Guns making us safer again

[CreekDog]

Woman shot at Alcoholics Anonymous meeting

A woman was in stable condition Friday after being shot in the head by a man fighting with her husband at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Baldwin Park, police said.

The woman, whose name was not released, was sitting in a car outside First Presbyterian Church of Baldwin Park on Stewart Avenue about 7:30 p.m. Thursday, according to a police report.

A fistfight erupted between her husband and another man at the meeting, which rents space from the church but is not connected to it, church officials said. The fight then spilled out into the parking lot.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/11/woman-shot-at-baldwin-park-aa-meeting.html

[liberal N proud]

1. Hope you have your teflon suit on.

I agree with your heading.

:popcorn:

[TheWraith]

2. If only it were illegal to shoot people in the head, then it would never happen.

That seems to be the logic behind the belief that if no one is allowed to carry guns, no one WILL carry guns.

Guess what? It's basically impossible to legally carry a firearm in Los Angeles, unless you're rich or famous. So it was illegal for this man to be carrying said gun, but he did it anyway. What additional laws would have stopped him from doing that?

[Orrex]

4. I don't see where th OP was making any claim at all about gun laws

[RSillsbee]

9. Which makes it an anecdotal current events post.

The OP posted it but where do we go from here? Someone committed an illegal act w/ a firearm. It happens every day w/ no comment from about gun policy ( the purpose of this forum) we're dead what do we talk about WRT this event? what's the point of the post?

[Orrex]

22. It can be taken in several different ways, all relevant and appropriate to the Group

Two obvious interpretations are:

1. Perhaps we'd be better off if untrained, unhinged assholes didn't have such easy access to firearms

2. Perhaps the existing laws are more than adequate, but they need to be enforced more consistently

I've been all over DU, and no Group or Forum is as militant as the Guns group when it comes to hyper-enforcement of its notion of what is acceptable subject matter and what is not.

I find that curious.

[PavePusher]

27. "militant"?

I see that word used a lot as a pejorative in here. I do not think it means what you think it means, nor are you applying it correctly.

"hyper-enforcement"? "acceptable subject matter"? Hahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahhaa.... whew.

[Orrex]

29. I have no doubt that you see it that way.

More's the pity.

[rl6214]

36. yeah you can lump that one in there along with

gunner, toter

[iverglas]

58. "I see that word used a lot as a pejorative in here."

Actually, you see the term gun militant used as a pejorative.

I have expressly said in this forum that "militant" is not a pejorative in my mouth, and I doubt that it is in the mouth of the one other person I know to use it regularly to describe the ideology and practice in question. I am a pro-choice militant, a militant atheist, and various other kinds of militant / a militant for various other causes.

An anti-choice militant is an ugly thing to be, a militant fundamentalist of any religion is an ugly thing to be. In my opinion, of course.

All just matters of opinion. I like mine.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[CreekDog]

6. ah, so the main problem you see is that the guy who shot her

should have been legally allowed to carry the gun he had.

:rofl:

[TheWraith]

11. Careful. Too many strawmen can give you hayfever.

But your post, whether you realize it or not, is an excellent example of the fact that disarming the innocent does nothing to protect them.

[CreekDog]

15. you can advocate for whatever laws you want --but guns don't make you safer

they make you think you're safer.

:rofl:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Firearms:

Basically, a firearm is a tool. It is not sentient and has no volition of its own. It is an object and not an actor. A gun can never "MAKE" you safer. A filing cabinet will not "MAKE" you neater nor will a gym membership "MAKE" you stronger.

**NOTHING WILL SERVE YOU AS WELL AS YOUR OWN DETERMINATION AND PREPAREDNESS.**

Being armed with a firearm, properly practiced and mentally prepared will give you, in the opinion of the FBI, the best chance of surviving an assault with the least injury.


USMC Gun-fighting Rules, numbers 19, 20 and 23:
Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.


BTW, if you "think" you are safer just because you are armed, you're just being careless.

[CreekDog]

31. it's a tool for killing and it makes killing easier than almost any other tool

unlike most tools, it's only purpose is to kill or to threaten killing.

and people are able to kill more effectively, more often and more quickly with that tool than others.

and while it's true that it's not the only instrument of killing, for the very angry person who might bomb a shopping mall or poison a crowd, why would they do such things in this country when they can simply go to the store or gun show and buy weaponry that makes it easy and quick?

no surprise it happens here so often.

[hack89]

32. So why is violent crime at historic lows while gun ownership skyrockets? nt

[CreekDog]

38. the murder rate is lower where gun ownership and access is lower

statistically.

and no, i'm not doing all the work all over again so gun advocates can ignorantly say that New York is less safe than Phoenix (when it's the other way around) and point to the easy access to guns in Arizona and the stricter laws in New York --and then when their example has proven the opposite of the point they were making, they run scurrying off to another pair of city combinations.

but i've posted statistics based on every state in the USA and it doesn't matter to the gun advocate posters here. no number i post will ever be good enough.

why?

because what they believe is a religion about guns. see, when you believe something is true even when it's refuted by cold hard facts, you've found a god.

so no number i post will convince them or even make them question.

but rational people here will read and understand and either accept or at least follow up and decide for themselves and for them i want them to know that there are tried and tested arguments being made by gun advocates all designed to make them ignore their common sense, statistical analysis...

but why? because they believe we're safer with guns? some advocates might believe it.

it's because it's marketing. if guns are seen to make you safer, you can sell more.

that's the point, money.

[hack89]

42. No - you never proved anything of the sort.

the states with the most poor, the most gang violence, the highest overall crime rates have the highest murder rates.

The problem is criminals - not law abiding citizens. Why don't you fix the real problem.

[gejohnston]

48. what empirical evidence do you have to support this

and what evidence that gun laws have anything to do with it? The problem with Phoenix is that it sits in the middle of a major trade route for contraband. Gang wars over market share. The is the problem with the US Virgin Islands, which has very strict gun laws, yet has not only the highest murder rate in the US but among the worst in the world.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. We are happy to find the stats for you. Here they are:

Five Worst Gun States According to Brady (Brady does not rank DC or PR)
State // Murder rate // Violent Crime Rate FBI 2009 // Brady Ranking
AK - 3.1 - 633 - 0
AZ - 5.5 - 408 - 0 (Has border with Mexico. High drug trade and human trafficking)
UT - 1.3 - 213 - 0
ID - 1.4 - 228 - 2
MT - 2.6 - 254 - 2
Five Best Gun States According to Brady
CA - 5.3 - 472 - 80
NJ - 3.7 - 312 - 72
MA - 2.6 - 457 - 65
NY - 4.0 - 385 - 62
CT - 3.0 - 297 - 58
Since Brady doesn’t rank DC or PR here are their stats.
DC - 24.0 - 1346 - Guns still effectively banned
PR - 22.5 - 264 - Gun laws far stricter than even CA


So the places with the greatest gun control have the worst murder/crime rates while the states that Brady lists as loosest have the least murder/crime, except for AZ.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. non sequitur

"...i've posted statistics based on every state in the USA..."

There are perhaps two states of the fifty that are small enough such that the geographical diversity doesn't make for meaningless statistics.


I will point out that in this country, the non-firearm murder rate exceeds the overall murder rate in the UK and some other countries.

In essence, most people, myself included, will support reasonable restrictions simply because those restrictions are reasonable. Sixty years ago a 16 year old could buy a rifle by mail order. There was no tremendous wave of rifle shootings. Violence has a cultural aspect to it and, unfortunately, the culture here has it.

It is illegal to:
aim a gun at someone without justification
fire the gun with the intent to injure that person
use a gun to kill that person
obtain a gun for illegal resale
operate a profit making firearms business without an FFL (and other licenses as well)

What kind of thinking makes a person believe that someone willing to break those laws will not also break a few dozen others?


Of the 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 firearms owners in this country the number which are law-breakers is orders of magnitude smaller.

Is this all about money? Yes to a degree and it is about freedom. Freedom is dangerous. Letting folks drive across state lines without a vehicle search or documenting their identity can be dangerous. Not going house to house to find narcotics can be dangerous. There is nothing, NOTHING more dangerous than political expediency.

SCOTUS has delivered interpretations, over the last three and half years, of rights of individuals involving elements of the second, fifth and fourteenth amendments. I believe that some headline seeking lobbyists, legislators and politicians who are acting contrary to the spirit of those court decisions should be ashamed of themselves.

We have a ton of laws about illegal drugs in the US. Millions are in prison on drug charges. Do you think it's difficult to score some pot, coke or oxy?

[iverglas]

60. "nt"

I take that to mean: if I had to say much more, I'd get myself tied up in knots trying to pretend that my subject line was related in any way to the content of the post I replied to.

[hack89]

61. No - it means this issue has been discussed so many times here

and grabbers still ignore that basic fact. It is still useful to put a reminder out there.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Listen up Creek;...

...your OP contained the message that guns don't make us safer. In case you hadn't noticed, I agreed with you. There absolutely are folks that just head for the store, buy a pistol and leave it under their pillow. They seek no training and never practice. They aren't safer.

Others are. It's just freedom.

Have a nice day.

[CreekDog]

39. My OP didn't actually say that --which makes me not really want to engage you, but i will ask you:

you support mandatory training and registration of firearms as well as mandatory laws about how guns are stored in the home correct?

without those, anyone can do exactly what you just described as being dangerous.

so if you come back and say it should all be voluntary --that's going to look laughable to anybody not in the hallelujah chorus on the issue with you.

be aware.

[RSillsbee]

47. I'll take a crack

you support mandatory training and registration of firearms as well as mandatory laws about how guns are stored in the home correct?

Absolutely not, especially not registration. I really don't understand all the hype over mandatory training, all the safety training in the world won't take a person that is dumb enough to use a gun in an unsafe manner safely any more than all the mandatory drivers safety training we went through in high school stops drunk drivers

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Somehow...

......I felt your subject line "Guns making us safer again" had an implied irony component. My mistake and, with all due respect and 'awareness', thanks for your respect as well.

[iverglas]

8. it was illegal for him to be carrying a gun, so obviously,

he didn't have one!!!

Laws work like that, right?

What's that you say? They don't?

Hmm. I wonder what could be done, then.

Nothing, I guess. Move along.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[one-eyed fat man]

34. Rethink that

Laws barring people from carrying guns accomplish nothing, because the likelihood a murderer will be deterred by a sign or law against carrying the gun is nil.

The smug retort that the same thing could be said for the law on murder itself. By ludicrous analogy, we shouldn’t have laws against murder since murderers will ignore it.

The mistake is to assume that the primary purpose for laws punishing murder is deterrence. If you go someone's house and kill their brother, they may feel justified in seeking retribution for your murdering a loved one.

It is difficult, in a civilized society, to allow for individual punishment of crime. So we surrender retribution to the state, who formalizes the process, and ensures "justice is served." The primary purpose of laws against murder is not so much that it will deter someone intent on committing it, so much as offers the living a sense that justice was served. If the state fails to be effective as this function, you risk a break down of law and order, and a reliance of vigilantism.

But this is not to say that laws against murder don’t also have deterrent effect. One has to examine how this deterrent effect works, however. Generally speaking, unless you’re scrupulously careful, if you murder someone, you are much more likely than not going to be caught and brought to justice. About 70% of murder cases are solved in the US. This qualifies as a fairly powerful deterrent. This probably does help keep the murder rate down significantly.

Serving justice can’t possibly be a justification for preventing someone from carrying a firearm, because there is no victim of the crime who will be seeking it. It’s fair to judge a law against the practice solely on its deterrent effect, which is not also true for murder. The problem is that the likelihood of being caught with a concealed weapon is infinitesimally small unless you do some kind of screening in the place where carry is prohibited. The law will deter people who are generally law abiding and don’t intend to commit crimes. It will not deter someone who is intending to use that firearm to commit more serious crimes that do have victims that will require justice served. It certainly won’t deter someone who is mentally deranged.

So if the law has a relatively zero change of deterring someone, other than someone who is not intent on committing a crime of violence, why is it incorrect to question whether this is a worthwhile law? Declaring a "gun free zone" has a deterrent effect on one intending violence, either through criminal inclinations or madness, that is so vanishingly small is to be logically of no use to society. I think it's wrong to so quickly dismiss this fact, and to make poor analogies to laws against murder.

[iverglas]

57. nah, you think

It can be fun, you know.


So if the law has a relatively zero change of deterring someone, other than someone who is not intent on committing a crime of violence, why is it incorrect to question whether this is a worthwhile law?

And going back to the beginning of your post:

The smug retort that the same thing could be said for the law on murder itself. By ludicrous analogy, we shouldn’t have laws against murder since murderers will ignore it.

Not seeing much that is ludicrous about the analogy at all, are you?

Laws prohibiting conduct allow those who engage in the conduct to be punished. In some cases, the prospect of punishment itself will deter some people from engaging in the conduct. In others, the punishment will deter the particular individuals from engaging in it again.

You and I don't kill people for a variety of reasons, none of which has much to do with it being illegal to do so. However, if it were not illegal to do so, our notion that it is "wrong" to kill people might not be quite so firmly embedded in our noggins. Laws (and punishments for breaking laws) do express values that a society wants to be adopted and adhered to.

But why do you and I obey ridiculously low speed limits? The 401 corridor from Montreal to Windsor/Detroit has a limit of 100 km/h, about 62.5 mph. Large potions of it go through completely flat farmland, nothing but straight divided highway through fields for mile upon mile; in some European countries the limit, if any, would be way higher than that. Do people who stick to 100 on that road believe it is wrong to drive faster - or are they afraid that if they did they would get caught, they would lose points, they would pay a hefty fine and their insurance rates might go up, and if they kept doing it and kept getting caught they would lose their licence? The latter.

Laws deter conduct on the part of people who have something to lose if caught, who have a reasonable expectation of getting caught, and who apply risk-benefit analysis to their actions.

None of those factors generally describe people who carry/use firearms illegally, any more than they describe most murderers. Laws against carrying firearms illegally make it possible to punish people who do it, and possibly deter some of them from doing it again; that's about all they do.

They are unlikely to deter any actual criminal from carrying a firearm illegally -- although they might deter a person with a job, a family, a home and a reputation from doing it even if they thought the law was totally bogus, as many people think the speed limit on the 401 is. The likelihood of getting caught may indeed be low, but the severity if the punishment if caught could outweigh the low risk of getting caught for people who have something to lose and regularly consider the consequences of their actions. But they aren't your real concern; your real concern is criminals carrying firearms.

So if somebody wants to reduce the numbers of criminals carrying firearms, they need to stop whining about how laws don't do the trick, let alone making dumb claims that somebody is demanding more laws against criminals carrying firearms. They need to propose ways of achieving that end.

I know what I propose, and so do you. What do you propose? Anything?

[rfranklin]

3. It's okay because he was trying to actually shoot the husband...

she's just collateral damage.

[RSillsbee]

5. Sounds like a Hell of an A.A. meeting

Wonder what Bill W. would think?

[iverglas]

7. now there's one we haven't considered

Guns in state capitol buildings, guns at county council meetings, guns on university campuses -- guns at AA meetings! Don't twelve-step without one.

"A fistfight erupted". And in another time or place, the story would have ended there.

Obviously, the person with the gun was just defending himself.

How big can I make that sarcasm thingy?

[RSillsbee]

10. Or in another time and place it would have been a knife

or the guy would have waited in his car and ran the guy down. what's your point?

[CreekDog]

14. he could have accidentally shot someone else in the head with a knife

other than his intended.

:rofl:

[iverglas]

20. snork

Sometimes it's so obvious it hurts, isn't it?

If I may be forgiven for being serious again, there's also the matter of the mortality rate for knife wounds vs. gunshot wounds ...

[RSillsbee]

21. Do you have a point?

Or is this just screed ?

[CreekDog]

24. you don't want a serious discussion, don't pretend you do

when at the same time you don't consider it legitimate to compare the power and potential danger of one weapon/tool versus another weapon.

you only want to argue on your limited terms to fit your canned, possibly prewritten comebacks and slogans.

i'm not playing that. :hi:

[gejohnston]

28. OK then let's explore the question further

It is a good discussion among experts on such subjects.
Knives are silent, never runs out of ammo, doesn't take any training to put the blade where you want it.

Which is more dangerous? Depends on the knife, the gun, and the person wielding them. Personally, I am more concerned about a 12 inch kitchen butcher knife than someone with a .25 ACP pistol even at short range. Extreme examples I know, but that is kind of the idea.

[RSillsbee]

46. I want to have a serious discussion

but I can't how you can prevent this type of occurrence w/out negatively affecting legal gun owners.

I find that unacceptable

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Couple problems.

1. Shooter ran away, hid.
2. Shooter in possession of a firearm in LA

I think it's about 99% certain said shooter had no permit, and a decent chance said shooter was not eligible to possess a firearm at all. Certainly not at the time of the shooting.

Doesn't really correlate to your first three examples, where people are seeking the option of lawful, licensed concealed carry.

[safeinOhio]

16. Gun culture

All the arguments about CCW here are valid, only they leave out what, perhaps, is underlying this story. Yes, he most likely was in illegal possession of a handgun. But, why was he carrying one if illegal. Could be he thinks it's is OK to do so in these times. So many are promoting guns that no one wants to be left out, even if they are prohibited from doing so. Didn't sound like a harden criminal, just a normal citizen that felt he needed to carry, just in case. Just in case turned into big mistake. I feel that is a good reason to require training, both in the law and safety to be able to carry a handgun in public. While most here seem to be well versed in both, not everyone that wants to carry have any idea about the laws and safety. The first time I took a CCW class, about half in the class never went on to apply for a license. After learning about the laws that apply, they didn't really want any part of it. Hell, you couldn't shoot the SOB that cut you off or even the guy flipping you off after you cut them off. No training in the law is a bad idea. No training in safety is bad too.

[RSillsbee]

19. I don't agree w/ you on this

But that was a very civil explanation of your opinion

The first time I took a CCW class, about half in the class never went on to apply for a license.

How many of them had no prior experience w/ fire arms?

[safeinOhio]

25. Most had long experience with firearms as

this was a pretty rural area. Most had no experience with legal matters. One big thing that they had a problem with was Michigans brandishing laws that they had a hard time understanding. I think the instructors went out of their way to explain the law and a CCW holders responsibilities under the law. They also brought in a lawyer/expert in gun laws.
Makes me wonder about states that wish to forgo legal training for CCW holders. Even with those requirements, I still read about many license holders in Michigan running afoul of carry laws. I have to ask myself if they had bad instructors or what. I have no problem following the laws of my state and feel responsible to know them. Also, before I travel and take a firearm with me I make it a point to research the laws of the states I travel in. They vary greatly from state to state and change often. But, that is our responsibility as gun owners that travel. Take nothing for granted.

Back to the gun culture. Too many watch too many movies and play too many video games. That is just an opinion. Real life is just that, real.

[spin]

23. In Florida a prosecuting attorney taught a concealed weapons class ...

in the Tampa Bay area.

The reports from the students who took the class was that he was an excellent instructor. During his classes he informed his students that if they ever violated the law and misused their concealed weapon, he would be very happy to prosecute them. I remember one student who said the class listened very carefully when he discussed the law.

Statistics show that it's rare that a person who is licensed to carry concealed actually breaks the law when he does use his concealed weapon for what he feels is legitimate self defense. It is quite possible that requiring those who apply for a license to take get training contributes to this low rate.

[CreekDog]

40. they will make circular arguments on this if you engage them

they will say that he had an illegal gun, or that it was concealed illegally, thus the laws don't work.

they will argue here, or elsewhere that in fact, what he was doing shouldn't have been illegal (the carrying/concealing) or for gun laws so lax that there would be no way to actually stop him from buying a gun even if he was in an extremely limited class that they would actually support gun prohibitions for. and what i mean is that gun show loopholes, no registration, no restrictions on the types of guns and no practical barrier to carrying one concealed.

so they'll argue that the laws don't work and then argue they don't actually want the laws in the first place.

[gejohnston]

49. straw man and not very accurate

gun show loopholes, no registration, no restrictions on the types of guns

Please explain the "gun show loophole", do you actually know what it refers to? Is it an issue in California?
Registration does not work. It is expensive theater. That is why New Zealand dumped it after law enforcement lobbied parliament to dump it.
no restrictions on any types of guns? Someone mentioning repealing current federal laws that have many restrictions?

[RSillsbee]

51. Please explain the "gun show loophole"

FFL has to do a NICS background check every time he/she sells a gun regardless of venue

A private transaction (in addition to be being unable to use NICS) is a private transaction regardless of venue.


The "loophole" exists only in your mind

[one-eyed fat man]

55. Go read post 34

You insist, on placing everyone with a gun in the same boat. You hate guns and do not want anyone to have one. You brook no distinction between a gun carried by a career criminal and gun carried by nurse working the graveyard shift.

Your solution is to make guns illegal. Well, odds are, since you are talking Los Angeles it was illegal. For some reason, all the thousands of crooks, gangbangers, and criminals don't care, they will carry one if it suits their purposes. After all the LA County sheriff became infamous for special treatment for the famous and connected. He created the "Special reserves program" so that he could give CCW permits to favored individuals while with holding consideration for everyone else on the legal pretext that no citizen has legal "good cause".

The gunshow loophole does not apply in California, as all LEGAL gun sales, including private sales must go through an FFL.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#9

I want to sell a gun to another person, i.e., a private party transfer. Am I required to conduct the transaction through a licensed California firearms dealer?

Yes. Firearm sales must be conducted through a fully licensed California firearms dealer. Failure to do so is a violation of California law. The buyer (and seller, in the event that the; buyer is denied), must meet the normal firearm purchase and delivery requirements. "Antique firearms," as defined in Section 921(a)(16) of Title 18 of the United States Code, and curio or relic rifles/shotguns, defined in Section 178.11 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations that are over 50 years old, are exempt from this requirement.

Firearms dealers are required to process private party transfers upon request. Firearms dealers may charge a fee not to exceed $10 per firearm for conducting a private party transfer. Example:

For a private party transfer involving one or more handguns, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00 for the first handgun and $31.00 for each additional handgun involved in the same transaction.
For private party transfers involving one or more long guns, or a private party transfer involving one handgun, the total allowable fees, including the DROS, safety, and dealer transfer fees, are not to exceed $35.00. The dealer may charge an additional dealer-service fee of$10.00 per each additional firearm transferred.

(PC section 12072(d))

California already has just about every law you claim will solve gun crime except a total ban on private ownership and crooks have no problem disobeying the law. You, however, demand that anyone inclined to obey the law is disarmed.

[hack89]

43. Or criminal culture? nt

[ileus]

17. Those guns always killing people...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

18. Guns making

drunks act like dumbasses again.

Because, you know, inanimate objects have power over dumbasses.

Don't be a dumbass.

Do act responsibly.

[petronius]

30. "Don't be a dumbass." You know, we could replace 95% of our laws with this simple

stricture, except that so many people are predisposed to being dumbasses... :rofl:

[Simo 1939_1940]

33. A gun made this AA group safer:

http://www.wect.com/Global/story.asp?S=10169294

Edited to replace source of story

[CreekDog]

41. except that the whole nation is less safe for our gun laws

which means that if you mention one little example where it made you more safe, but overall it made you less safe --you are not arguing honestly.

[hack89]

44. Less safe compared to when? What golden age do you want to return to? nt

[Kolesar]

45. Australia...eom

[gejohnston]

50. Australia was just as safe

before their laws. How about South Africa?

[RSillsbee]

52. He did EXACTLY what you did

Who isn't arguing honestly?

[slackmaster]

59. A couple of losers getting into a fight at an AA meeting?

Wow, what a surprise.

[ObamaFTW2012]

62. Here is one woman who is safer because of a gun

Read more here:


http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-akron-woman-scares-off-robber-sex-offender-gun-txt,0,3442770.story