guy who took exception to your conduct when you parked and got out of your car? Who wouldn't find your actions justified if you defended yourself against him? Who would worry that you were the one who had initiated the conflict by being a total asshole on the road?


If I never 'engage my firearm', and never get 'caught' doing any of the 'illegal, stupid, or unpleasant' things you mention-- what then? My possession of a firearm has neither hindered nor contributed in any way to those things.

Really? I've linked to the tale of one drug dealer today who might have have used his firearm in self-defence. I'd say his possession of the firearm -- for which he had a permit -- would very much have contributed to his drug dealing. Drug dealers where you're at don't like being defenceless much, do they?

If nobody knows he's a drug dealer ...

[X_Digger]

68. I am as accountable as any other citizen that isn't a police employee

No, what you are pissing and moaning about is that I'm not held to the same standard as a cop. Which is immaterial, since I am not a cop.

When cops are carrying firearms, they are accountable for all their behaviour.

When you are carrying a firearm, you are NOT accountable for any of your behaviour unless you get caught committing a crime.

(em. mine)

Really? No cop ever performed any 'illegal, stupid, or unpleasant' things while on duty without being caught? What color is the sky in your universe?

There is NO WAY to exercise oversight over you.

Here, let me fix that for you..

There is NO WAY to exercise the same level of oversight over you.

Nor should there be. I don't represent the government when I carry. My behavior does not directly reflect on the character and perception of the government. The community doesn't see me as an extension of any elected body. My misdeeds don't potentially tarnish a whole department. Which is why such oversight is appropriate for police- not because they carry a gun.

have loads of reasons for believing that it is unwise, as a matter of public policy, to allow people to parade around in public carrying firearms.

Aha, the nugget of corn in the turd. 'believing that it is unwise, as a matter of public policy'

Your 'belief' and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee.

I get it though. You see handguns as a tool of the state. You would ban them from private possession in one's home, along with semi-automatic rifles.

I don't see ANYTHING as "tools of the state", so take your "you're a commie slash fascist" bilge and shovel it elsewhere. If I want to know what the loonytarians think, I'll go take their stupid quiz again. I like it that they hate me.

Would anyone other than cops (and I assume military) have handguns in your perfect world? No? Then take your insinuations and cram them in whatever dark place you so choose.

What, that you cut someone off in traffic and endangered their family, and then got all scaredy-cat when the driver turned out to be a big hulking guy who took exception to your conduct when you parked and got out of your car? Who wouldn't find your actions justified if you defended yourself against him? Who would worry that you were the one who had initiated the conflict by being a total asshole on the road?

And if a cop in an unmarked police car did the same? What 'oversight' and 'accountability' do you see bringing this to light?

If I never 'engage my firearm', and never get 'caught' doing any of the 'illegal, stupid, or unpleasant' things you mention-- what then? My possession of a firearm has neither hindered nor contributed in any way to those things.

Really? I've linked to the tale of one drug dealer today who might have have used his firearm in self-defence. I'd say his possession of the firearm -- for which he had a permit -- would very much have contributed to his drug dealing. Drug dealers where you're at don't like being defenceless much, do they?

Perhaps you missed this part..

If I never 'engage my firearm'

But anyway.. Oh look, we have reason to believe that it was a drug dealer. I guess it did come to light, after all.

I could pull one of your stunts and ask you to prove a negative, but I won't.

[iverglas]

71. your efforts are Herculean indeed

And if a cop in an unmarked police car did the same? What 'oversight' and 'accountability' do you see bringing this to light?

That is the very point.

If a cop did something that precipitated a conflict with another individual -- something not a crime -- in the course of which conflict the cop was "justified" in using a firearm, the cop WOULD be accountable for their behaviour in precipitating that conflict. YOU would not. YOU would simply be acting in self-defence. Even though you were responsible for creating the situation in which it then became necessary for you to defend yourself.

No, no one is entitled to beat you to a pulp for calling them names and insulting their mother. But a cop who calls someone names and insults their mother and then has to shoot them to defend the assault thus provoked is going to have to account for their behaviour. YOU ARE NOT. You may wander the streets at will, calling people names and insulting their mothers, and then claim self-defence if one of them decides to try to beat you to a pulp and you use your firearm, and you will be righteous.

Ye gods and little fishies.


My misdeeds don't potentially tarnish a whole department. Which is why such oversight is appropriate for police- not because they carry a gun.

You have an unbelievably venal view of the world. You need to remember that not everyone thinks your way, and that things "public" are not organized around your worldview.

Cops are not accountable for their misdeeds because they "tarnish a whole department". That has nothing to do with it, except in the sense that tarnishing a department erodes public confidence. Cops are accountable for their misdeeds because they are part of the executive branch of government, and governments are accountable to the public, in a liberal democracy. And if a member of an accountable public body commits misdeeds while acting with that authority, the public is entitled to sanction them as one way of ensuring that the authority is not abused and that the mandate assigned is carried out properly.

Nobody said that the oversight is exercised because they carry a gun. Shall I despair?

The fact is that THEY ARE SUBJECT TO OVERSIGHT. So WHEN they carry a gun, they are subject to oversight, and are accountable. YOU ARE NOT.


If you want another round of X isn't Y when nobody said it was, I fear you will have to find another adversary.

[X_Digger]

74. You dodged. Care to try again?

That is the very point.

If a cop did something that precipitated a conflict with another individual -- something not a crime -- in the course of which conflict the cop was "justified" in using a firearm, the cop WOULD be accountable for their behaviour in precipitating that conflict. YOU would not. YOU would simply be acting in self-defence. Even though you were responsible for creating the situation in which it then became necessary for you to defend yourself.

How? What investigation would police do as part of an internal affairs investigation that other investigators wouldn't do for an incident involving two members of the public?

What is this magic oversight that you seem to imagine that would root out the actions of the cop, but not a private citizen?

My misdeeds don't potentially tarnish a whole department. Which is why such oversight is appropriate for police- not because they carry a gun.

You have an unbelievably venal view of the world. You need to remember that not everyone thinks your way, and that things "public" are not organized around your worldview.

Cops are not accountable for their misdeeds because they "tarnish a whole department". That has nothing to do with it, except in the sense that tarnishing a department erodes public confidence. Cops are accountable for their misdeeds because they are part of the executive branch of government, and governments are accountable to the public, in a liberal democracy. And if a member of an accountable public body commits misdeeds while acting with that authority, the public is entitled to sanction them as one way of ensuring that the authority is not abused and that the mandate assigned is carried out properly.

Thank you for restating what I said, using different words.

Police oversight is due to the nature of their work.

Why would you require, if it were possible, the same for individuals not in service to the public? If you wouldn't, then why the harping of 'accountability' between the two?

Why even bring it up, if it's a) not possible, and b) not appropriate?

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[iverglas]

111. and I'm getting a callus from clicking "alert"

Somebody had better get the message to you soon or you're going to use up your lives.

Put somebody "on ignore": IGNORE THEM.

See how simple it is?

[ManiacJoe]

69. When did citizens stop being accountable?

It is that you ARE NOT accountable to the public as a public servant.
That is correct. A private person is accountable to the public as a private person, subject to the laws and oversight/enforcement of the state.

You are not accountable to anyone for what you do while doing that. Not just what you do with the firearm. What you do.
This is incorrect. A private person is accountable to the public via the state laws, whether or not he has a gun on him or not. Having a gun means he has more laws governing his behavior.

Cops are accountable to the public for what they do while they are on duty as cops and carrying firearms.
That is correct. And while the cops may be more accountable, that does not mean that private persons are not accountable.

See? There is a distinction.
Yes, there is a distinction. However, you are not seeing it correctly. The correct distinction is "more-less" not "some-none".

[iverglas]

72. oh, go away

Leaping into a conversation underway and pretending you can excise words from their context and ignore what was really said in favour of what you wish was said ... stupid game, not playing.

[rl6214]

102. Open forum

[ProgressiveProfessor]

119. Seems to me you are the one with the elevated deleted post count

[iverglas]

122. apparently

you intended to reply to a post your comments were actually relevant to.

Noticed anything recently? Not many of my posts getting deleted ... in fact I think I'd say not any. Except, of course, for posts in reply to other people's posts that I've requested be deleted ...

[rrneck]

54. Your post was an exercise in literary projection.

You continue to assume malicious intent. Prove it is there.

Others are responsible to you. It is against the law to shoot people.

You have yet to specify who the potential killers are and what makes them potential killers.

[rl6214]

101. Surely you can post a cite or two where this has happened

"hero for a day or maybe you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed."


"An attack that only ever happens in your imagination,"

Right, people are NEVER attacked. Care to address all of the posts here about the people stopping attacks through the use of their own firearms.?

" drop a fifty on him and wish him luck"

Sure, let's reward the criminal, or maybe pull your weapon and scare him off, just sayin.

[oneshooter]

43. "you are going to edit and distort what I say" Not so funny when it is you . n/t

[Common Sense Party]

23. All PEOPLE are potential killers, armed or not.

It's up to each person to CHOOSE what they will be.

[Starboard Tack]

29. Very true

[SteveM]

40. Glad you agree with him, potential killer. nt

[Starboard Tack]

45. Wanna raise the ante, carry a gun

[SteveM]

62. Sorry, I don't play or gamble with guns.

[Starboard Tack]

63. Only when you carry one?

You're gambling that it will improve your chances of surviving a possible confrontation.

[SteveM]

64. Walking down a street is a gamble.

[Starboard Tack]

70. Thank you. My point exactly

and walking down the street with a gun ups the ante.

[ManiacJoe]

75. Not if you know what an ante is.

Actually, having a gun lowers the odds of losing the armed assault.

While it is open for debate regarding the size of the odds change, that the odds do change is a fact.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Goog luck with that thinking

Which armed assault are you talking about, btw? The hypothetical or a particular one you're anticipating?

[ManiacJoe]

81. That would be the one you are unlucky enough to not avoid.

Nothing wrong with rational thought around being prepared for bad events. Having a plan does not imply a want to use the plan.

Most folks are happy playing the odds because the odds of being attacked are very low. Some of us put in the small effort increasing our odds of survival, if the odds of being attacked ever fail us, by carrying various self defense tools. Unfortunately none of the tools increase the odds of surviving to 100%. But any increase is better than none.

[Starboard Tack]

87. So, we're all playing the odds

only the toter thinks he's increasing his odds of survival, regardless of anybody else. Very democratic.

[ManiacJoe]

88. Yes, you are stuck playing the odds.

The only things guaranteed in life are (1) death, and (2) taxes.

Folks who choose to carry various tools of self defense increase their odds of surviving assaults. Carrying or not, paying attention to your surroundings is the first step in improving your odds of survival.

There is nothing democratic about it; there are no politics of any flavor involved. You are responsible for your immediate safety. You choose how much effort you will put into the process.

[Starboard Tack]

90. "You are responsible for your immediate safety"

Right, but not at the cost of others' safety.

[ManiacJoe]

91. No one is suggesting otherwise.

The legally carrying of self defense tools does not put anyone at risk.

[Starboard Tack]

92. How can you possibly say that?

You think the legal carrying of a firearm eliminates all risk? Hey, I want me some of that juju.

[ManiacJoe]

93. I did not say that:

You think the legal carrying of a firearm eliminates all risk?

Nor did I say anything that could be reasonably interpreted that way.

Legally carrying of firearm does not remove any risks. What it does do is provide another tool for dealing with risks.

[Starboard Tack]

100. You said "The legally carrying of self defense tools does not put anyone at risk."

Now you say "Legally carrying of firearm does not remove any risks"
plus "..provides another tool for dealing with risks"

I think you are very confused.

Do you honestly believe that the risk factor of someone being hurt does not increase when a firearm is introduced into the equation?
Come on now, think very carefully.

[ManiacJoe]

114. It definitely increases the risk to the attacker.

That is given and the purpose of carrying a gun. This is a Good Thing (tm). Sorry, I did not realize this needed to be actually stated instead of being naturally understood. :shrug:

However, the mere carrying of a gun does not increase the risks to anyone else.

[SteveM]

96. "regardless of anybody else. Very democratic." So we have it...

It is not the odds you are concerned with, but the opportunity to accuse concealed-carry people of being so solipsistic they will do what they want "regardless of anybody else."

You really don't know this, do you?

As for democracy, how does that fit in? Just more Chimpanzee-flinging?

[Starboard Tack]

125. Now how could I have the idea that CC is in any way solipsistic?

Hmm, lemme think a moment! Aha, could it be anything to do with the part where only you know there is a gun in the room because you're hiding it from everyone else and you justify that behavior by claiming it is for SELF defense.
Very democratic indeed. You see, the democratic thing to do would be to announce that you have decided to enter into the company of others with a killing tool on your person and ask politely if anyone objects. If smokers can do that, why can't you. Surely not because you would be embarrassed to own up to such behavior around normal people.
And I have no idea what chimpanzees have to do with this. Please enlighten us.

[SteveM]

95. Don't think so...

I find buried in your play with "logic," a less-than-courageous swipe at those who carry-concealed.

[Starboard Tack]

123. "a less-than-courageous swipe at those who carry-concealed. "

WTF is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that someone who describes the toting a concealed firearm as risky behavior, is being cowardly?

[rl6214]

103. Want to raise the ante, don't carry a gun

Leave yourself at the mercy of the criminal kind heart.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

56. All people are potential killers...

...we all have the capability to do so.


Using your "logic" that merely carrying a gun makes someone essentially a criminal awaiting an opportunity, it is not a stretch to conclude that you believe all men are potential rapists.

[Starboard Tack]

58. And you don't think all men are? Welcome to planet earth

But you are wrong about the "criminal awaiting an opportunity". They are preparing to shoot a criminal should the perceived need arise, which may, in fact, lead to they themselves becoming criminals or heroes or dead. They are gamblers who bet on their guns. They care more about their own self preservation than they do for society as a whole. This is a mentality they share with libertarians, teabaggers and survivalists and trying to peddle it here is less than productive to the Democratic party or the future of our society.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

59. No, I do not think all men are.

Most men are not. In fact, most men find even the idea of rape to be abhorrent.

I am concerned that you hold such a negative view of men in general as to believe they are all potential rapists.

Most of humanity puts their own self preservation above that of society. Good thing too - if we didn't, we'd all be dead already.

[Starboard Tack]

60. I think you have a problem with english comprehension. Look up potential.

Of course most men find the idea of rape abhorrent. What's that got to do with the FACT that all sexually functional men are POTENTIAL rapists. Just as all men and women are potential rape victims.

"Most of humanity puts their own self preservation above that of society." Maybe in your world.
Hopefully not firefighters, military personnel, LE and other public servants.

[rrneck]

73. Why would someone want to rape anothet? nt

[Starboard Tack]

76. I have no idea. Why would someone want to shoot another?

Why would anyone ever want to commit any act of violence? Why would anyone carry a handgun to school or church? But we all have the potential to do any of these? Why would anyone misquote another?

[oneshooter]

79. Yes, Why would anyone misquote another. Why don't you answer the question yourself. Since you have

done so yourself.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

82. Feel free to cite, or do you just want to throw cheap shots?

[rrneck]

80. Why indeed.

To answer that question you would have to know specific motivations and circumstances to each individual. Its the why that defines the motivation that drives intent. It's the why in a mans head that makes him a potential killer - or hero, rapist or lover. It has nothing to do with the gun on his belt or the penis in his pants.

Thus, carrying guns in public is not a threat to society unless we assume the act of carrying one is an indication of homicidal intent.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Surely you can answer the question

Why do you misquote me to make your point? Why would you ascribe feelings to someone who has only shared his thoughts? Do you not find that somewhat presumptuous?

If you tote and don't think there is a possibility that you may shoot someone, perhaps fatally, then you should leave it at home.
You don't need intent when you strap it on, but circumstances (probably the ones you envisioned when strapping it on) arise and intent may enter from stage left and who knows...? That's what POTENTIAL is all about.

[rrneck]

94. You have said

that the public carriage of firearms is an inflammatory act that is bad for society.

So according to you those who carry are either too stupid to know that, too callous and uncultured to care, or secretly hope they will get to shoot somebody.

It apparently has not occurred to you (for the most part) that someone who "totes" a gun fervently hopes he won't have to use it when he "straps it on" in the morning.

Your feelings on the matter, and your projection of them onto others, are clear.

[Starboard Tack]

98. With that kind of comprehension of what I've said, it's just as well you don't tote.

Show me one place where I expressed my "feelings", which you seem to be obsessed with. Can you really not distinguish between an intellectual discussion and emotional haranguing?
I do not think toters strap on a gun hoping to use it, au contraire. I think (note NOT FEEL) that it is a selfish act, taken for the sole purpose of self preservation and with little regard for the safety of others.

"Your feelings on the matter, and your projection of them onto others, are clear."
Once again, let me reiterate. I HAVE NO FEELINGS ABOUT THE MATTER. IT IS NOT AN EMOTIONAL ISSUE TO ME. IT FASCINATES ME AS A SOCIO-POLITICAL ISSUE. PERIOD.

I rarely ever gave it a thought until I came to this forum. Then I saw supposed Dems talking like a bunch of Teabaggers and I thought "Wow, this is interesting. I wonder how many of them are for real." And I'm still wondering that. Haven't come to any hard and fast conclusion yet, but I suspect not all are who they claim to be.
Hell, I even spent a bunch of time on my recent road trip asking all kinds of people, friends, acquaintances, strangers across the country, from all different walks of life, if they ever toted and what they thought about the practice. From about 100 people I found ONE who didn't have a problem with CC. One and he explained that it was something you grew up with in Texas and didn't seem odd to him, but he had never thought of toting or even owning a gun himself and he works for the state as an insurance investigator. Hmmm!
So, unless my sampling was not representative of the country as a whole (not all were Dems) I'm thinking their representation in this forum is way out of whack and consequently highly suspect.

[rrneck]

105. Weelllllll,

" I think"uncomfortable". I find that reasoning highly sus ct. I think they carry concealed because they don't want the embarrassment of being perceived as teabagger weirdos"

Insulting overstatement.


"I think you mean, living in the subjunctive world of toters, a possible attack, An attack that only ever happens in your magination, until and unless it does actually occur and you get to use your gun and maybe you become a hero for a day or maybe you get yourself and a bunch of other people killed I know, you guys are all super responsible and I believe it, but how many assholes or incompetents do you need to make a bad situation worse. "

Hyperbolic generalization.

"Only the toter thinks he's increasing his odds of survival, regardless of anybody else. Very democratic."

Sarcasm

"Which armed assault are you talking about, btw? The hypothetical or a particular one you're anticipating?"

Insinuates desire to kill. He must be one of your "potential killers".

"You think the legal carrying of a firearm eliminates all risk? Hey, I want me some of that juju"

Hyperbolic accusation to enable sarcasm.

"They care more about their own self preservation than they do for society as a whole. This s a mentality they share with libertarians, teabaggers and survivalists and trying to peddle it here is less than productive to the Democratic party or the future of our society"

Sweeping generalization as segue to partisan insult.

And that's just this thread. You have yet to rationally discuss any of the issues I have raised.

If there is nobligation of disclosure, how can there be a lie of omission?

How are you able to discern intent to kill from the presence of a firearm?

How, if a person would be unwilling to use a concealed weapon to save his own life, would that person be a threat to society?

How could anyone who does not intend harm be a threat?

Do you have evidence that those who carry a firearm do so for the sole purpose of self preservation to exclusion of the safety of others?

Are you ready to discuss, or will you return to your emotional duck and cover?

[Starboard Tack]

106. Let's see

"If there is nobligation of disclosure, how can there be a lie of omission?"
Because the current laws permit the deceit. That's why this forum exists, to discuss policy issues. I advocate honesty. Interesting concept, huh?


"How are you able to discern intent to kill from the presence of a firearm?"
Never claimed I could discern INTENT. So a pointless question

"How, if a person would be unwilling to use a concealed weapon to save his own life, would that person be a threat to society?"
Can't say as he would. Who would that guy be? A cop maybe, because it is his job.

"How could anyone who does not intend harm be a threat?"
You tell me.

"Do you have evidence that those who carry a firearm do so for the sole purpose of self preservation to exclusion of the safety of others?"
If they have no legitimate purpose, then why would they carry concealed?

"Are you ready to discuss, or will you return to your emotional duck and cover?"
Keep it honest and you'll get a discussion.
Keep twisting my words and you won't.

[rrneck]

109. Sooooo,

Because the current laws permit the deceit. That's why this forum exists, to discuss policy issues. I advocate honesty. Interesting concept huh?"How are you able to discern

Evasive spin. Why should people be compelled to divulge that information? You seem to think they are a threat and should be outed. Which brings to...

Never claimed I could discern INTENT.

See item above.

Can't say as he would(be a threat)

You don't know his intentions but you consider him a threat to society.

You tell me.

Chickenshit evasion.

If they have no legitimate purpose, then why would they carry concealed?

Two unfounded assumptions:
1. There is no legitimate purpose.
2. You have a right to know what other people carry on their persons.

So, after all that we have exactly nothing. Except your dislike for carrying guns in public.

Why is the act of public firearms carriage a danger to society?

By what right can you demand to know what people carry on their persons?

[Euromutt]

85. Here's a word I learned yesterday: "deepity"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity

It refers to a statement that has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false, or meaningless with respect to this deeper meaning, but would be "earth-shattering" if true.

An awful lot of your sweeping pronouncements fall under this description, if you ask me.

[gejohnston]

86. Not all, few

Unless you grew up in a culture that views it as a good thing, as in spoils of war etc.

What's that got to do with the FACT that all sexually functional men are POTENTIAL rapists.

Rape has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with power. your equipment does not have to work, you can use other items.
My point? There is a psyc. element that you either have that personality disorder, a common sociopath, or have been brain washed to objectify your victim (the latter when it is used as a terror tactic during war).

[Starboard Tack]

89. What does that have to do with "potential"?

I can't believe that you are yet another member who doesn't know the difference between POTENTIAL and INTENTIONAL. You gunnies use the analogy frequently (bogus though it is when compared to shooting a gun) of drivers being potential killers.
Potential means having the ability to. Doesn't have to be the emotional, psychological, moral, ethical ability. Physical suffices. Nothing to do with spoils of war or sex or gender, but circumstance and capacity and decision. Think about it.

[rrneck]

97. Yeah, decision.

How does that decision get made? How does the person deciding feel about it?

Just another "gun is an evil tailsman" attitude.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Ask someone who's ever made that decision

[rrneck]

104. You can run but you can't hide.

I asked you a question about a term you used.

[Starboard Tack]

107. I was speaking in the abstract, not having talked to any rapists about their decision making.

[rrneck]

108. I thought you were here to discuss ideas.

Got any?

[gejohnston]

110. I have thought about it

Potential means having the ability to. Doesn't have to be the emotional, psychological, moral, ethical ability. Physical suffices. Nothing to do with spoils of war or sex or gender, but circumstance and capacity and decision. Think about it.

to use a computer analogy:
Not all psychological is software, much if it is firmware. Sociopaths are usually born, as opposed to made. That is why I support in places where juvenile criminal records are sealed, the exception be made for violence, especially patterns of animal cruelty. The latter is a symptom of a sociopath and is common trait among serial killers. At the very least. they should be accessible to whoever does background checks for firearms be it for an Illinois FOID, NICS, or the Canadian Firearms Center.

Without the firmware, the hardware does not matter.

What I understand, all juvenile records are sealed even from the Firearms Center. If my information is incorrect, and I hope it is, I would welcome someone more familiar with Canadian law correct me.

[Starboard Tack]

124. All very interesting, but somewhat off topic

Maybe you should start a separate thread on this.

[iverglas]

116. humour them

They just like to talk about sexual violence against women, for some reason.

It's never "causing bodily harm" or "arson" or stuff like that, that somes into their heads. For some reason, it's always "rape!!!" Maybe they think that being sexually assaulted is worse than having your spinal cord severed. Maybe they just care terribly about women who are victims of sexual violence. Maybe. Who knows?

[Starboard Tack]

117. I try to humour them, but so few appear to have a sense of humour

Oh what fun, spelling humour with a U. Makes me all nostalgic.

[ileus]

14. ...Imagine all those lost productive years from these two pillars of society.

assuming they ever had a job, and are actually detained in prison for a period of time...

[iverglas]

41. what measures are you proposing

to reduce access to firearms by people who use them to commit crimes against other people?

[gejohnston]

83. how about

fixing the deeper economic and cultural issues that inspire people to commit crimes against other people regardless of the weapon? Then everyone gets what they want.

[iverglas]

112. if you'd like to answer the question

feel free.

So far, your answer seems to be "I don't care how many guns are in the hands of how many people who use them to commit crimes and cause harm".

Some people are inspired to commit crimes against other people for reasons having nothing to do with "deeper economic and cultural issues". Some people are assholes.

And some other people might prefer not to get robbed, abused, disabled or killed while waiting for all that milk and honey.

[gejohnston]

113. How do you come that conclusion?

More accurately,

So far, your answer seems to be "I don't care how many guns are in the hands of how many people who use them to commit crimes and cause harm".

No, the "people who use them to commit crimes and cause harm" are the only people I do not want to have them.

Some people are inspired to commit crimes against other people for reasons having nothing to do with "deeper economic and cultural issues". Some people are assholes.

True, some are just assholes, predators, parasites etc.

And some other people might prefer not to get robbed, abused, disabled or killed while waiting for all that milk and honey.

No shit, why do you think pistol sales are up in the US? You think that many people are interested in ISSF? While I do not know what does work, I do know what does not. Your plan is do thing theater at best and emboldens the assholes, predators, etc. (in this country especially) worst.

[iverglas]

115. so the question was and still is

What measures are you proposing to reduce access to firearms by people who use them to commit crimes against other people?

The answer I'm seeing is "none", since I'm seeing no answer.

That's fine. Why not just say so, though?

[gejohnston]

118. Because there is none

other than enforcing current laws. Doing basic stuff that is already in place and making it more efficient. That said, no law has not. Not ours, not yours, certainly not UK where they do drive bys with sub-machine guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. Effective enforcement of what is already on the books would be a great start

So would allowing background checks on private party sales.