A case for concealed weapons

[MrSandman]

Woman's gun may have saved her life


Four years ago, she was helpless as a man robbed her at gunpoint. On Friday, legally armed with a handgun, she may have saved her life.
And Farmington Hills Police Chief William Dwyer, who dreaded a change in the law in 2001 to make it easier to receive a concealed weapons permit, admits that he's changing his mind about that law.

Dwyer said the woman could easily have been killed after she was targeted by a couple looking for an easy score. They were waiting at 6:30 a.m. outside an office building at the southeast corner of 12 Mile and Drake roads.

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/03202004/pol_20040320011.shtml

A common citizen, who demonstrated the need for a weapon. Random victimization is, well random.

She harbored no illusions of revenge or Chuck Norries(sic) fantasies. She was alert enough to not have her ggun taken, and the presentation of a firearm did not escalate an armed robbery into a gunfight.

She demonstrated an ability to survive a potentially threatening situation and bear witnesss to prevent others from being victims.

Who can argue with that?

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Except that in most cases...

...the gun you are carrying gets used against you.

[MrSandman]

2. According to...

I haven't seen a lot of stories that substantiate that.

[DarkPhenyx]

6. According to Law Enforcement Associations.

It's one of thiose little things that people in favor of gun ownership don't usually like people getting told.

[MrSandman]

8. The ststs that I recall from a federal report:

I can't locate the link at present. If I find time I will look further.

Chances of surving a violent crime without injury:

1 in 5 if resisting with a firearm
1 in 3 ifresisting without a firearm
1 in 2 if non resistive.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. Which is in conflict with what local law will tell you.

I trust the cops more than the Gov't. and I'm not particularly fond of cops.

[MrSandman]

12. The local law

Is concerned over being sued by someone following their advice. The government statistics are simply analysis of the results of criminal activity.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. You know better.

Statistics lie.

[coltman]

4. With proper training.....

the firearm cannot be taken away.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. Most people don't get proper training.

Also it can always be taken away. Ask a cop that has been shot with his own gun.

[RoeBear]

11. Cops get shot with their own guns because...

...they wear them exposed and bad guys grap them.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. And yet they still have proper training.

Training far better than any "civilian" is likely to recieve.

[Superfly]

16. Yeah...not all of us can fire

AK-47's "under combat conditions"...

What a joke.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. Ah Fly. Welcome.

Yes, most of the people who talk so much about guns are a joke. There are far more important things in life.

I am assuming you wish to deride me though. Feel free. It will amuse me some.

[Superfly]

22. No, the amusement is all on my side...

It's been fun watching your "arguments" from afar.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Superfly]

Wow...2 replies from you and already the personal attacks...

Way to raise the bar...

[DarkPhenyx]

29. I thought I'd save us both time. n/t

[coltman]

15. Most cops I know..

don't want to shoot anybody in the first place.

[RoeBear]

10. Totally false...

...but you go right ahead and think that if it makes you feel better.

[DarkPhenyx]

20. Quite true actually.

So is teh statement that a gun in the house is far more likely to shoot someone in the house than an intruder.

[Superfly]

24. An intruder has 7 chances in 1 of being shot

in my house...that's how many guns I have within only a couple second's reach.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. poor boy.

you are that poorly equiped you need that many so close at hand? Tsk, tsk.

[Superfly]

27. All the better to kill them with, my dear.

[DarkPhenyx]

30. And this would be the flaw...

...in the lack of logic used by mosr of the RKBA crowd. Ah well. Something must be borne with patience. Eventually even they will grow up.

[Superfly]

31. Ha, ha, ha, ha,.....

Absolutely pathetic.

[DarkPhenyx]

32. I totally agree.

They truly are pathetic. As I said though. There is hope they will grow up eventually. If they don't shoot themselves first.

[Superfly]

33. You never have explained

"under combat conditions"....I'm all ears, Babalouie....let's have it

[DarkPhenyx]

34. You are right!

I ahven't. What a tragic oversight on my part.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[DarkPhenyx]

38. Full of it?

Of course.

Full of wisdom, experience...a certain joi de vive! Oh yes, and so many more good and glorious things is the great and magnificant Phe full of that it truly is amazing.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[DarkPhenyx]

41. A great deal.

I have also learned some valuable lessons from my 13 month old goddaughter. At 36 I still knwo that I can learn something from everyone. Prehaps even from misguided souls who keep trying to be insulting to me and yet keep failing badly.

[Superfly]

42. I don't have to insult you....

*you're* doing a fine job of that on your lonesome.

[DarkPhenyx]

43. Funny.

Havn't insulted myself yet. Unless acknowledging the truth about myself being a real asshole is an insult to myself. Never saw the truth as an insult though.

[Superfly]

45. Congratulations!!!

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery! I wish you the utmost in luck!

"acknowledging the truth about myself being a real asshole"

[DarkPhenyx]

46. My being an asshole isn't a problem.

It's an asset. It is also the truth. I am stronger for acknowledging that truth. Better.

[MrSandman]

35. Combat conditions:

Attempting to fire shells containing European taggant-laden powder

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[MrSandman]

39. LMAO

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Wingnut357]

17. Ok, but...

If, as you say, most carried guns end up being used against you, why do you carry? Don't you expect to have your weapon used against you? Also, what do you carry? =)

[Superfly]

18. He used to carry an AK-47....

"under combat conditions" whatever the fuck that means.

[DarkPhenyx]

21. No, I didn't carry one.

Silly soul. You know I never said that. :)

[Wingnut357]

44. My apologies

I had presumed that your ownership of a CCP meant that you carried. My mistake.

[DarkPhenyx]

48. No, I do carry.

I just have never "carried" an AK-47 as a concealed weapon. It's a bit hard to conceal one.

Of course I don't knwo anythiong about guns, according to Fly and company. So don't trust me on that one, ok?

[Superfly]

59. Finally, I agree with you 100%

Quote: "Of course I don't knwo anythiong about guns"

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Superfly]

61. And you seem to have nothing substantive

and resort to personal attacks when your "arguments" are called into question.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Columbia]

52. Tell us again

Why an M16 variant is an inferior weapon again? And why we should carry a shotgun, pistol, and bolt-action rifle instead of just one obsolete "assault" weapon? Oh, and enlighten us also on your which "combat zone" you "fired" an AK-47 in. While you are at it, explain your need for having 5 handguns as well.

Thanks!

[MrSandman]

53. Hey wasn't that the MX variant?

[Columbia]

54. Yup

Straight out of Soldier of Fiction magazine.

[DarkPhenyx]

23. I didn't say most carried guns are used against the owner.

No, no, no. Lots of folks carry that never have them used at all. This is a fortunate thing.

[RoeBear]

28. This I will agree with

n/t

[Manwithchildeyes]

56. Got any links to back up that claim?

We need a bit more proof than you saying it's true.

[brokensymmetry]

3. I'm a strong supporter of concealed carry.

Sad but true - sometimes one must defend oneself.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. I'm in favor also.

In fact I have my CCP.

[Romulus]

49. Did I miss something?

DarkPhenyx (1000+ posts) Mon Mar-22-04 08:18 PM
Response to Original message

1. Except that in most cases...
...the gun you are carrying gets used against you.

[MrSandman]

50. Thread Drift...

Nothing to miss

[DarkPhenyx]

51. Nope...

...didn't miss a thing.

[Pert_UK]

55. OK, now here's the point..............

Nobody with even half a brain would ever claim that guns never, ever protect their owner. It is undeniable that there are cases where somebody would have been injured or killed if they hadn't been able to defend themselves with a gun.

The problem we have here is that you (and/or the article) are clearly implying that people are generally safer if they are armed. You can't move to such a general conclusion from an individual incident.

IMHO the pro-gun position considers individuals in isolation rather than the safety of society as a whole.

For example:

Would I be better able to defend myself against attack if I was attacked, if I had a gun? Almost certainly. Therefore guns make my life safer.

Versus:

Are citizens more or less likely to be killed by the deliberate or accidental misuse of a gun in a society that permits widespread private gun ownership? More likely. Therefore guns make society in general a more dangerous place to be.

[MrSandman]

57. So the lady would have been safer...

If neither she nor her attacker had a gun? Are unarmed thugs more polite; less violent.

Do I care about myself or the nebulous citizen more?

And people are not generally safer if unarmed. Thugs are safer; victims are not.

Whether any of us like it or not, there are, have always been, will likely alway be, predators of the human variety. Armed or unarmed, they will be there.

IMHO, the anti gun position comes down to, "If those evil guns were not around, everybody would get along and sing Kumbaya"

[Pert_UK]

65. Still missing the point.......

But then that seems to be at least one thing that both pro and anti have in common.......

"Do I care about myself or the nebulous citizen more?" - I take your point, namely that you're more likely to care about your own safety than someone I can't even point to.

However, I find that this gun-ownership debate is one where some DUers are far too happy to put themselves first and forget about the rest of society. There's always outrage when Republicans cut taxes for the richest and make cuts to healthcare and benefits to the poorest, presumably because we all feel some level of social responsibility. When it comes to guns, people just forget about the rest of society as long as they feel safer as an individual. It's very odd.

'IMHO, the anti gun position comes down to, "If those evil guns were not around, everybody would get along and sing Kumbaya"'.

Yes, you're absolutely right. That's exactly what everyone criticising widespread, loosely controlled gun ownership really thinks. Well done.

:eyes:

Seriously though, I make a point about not being allowed to generalise from an individual event and I get replies like this. Very odd.

[MrSandman]

114. It is A case, not THE case

The case is that CCW has not been shown to increase crime. In absence of such proof, prior restraint is not justified.

The topic was not "loosely controlled gun ownership."

"However, I find that this gun-ownership debate is one where some DUers are far too happy to put themselves first and forget about the rest of society. There's always outrage when Republicans cut taxes for the richest and make cuts to healthcare and benefits to the poorest, presumably because we all feel some level of social responsibility."

Enligthened self interest. When intervention is provided for the less prosperous, they are less likely to grow up to be criminals. Then we all also feel safer.

[MrBenchley]

58. You will notice that the CCW advocates

are willing to do absolutely nothing to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns....in fact, their main complaint seems to be that there are legal barriers to arming them with assault weapons.

You will also notice the words "innocent bystander" which appear all too often in the real world, never seem to appear in these childish fantasies...

[DarkPhenyx]

66. Bottom line Benchly.

even when handguns were illegal in Britain the criminals still got them.

[MrBenchley]

67. Yeah, and the RKBA crowd

keeps trying to lie about a bloodbath in Britain...

[iverglas]

68. but hold on

Isn't that bloodbath just drug dealers shooting other drug dealers?

Where's <name not included so as not to call out another poster> when you need him??

In the US, there's no problem because the people using guns to kill other people are often drug dealers killing other drug dealers. (I wonder what drugs those seven kids in Fresno were into?)

In the UK, there's a whopping big problem because the people using guns to kill other people are almost always drug dealers killing other drug dealers.

Why do I get so confused when I try to sort this out?

.

[MrBenchley]

71. Let's not forget

that the RKBA crowd was last week trying to push the idea of a bloodbath in Sweden, too...although it turned out that the entire nation has fewer homicides than the city of Memphis Tennessee in a typical year.

I'm still trying to figure out how the "right to life" people got dragged in to that other argument...guess some people can't separate their precious popguns from their sex life.

[DarkPhenyx]

70. Not that i have seen.

However you do have to admit that the most stringent handgun control laws in Europe didn't completely succeeed, correct?

[MrBenchley]

72. Really? How did you miss it?

"the most stringent handgun control laws in Europe didn't completely succeeed"
Compared to what? 90,000 shootings a year here (30,000 of them fatal)?

[DarkPhenyx]

74. And that says there is a bloodbath in England how?

I completely fail to see how pointing out that the laws weren't a screaming success equates to England being a bloodbath. Please explain the logic.

[MrBenchley]

75. Geeze, phenyx...

If you want to pretend that the RKBA crowd isn't trying to float that crap, you can do it without me...

[DarkPhenyx]

76. So you refuse to answer my question or...

...explain the logic in your response? I really would like to understand how you got there.

[Superfly]

77. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle....

"you refuse to answer my question"

:shrug:

[MrBenchley]

78. What question?

If you want to pretend that the RKBA crowd doesn't try to lie about Britain at every chance, you can do it without me.

[DarkPhenyx]

79. Forget it.

I don't think you are going to get it with the amount of effort I'm willing to put into it. perhaps next time.

[Pert_UK]

69. Handguns are still illegal in Britain and that's a good thing.......

You see, it kind of makes sense for a government to ban things that it thinks are too dangerous to be in private hands. However, shockingly enough, criminals don't always obey the law and will source illegal guns illegally from criminal sources. This is an entirely different subject and area of law enforcement from the handgun ban brought in to prevent further massacres following Dunblane and Hungerford.

[MrBenchley]

73. Here in the US

some people expect that the gun industry should be allowed to arm criminals, and will construct the most preposterous lies possible to defend the practice.

[Romulus]

80. are Krispy Kreme donuts next on the "banned" list?

Obesity kills way more people than any "pop guns." It's obvious then that people can't be trusted with food items that contribute to obesity - ergo "the government" should step in and protect people from this risk by by banning widespread access to obesity-contributing foods.

For the good of the citizenry.

When does this end?

[Pert_UK]

90. Yes, but last time I checked it was fiendishly difficult to either....

accidentally or deliberately kill a whole bunch of people with a doughnut. Doughnut eating is a personal choice of an individual.

If I were to move to the US I would not be able to choose to live in a gun-free area, simply because nobody knows who owns a gun and who doesn't.

Your argument here is ridiculous.

[Superfly]

91. May I offer a simple solution?

Don't move here. Eh? Whatcha think? :evilgrin:

[iverglas]

94. my goodness

May I offer a simple solution?
Don't move here. Eh? Whatcha think?

And what an amazingly simple solution for all the folks who whine so incessantly about the state of affairs in Canada, the UK, Australia ...

By jove, I think you've got it!

Of course, since I don't much hear Pert_UK whining about how things are in the USofA, it seems you got it backwards.

.

[Superfly]

95. The only person who whines about how things are in the USofA

is you.

And, if I may borrow from something you said:

"I guess the question would actually be....who was talking to you?"

Edit: Whines not wines.

[iverglas]

97. yuppers

The only person who whines about how things are in the USofA
is you.

Well, not actually, of course. I don't whine, and I'm not the only person who is critical. But we'll let you have your charming hyperbole.

And the things that I am critical of are THE THINGS THAT AFFECT ME AND MY FELLOW CITIZENS AND MY FELLOW HUMAN BEINGS IN THE REST OF THE WORLD.

I feel tremendous sympathy for citizens of the US who are affected by those things, of course, but I don't presume to instruct them in how they should do anything in matters that affect them and don't affect me or my fellow citizens or my fellow human beings in the rest of the world.

You'll note the difference between me and the whiners about Canada, the UK, Australia, etc., in this respect, I'm sure.

.

[MrBenchley]

102. Gee, the RKBA crowd does nothing BUT whine

When they aren't sniveling about the guns in the news thread, they're pissing and moaning because another one of their crapass right wing sites has been exposed as a crapass right wing site.

[Romulus]

96. What's rediculous

is to pick and choose which causes of death are "less civilized" than others and more deserving of public rebuke.

If all this hand-wringing about preventing "social harm "from "unnecessary deaths" is to be intellectually honest, then the largest sources of mortality should be attacked, not the causes of death much, much lower down on the list.

Last time I checked, the largest number of firearms-related fatalities in the US were due to suicides. By definition, suicide is a "personal choice of an individual." Various US anti-gun-owner orgs readily use the suicide statistics of "deaths due to gun violence" in their calls to "reduce public harm" from firearms by banning them.

And that "nobody knows who owns a gun" line is just as applicable to the UK.

On edit:
There are areas of the US with gun control laws similar to the UK, where you would be assured that the authorities knew of lawful firearms owners. Wash DC comes to mind. So does Chicago and its various suburbs. All of these locations require gun owner licensing and firearms registraion, along with bans on handguns. Then there are the states of NY, NJ and Massachusetts, which are close but not exactly like the others I mentioned, with owner licensing and firearms registration.

[Pert_UK]

98. I take your point, and it is a good one, but..........

We're talking about gun ownership here. It doesn't really help the discussion if half-way through it somebody essentially goes "Ha, but doughnuts cause more death than guns so we should look at doughnut restrictions before we look at guns....".

I am completely against the "nanny state", where individuals aren't able to do anything that might cause themselves harm. I'm not against sports where there is still some significant risk to yourself and others. I'm not even really against gun ownership, but am at least able to recognise that 1 - the situation in the US is far from ideal, 2 - laws and/or their application need to be changed in order to improve the situation 3 - tightening laws about gun ownership and adding extra sensible precautions does not equal a total ban.

There are indeed many things that represent more of a risk to health and life than guns, but guns are a unique issue (IMHO). Talking about the problems that they can cause and ways to reduce those problems isn't helped by people throwing in red herrings, or indeed, doughnuts.

[FatSlob]

82. Ahhhhhh, a perfect example of the authoritarian view.

"You see, it kind of makes sense for a government to ban things that it thinks are too dangerous to be in private hands."

The government deciding for the people, not the people deciding for themselves.

[MrBenchley]

83. And a corresponding perfect example

of right wing hooey.... "Do you want the government telling you you have to hire or live next door to a n-------?"

"not the people deciding for themselves"
Funny, when the people of Missouri decided for themselves they didn't want concealed weapon permits handed out to every flabby Republican who wanted them, the GOP and the corrupt gun lobby rammed the bill through anyway.

[iverglas]

84. don't you USAmericans

... have elections yet? You've heard of them, though?

The government deciding for the people, not the people deciding for themselves.

"Government". It droppeth like a lawn dart from heaven. Outa nowhere.

Who decided for you that you may not drive the wrong way down a one-way street to get where you're going by the route you prefer, citizen?

.

[MrBenchley]

85. You might recall

that right wingers spout this "anti-government" crap at the drop of a hat.

[FatSlob]

86. Us Americans

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the implication that rights were being written about. I'll be more clear in the future so that you will be able to follow my writings. Ta-Ta-For-Now...

[iverglas]

87. and I guess you missed

I'm sorry that you didn't understand the implication
that rights were being written about. I'll be more
clear in the future so that you will be able to follow
my writings.

... how rights were being written about in my writing too.

You know: liberty?

Who gets to decide for you what direction you have to drive in order to get to the place that you choose to go to, and what speed you may drive in getting there, not to mention what you may drive to get there, citizen?

Surely the gummint doesn't actually put the interests of the citizens collectively over your personal interests when it decides those things and restricts your exercise of liberty, does it?

I understand that "liberty" may be a bit of an outmoded notion in the USA today, but surely you at least have fond memories of it.

.

[FatSlob]

88. False argument

driving isn't a right, bearing arms is.

[MrBenchley]

89. Speaking of false arguments...

Serving in a militia for the common defense is a right...toting a popgun around isn't.

[iverglas]

92. you can say it over and over and over and over

"driving isn't a right"

... and you will still be flat-out wrong. I mean, not that the question I asked had the first thing to do with whether "driving" is a right or not, anyhow.

What the hell, exactly, do you think "liberty" means??

I guess it's hard for y'all to remember, when people holding placards that criticize the US President are herded into pens miles away from the US President, just fer instance. And when you can't take a vacation to Santiago de Cuba like the rest of the world can. You kind of lose sight of the concept of being entitled to go where you want, how you want, for whatever reason you want, I guess.

.

[CO Liberal]

100. Read the ENTIRE Second Amendment, FatSlob

Not just the second half of it.

[Superfly]

103. Read the ENTIRE Constitution, CO...

it's a document that restricts the power of the GOVERNMENT and NOT the rights of citizens

[CO Liberal]

104. Oh, Yes It Does

Citizens can no longer have slaves.

Citizens can no longer prohibit women from voting.

(I could go on, but I think you get the idea....)

[Superfly]

105. Scuse me?

Both cases you listed restricted the power of government and protected the rights of citizens.

The constition enables the rights of citizens and limits the power of government. Your interpretation of the second amendment enables the power of government and limits the rights of citizens. Don't work that way bubba?

[CO Liberal]

106. And Restricted The Rights....

...of other citizens.

[Superfly]

107. It does?

where?

[FatSlob]

108. I don't get it...

are you saying that there is right to own slaves and that the Constitution restricts that right? Please clear this up.

on edit: I'm pretty much 100% certain that you didn't mean this, but that is the way it came across to me.

[CO Liberal]

109. I'm Saying...

...people once had the right to own slaves - now they don't.

Perhaps bearing arms isn't the "inalienable right" some think it is.....

[slackmaster]

111. I see the fact that people used to own slaves quite differently

Nobody ever had a right to own another human being. The fact that slave ownership was permitted should be viewed as an ongoing infringement on the liberty of the slaves by their "owners" and by society at large; a mistake which has been corrected if not fully atoned for.

[Superfly]

112. Hey, man...prohibition and slavery were repealed...

why don't you lead the charge on repealin the 2nd Amendment? Lots of luck, and Bon Voy-a-gee.

[Pert_UK]

93. I have some news for you...........

1. Governments pass laws, not citizens. Citizens vote in elections which determine the government who then have authority to make whatever changes to the statutes are necessary. I'm not sure what you mean by "authoritarian", but I'm afraid that governments making laws is how it works.....unless you have a referendum on every law change.

2. The people of the UK overwhelmingly wanted guns banned. After several serious instances when legal gun-owners wreaked havoc with their weapons, people generally agreed that gun-ownership by even a small minority represented an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to the population as a whole.

As it happens, I'm not actually anti-gun.......I am very disappointed that I am not able to join a shooting club in the UK and would do if I could. I will certainly shoot when I next visit the States. However, in J&PS I connsistently find that the comments in favour of gun ownership restrictions are more logical and sound than those against it.

The US will never have a total ban on guns because they are an embedded part of the culture, which they weren't (in modern times) in the UK.

I just like a good discussion, and like to point out poor argument when I see it.

[FatSlob]

99. Well, I'm glad to hear you support gun ownership

However, you have to realize that the denial of a right is authoritarian by its nature. Unfortunately, we have authoritarian practices here in the United States. In Britain, it seems that it is much worse on the gun-rights issue than in the U.S.

[Pert_UK]

115. I've had the debate about "rights" before.........

I don't actually believe that bearing arms should be considered a "right". In the UK it was always something allowed by law, but never (as far as I know) an actual "right" of the individual...more of a privilege.

I accept that in the US bearing arms is legally a right, because that is how it is enshrined in the constitution - you have the right to bear arms. However, I don't think that it can be a right in the true sense of the word.

Rights are "good in themselves" and are the whole point themselves, e.g. the right to free speech, the right to freedom of assembly etc. would be reasonable and appropriate rights in any society. Now I might concede that something like "the ability to defend yourself" could be considered a right, but the means by which you do that (i.e. guns) isn't.

Arms can be described as one means by which to obtain an end, viz the right to defend yourself, and guns are one type of arm that could be used.

Unless you believe that arms/guns are truly a universal good to which people should be entitled in all circumstances, I struggle to understand how they can be considered a "right" in the true philosophical sense.

I actually think that the whole "rights" issue is annoying and distracting. Essentially a bunch of well-meaning guys decided that bearing arms was a right (in very specific historical circumstances). This leads to tortuous and pointless arguments about the government removing individuals' rights, when you should be talking about whether allowing gun-ownership is a necessary, sensible or laudable thing in a civilized country.

Incidentally, all rights are actually controlled or restricted to some extent e.g. the right to free speech doesn't allow you to joke that you've got a bomb in your trousers as you board an aircraft.....

[iverglas]

81. and the point is

even when handguns were illegal in Britain the criminals still got them.

--- what?????? What is this point I can't seem to get?

Even when speeding is illegal, speeders speed.

Even when homicide is illegal, murderers kill.

How does demonstrating that criminals get firearms from places where they are easy to get, and smuggle them into places where they are hard to get, amount to evidence that restricting them doesn't work (if that's the point ...)??

What it is evidence of is that restricting them doesn't work as well as it might if it were not so fucking easy to get them in other places from which it is impossible to prevent all of them being smuggled into places where it is hard to get them.

You know how many miles of "undefended border" there is between Canada and the US?

You know that England/Scotland/Wales are surrounded by water?

Does the fact that no single country, particularly countries with thousands of miles of undefendable border or hundreds of miles of coastline, will ever succeed in keeping ALL prohibited items out mean that no country should take steps to keep out as many as possible?

Did ya happen to catch my recent thread about how the centralized Canadian firearms registry played a role in detecting a conspiracy to traffic arms into the US from Canada? The arms in question may have been "collector's items", but the point (that nobody bothered to address) was that it simply is not going to be possible to move large quantities of firearms from Canada into the US, should anyone ever wish to do so, because records are kept of *all* legal acquirers, legal acquisitions and legal transfers.

On the other hand, firearms, and particularly handguns, are trafficked into Canada from the US all the damned time, and used to kill people and facilitate the commission of crimes. Not to mention used in, oh, Colombia to fuel horrible internal conflicts and facilitate the ouster of peasant farmers from their land ...

Imagine if the US had such a system ... how many fewer people might be killed by career criminals in the UK, how many fewer crimes might be committed at gunpoint in the UK, and how much more pleasant the life of peasant farmers in Colombia might be.

Yup, there are weapons trafficked from other places on earth into the UK. Imagine if they had civilized firearms control systems too.

Why do I just never get the point of this "criminals do criminal things" business?

.

[iverglas]

62. hey, more mind-reading

She harbored no illusions of revenge or
Chuck Norries(sic) fantasies.

Did I miss the bit in the story where the psychologist who had interviewed her reported his/her clinical impressions?

(Whom are we "(sic)"ing here? I didn't see any reference to Chuck Norries in the story.)


She was alert enough to not have her ggun taken,
and the presentation of a firearm did not escalate
an armed robbery into a gunfight.

And that's what's often called "luck".

Given what we now know of how less than firm the would-be robbers' resolve was, it's at least as likely that the armed robbery itself, had it occurred, would not have escalated beyond the brandishing of a weapon and theft.

Of course, the robber was also lucky that his target was not just a tad more trigger-happy.

She demonstrated an ability to survive a potentially
threatening situation and bear witnesss to prevent others
from being victims.
Who can argue with that?

What's to argue? Facts is facts; she survived unharmed and she kept her property intact. Although how her "bearing witness" is supposed to prevent others from being victims, I dunno. If someone else went out and bought a handgun and tried to use it to defend him/herself against an attempted robbery and ended up dead, would I get to blame her for "bearing witness" to the false claim that carrying a firearm guarantees safety?

The fact also is, however, that the outcomes could have been very different.

The would-be robbers might really have just been people with business in the building wanting to know when the doors opened. Really. Or the would-be self-defender might have been someone who reacted a little more extremely to perceived threats to her safety or perceived threats to her image of herself as a "non-victim".

The would-be robbers, who did have a firearm, could easily have shot her from their car, either in the first place or after the standoff, I'd say. Sure, maybe in these particular circumstances, she would have been able to retreat into the building before they got a chance, after she'd successfully faced the first one down; in others, say if the door was locked, she wouldn't have. In fact, the fact that they didn't do either of those things suggests that (a) they weren't too bright, and/or (b) they had no intention whatsoever of harming her beyond taking whatever of hers they were after. And her life would have been in no danger at all had she given it up.

She saw a car in the lot that she did not recognize, with two people inside, putting her on her guard. When she left her car, a man got out of that car and walked toward her.

Now it seems to me that here's where the whole tale could have ended and no firearms have been needed by anyone. You arrive at your office at 6:30 a.m., there is no one around but two strangers in a strange car, you've been robbed in the past (and you have friends who are apparently of the sort who set you up for robbery -- did she maybe have some reason for being suspicious?) -- and you stay in your car and use your cell phone to call the police then, and drive to a more populated area. That's what the truly "alert" person does.

And the truly alert person does that because the truly alert person, whose foremost concern is truly his/her own safety, knows that having a firearm in one's pocket simply does not guarantee safety. A smarter/more determined crook would have drawn his/her own firearm first, for pity's sake.

"I felt my life was in trouble. The first instinct was to pull out my gun."

That's just a really crappy first instinct, for someone who really wants to be safe. One's first instinct should always be to avoid danger, and remove one's self from situations that one perceives as potentially dangerous, before the danger materializes.

"She took the appropriate action," <Police Chief> Dwyer said.

And a police chief who doesn't point all that out -- that the appropriate action would have been to move away from the perceived danger, not into it, and report the problem before it escalated, not rely on one's firearm to solve it, is pretty plainly not performing his duty properly, if you ask me.

.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[MrSandman]

101. Would have, could have...didn't

The Chuck Norries and revenge was another's case against CCW. As was the demonstrated need the same person's justification for limited CCW.

She could not reach the building.


No claim was made of guaranteeing safety...bettering odds. Choosing to carry also involves weighing the danger to which one may expose oneself.

How many will not be victimized by these thugs due to her action.

No shots fired, displaying the weapon was sufficient...a point often contested.

One makes much of one's own luck...I would call it situational awareness.

As has been noted, thugs aren't generally known for intelligence.


"Given what we now know of how less than firm the would-be robbers' resolve was, it's at least as likely that the armed robbery itself, had it occurred, would not have escalated beyond the brandishing of a weapon and theft."

And she would have been a victim. Bottom Line.
She may have been dead. Can't mind read the thugs intent either.

[iverglas]

110. I'm sorry

I just can't think of any way to respond to such a collection of disjointed thoughts so jam-packed with non sequiturs and straw folk and other varieties of tasty tidbits.

One could spend one's time dissecting and discarding them, one by one, but to what avail? Somebody else (and not necessarily somebody else) will just be back with another load of them tomorrow.

.

[MrSandman]

113. No, I am sorry...

I do not have the time to compose brilliantly written epistles. If the thoughts can't be connected to the points of your post, well, connect the dots.

[Pert_UK]

116. In the cause of fairness, I suppose I should point out that......

despite the hyperbole of the article, this event does offer one piece of evidence to support the theory that guns can and sometimes do protect their owners. Although the story is incomplete, I don't think that the anti-gun lobby could use this to claim otherwise.

However, you still can't conclude from this one event that guns necessarily make their owners safer.