If you carry a loaded gun - you are ready, willing and able to save someone with it

[ileus]

It may be you, or more importantly your family. For some maybe even a complete stranger...that cannot be denied.


Discuss:

[provis99]

1. say hello to my leetle friend!

[Swede]

2. Or kill your family and any bystanders.

Happens a couple of times a week.

[TheWraith]

65. No. You grossly overestimate.

Such things are actually pretty rare, but you see it on the news, so you think it's common. See "Summer of the shark."

[Euromutt]

112. Can you provide empirical evidence of that claim?

Can you provide instances of a person, legally licensed to carry a loaded firearm in public, trying to shoot an assailant and instead killing his family and multiple bystanders? Can you provide four or five of such incidents over the past two weeks? If you can't, will you have the honesty to admit your claim that this "happens a couple of times a week" was false, and retract it?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

181. Actual evidence to support a gun-control claim?

You serious? you don't really expect that do you?

[Old Codger]

3. There

Is no way to have a sane logical discussion on anything in this forum, you are wasting your time even attempting it....I do carry and am ready to use it in the manner you state.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. there Is no way to have a sane logical discussion on anything in this forum

it does happen on the rare occasion. very.rare.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madinmaryland]

33. DU3 will provide us with a welcome relief from this forum!

[gejohnston]

35. just like the TV

turn the channel or don't click.

[madinmaryland]

54. As my comment says, when DU3 is introduced I will be blocking this forum just

like I block Fox "News".

[PavePusher]

78. If you can't restrain yourself from coming in here now.....

why should we expect any different from you in another format?

Serious question: Are you high?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

182. Why wait?

Use the legacy method of blocking...DONT COME IN HERE!

Geez - don't tell me - let me guess...you want certain kinds of books/movies/tv shows/radio programs/etc done away with too, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. And yet, here you are posting in the very forum you decry....

[SteveM]

75. They'll get their way, one way or another.nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. well, I can understand the frustration but, there is a bigger picture --

The Democratic Party needs to QUIT losing votes over this issue. To stifle the intelligent discussion in this forum is counter-productive.

[madinmaryland]

55. I am not stifling any discussion. I am only saying that I have no desire to have

a discussion in this forum. To argue anything in this "forum" I have found to be counter-productive.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. and yet --- Here you are --

sports forum is down the hall to the left -- where they really have some productive arguments ;)

[madinmaryland]

57. I will be heading over there in a little bit. For now, I have an arguement

going on in the lounge about whether to use corn flakes to bread chicken with!!

:D

[petronius]

60. Well, you keep that shit in the Lounge then. We only discuss wholesome, onion-related

recipes over here in Guns. :9

[Tuesday Afternoon]

83. damn skippy, pardner

:D

[rl6214]

110. Yet you keep coming back

you sound like a 5 yo, gotta get the last word in.

[Hangingon]

49. That is the solution.

Stifle any discussion that doesn't fit you view. Great idea. This attitude is what keeps the gun control issue going and tied to the Democratic Party.

[madinmaryland]

53. I'm not stifling your discussion. I just want no part of the "discussion" that goes on in this

forum.

[oneshooter]

58. Then why are you still here? Shoo!! Get thyself gone! n/t

[Euromutt]

111. That is evidently a false statement, because here you are!

If you want no part of the discussion, go the fuck away already. And take your unfunny avatar with you.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

132. You seem like a good guy.

BTW & O/T, the cat in your avatar looks rather insulted by the experience.

However, there are probably better methods to effect one's separation from an offending forum other than conversing in it.

:donut:

[SteveM]

74. Seriously, how will this "welcome relief" manifest itself? What

structure do you envision which will this "relief?"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

85. never mind -- deleted subthread confused me for a moment

:shrug:

[SteveM]

73. Probably because some anti-2A folks have, you know...

a free pass for posting hateful stuff. Make one leetle slip-up in responding, and away you go.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

84. excuse me

my bad.

was confused by deleted subthread.

[Nikia]

4. I was wondering how often that happens

I hear about cases where someone working at the cash register prevents a robbery with a gun or break in at their home. How often does a bystander shoot someone who has pulled out a weapon or is in the process of an attack though? Since my state has gotten concealed carry and a bunch of people are getting those licenses, I have wondered about that.

[socialindependocrat]

5. The police don't stop crime

The police show up after a crime has been committed.

If no one is killed they fill out a report.

How many times have you, personally, seen a civilian carrying on the street?

and

You know, without a doubt, that every time a bystander is injured
by someone with a gun they publicize it on national television.

Unfortunately, when a criminal is caught or their crime is foiled
the report only shows up in the National Rifleman magazine. With
that kind of reporting bias you won't get the true picture of how
many people are saved by concealed carry.

Signed,
A Democrat who supports the 2nd amendment

[Nikia]

15. I don't know how many civilians carry

But thousands Wisconsinites are applying to carry right now including several guys at work, a couple who hope they are involved an incident that they get to save someone with their gun.

[TheWraith]

69. Nationally, the average is somewhere around 3 percent who actually carry concealed.

Although that varies hugely--some states like California run very low, while others like Oregon go as high as 8 percent. Also, Illinois still doesn't allow it unless you're an elected official of Chicago, and a couple states like Vermont don't require a permit at all.

[Euromutt]

113. Minor correction re: Illinois

Illinois state law states that an alderman of any city in the state, including but not limited to Chicago, is an auxiliary peace officer and therefore authorized to carry a firearm, openly or concealed. It's not just Chicago, but also Peoria, Bloomington, Champaign, Decatur, Springfield, Quincy, Granite City, etc.

Mind you, it seems to me that it's contrary to the doctrine of separation of powers to assign powers of the executive branch to a member of the legislative branch of government. The doctrine of separation of powers is based on the notion that a means of keeping the members of the respective branches of government honest is that aren't allowed to exercise powers granted to other branches; in other words, lawmakers cannot be allowed to be law enforcers, nor vice-versa. More importantly, to keep lawmakers honest, they should not be exempt from the laws that apply to the general citizenry, whose representatives they're supposed to be. Admittedly, that's a political science perspective, not necessarily a jurist's perspective, but I'd hope somebody in Illinois hits upon the idea to file suit to challenge the status granted city aldermen.

[SteveM]

76. Concerning your fears about "a couple who hope..."

Surveys of concealed-carry citizens has shown that their crime rate is at least as low as that of the general population, if not lower. This comports with earlier findings which show that gun-owners in general have crime rates at least as low as the general population.

It has become popular for some in this forum to case gun-owners as wishing or hoping for a confrontation so that they might kill someone and thereby be a "hero." This is quite hateful, but apparently is Kosher in the Guns Forum.

[Euromutt]

115. I'm sorry, but I don't see what the problem is?

What's wrong with hoping to be able to use your "special power" to protect innocent life? To be frank, after I'd passed two first aid/CPR courses in one year, purchased a CPR mask and started paying attention to the location of AED's in public buildings, I had a sort of half-hope that I might be in the right place at the wrong time and keep someone suffering a medical emergency alive long enough for the EMTs to arrive, and I'm both disappointed and at the same time more than a little relieved that it never happened.

Look, while we don't all necessarily want to be heroes, there's damn few people who wouldn't relish the chance to leave their imprint on the world by making it a better place, even slightly. Dammit, that's a laudable desire, not a risible one!

[PavePusher]

124. Remember the parable about crabs in a bucket... n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

8. It is not common

A permit to carry does not make someone an auxiliary cop. In most states there is a higher standard for justification if you intervene to defend a third party.

Simple version, you get to defend your own life based on the circumstance as they appear. For example, someone says the are going to shoot you and points a gun at you. Even if their gun is not loaded, or if it is a realistic looking fake, the law allows you to believe them.

To intervene on behalf of a third party, you have to be absolutely certain the the person you are defending would have justification to use deadly force and under the circumstances as they actually are.

You see a guy chasing a woman down the street, grab her and throw her to the ground and take her bag. So you shoot him. Turns out he was a store detective chasing a shoplifter he was trying to catch and arrest.

You are going to have a real problem, based on the facts as they turned out were not they looked to you shot who you thought was the "bad guy."

[PavePusher]

18. There are several websites that document actual incidents of self-defense.

While these do not equate to the full spectrum of data, esimates range from 750,000 to 2.5 million incidents of fire-arms related self-defense annually. My reading leads me to lean towards the lower end of that scale, but still an impressively significant number.

Most cases do not result in shots fired. It is vanishingly rare that when shots are fire, a by-stander is injured by the defending party. In short, legal carriers are not the problem.

[gejohnston]

20. depends on the study

and they vary widely. The studies that I know of are outdated and were done when our violent crime rate was about twice what it is now. Pulling the trigger is very rare, but "he saw my gun, he ran" does not make the headlines.

[DissedByBush]

23. It's hard to estimate

It is believed that most often the brandishing of a gun to stop a crime goes unreported, since the crime in the end did not occur, and the person may be worried about getting in trouble himself.

However, estimates by (non-NRA) survey run up to almost two million times a year that a crime has been stopped by the threat or use of a handgun.

So, would the poster like to take responsibility for those crimes occurring since he has banned handguns in his fantasy world?

[TheWraith]

68. Defensive gun uses are estimated anywhere between 250,000 and 4 million per year.

Depending on the study you read. Gary Kleck, a very respected criminologist in the field, says about 2.5 million.

Most of those, actually, do not end with anyone getting shot--simply the display of the weapon will cause an attacker or intruder to retreat, and look for an easier target.

[SteveM]

141. There may be a website for this...

But there are numerous video clips (from security cameras) of thugs pointing guns at clerks, bystanders, etc., and the bystanders reached for a gun and started to shooting at the thug. In one such video I witnessed, a thug (holding his piece side-ways in punky gangsta style) pointed at an Asian clerk, who opened a drawer, pulled out a revolver, and started cranking off rounds at the two thugs. They beat a retreat, with one mumbling about how he may have been hit. He ran less than a hundred yards (from police reports) before dropping dead.

This example is among a small number of the hundreds of thousands of crimes thwarted by use (or reported used) of a gun; most such incidents do not involve shooting someone, or even shooting a gun in the air.

As a self-defense tactic, I can't say I would do the same thing as the shop owner described above, but he took the action nevertheless.

NOTE: In this video, one thug (evidently a HyperPunk) was seen trying to shoot the clerk blindly over the counter instead of beating a retreat. (A HyperPunk is bent on and desires doing harm to others -- perhaps the clerk knew something about this thug, or similar such robberies in the area, and knew cooperation was to invite an execution.) I believe the HyperPunk was eventually warehoused.

[bowens43]

6. but more likely

Someone you love will die from that gun.

NO ONE should be able to own a handgun. NO ONE should be allowed to carry one. This protection thing is pure bullshit spread by the death merchants and their lackeys.

[PavePusher]

17. So-o-o-o-o... you're volunteering to be responsible for my personal security....

amIrite?

[Starboard Tack]

90. He's doing his part by not carrying a gun.

What are you doing to ensure his personal safety?

[PavePusher]

92. Leaving him alone and not interfereing with his options, liberty or property.

It seems to be working.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

130. Not a damn thing

His personal safety isn't my problem. Never has been, never will be.

You cannot force another to be responsible for that.

[Starboard Tack]

142. But Pave Pusher seemed to expect someone to be protecting him. Hence the question

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. You misunderstood the question...

If you're expecting people to be disarmed, what are you going to do in return to guarantee their safety?

[Starboard Tack]

163. Firstly, I expect nobody to be disarmed.

Disarming people was not mentioned. Hoping that sensible people might prefer to go about their daily lives unarmed is very different from taking guns away from toters.
Secondly, how can anyone guarantee the personal safety of others or even themselves? The question is ridiculous.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

176. Firstly....

...you have repeatedly stated you want handguns made illegal and any public carry to be made illegal as well. So yes, you do expect people to be disarmed.

As far as guaranteeing the personal safety of others, yes - it is ridiculous. You are responsible for your own and there are no guarantees. Advocating for civilian disarmament though forces people to be defenseless. Asking if you are going to guarantee someone's personal safety as a rebuttal to your position is done to get you to think a little further about the consequences of your argument.

[Starboard Tack]

183. Once again, let me clarify my position

Regarding handguns, what I personally want and what I propose as possible solutions to reducing the death by handgun rate in this country, are quite different.
What I want is to live in a society where the very idea of routinely carrying a handgun would be considered absurd by everyone, because nobody would feel the need. That may sound Utopian to you and many others. I think it is achievable. Not easily achievable, but achievable nevertheless. The irony is that we all share the same goal of saving lives. Where we differ is in how we accomplish that. Your side thinks that allowing concealed carry saves lives, and this is true. Then we get into fencing with numbers, studies, surveys and stats from all over the place. Do they save more than they kill? Probably yes. Does the practice of CC have a positive or negative effect on the overall number of deaths? Hard to prove either way and it's probably a wash. You justify your behavior by claiming a Constitutional right, which has been affirmed by SCOTUS. We both respect the Bill of Rights, but differ on interpretation of 2A. So be it. For now, your interpretation and that of the NRA and the right tilted SCOTUS rules.

This leaves us with our original goal:
To live in a society where the thought of carrying a handgun would never, or on the rarest of occasions, cross one's mind.
Introducing more and more handguns into the mix does not seem to be a positive step in that direction. Many of those weapons are lost, stolen and sold to criminals. So, the law abiding gun owners unwittingly become the arms suppliers to those they defend themselves against. Such irony.
Only a few good guys and a few criminals use these tools and carry them with each other in mind. The other 90+% have to navigate the same world. Like we have to navigate in a world where people drive Hummers and other gas guzzlers to the supermarket and church.
Disarming people is not my desire, though I fear it may eventually happen. I see toting as a fad which will backfire, with negative effects for all.

So, my argument is not to disarm anyone, but to encourage people to question and reassess their behavior, based on serious reality testing. And asking oneself, "Am I contributing to the problem by exercising my Constitutional right?"
Hopefully, they will decide to go unarmed, but not disarmed.

[pipoman]

41. False

you have been duped into believing a lie.

"but more likely Someone you love will die from that gun."

Some people perpetuate this lie knowing full well it is nonsense to further an agenda, others perpetuate it because they actually believe it, where do you fall?

[Starboard Tack]

91. What exactly is a lie?

Are you saying that a gun owner's loved one is less likely to die from their gun than the loved one of someone who doesn't own a gun? If so, you are obviously wrong.
Or, are you saying that the gun owner is more likely to save the life of another than lose the life of a loved one by that gun?

[pipoman]

98. Well..

I am quite sure the poster is referring to the long ago debunked nonsense published by Kellerman, not even MAIG or Brady cite that "study" any longer as it is so fallacious. The poster may not even know he/she is citing this nonsense, but since it is the only real source for this fallacy, it is apparent to those of us who have studied this issue.

Are you saying that a gun owner's loved one is less likely to die from their gun than the loved one of someone who doesn't own a gun? If so, you are obviously wrong.

Have any source to cite for this? Is it just a "common sense" "feeling"?

Or, are you saying that the gun owner is more likely to save the life of another than lose the life of a loved one by that gun?

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."(12)..(12)Paper: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995. http://www.law.northwestern.ed/jclc/backissues/86-1.html

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,<17> U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

There are around 30k gun deaths annually. This includes suicide, murder, self defense, police, accidents, all causes..so yes, the latter is obviously true, the former is in reality false.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Firearms are the suicide choice of US children. Not to mention accidents and domestic disputes

"Overall, the data provided by the 26 countries included a total of 2872 deaths among children aged less than 15 years for a period of 1 year. Homicides accounted for 1995 deaths, including 1177 (59%) in boys and 818 (41%) in girls. Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children. The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51) (Table_1).

Suicide accounted for the deaths of 599 children, including 431 (72%) in boys and 168 (28%) in girls. Of the suicides, 321 (54%) occurred among U.S. children. The suicide rate for children in the United States was two times higher than that in the other 25 countries combined (0.55 compared with 0.27) (Table_1). No suicides were reported among children aged less than 5 years.

A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24). "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

[pipoman]

114. And how does this have anything to do with the statement at hand?

Are you saying that a gun owner's loved one is less likely to die from their gun than the loved one of someone who doesn't own a gun? If so, you are obviously wrong.

There is nothing in your post which makes your statement above true, nothing.

[Starboard Tack]

145. OK. let me help you see the absurdity of it.

Are you saying that a gun owner's loved one is less likely to die from their gun than the loved one of someone who doesn't own a gun?

That was my question, which you are now answering in the affirmative.

You own a gun. I do not own a gun. I think the likelihood of your loved one being killed by that gun is way higher than the likelihood of my loved one being killed either by your gun or by my non-existent gun.

Your move.

[gejohnston]

148. no but

that loved one is more likely to die from surgery than either one.

[Starboard Tack]

169. Well that clears up the whole issue.

[pipoman]

174. Sounds like the arguement you are trying to make is

that a gun accident in the home is more likely to occur in a home with a gun. If that is it, then, well, duh. A swimming pool accident is more likely at a home with a swimming pool (way over 10 times more likely than a gun accident by the way). Or an ATV accident is more likely to occur at a home with ATVs (way over 7 times more likely by the way).


explanation before you ask..There are 10 times more drowning fatalities among children in residential swimming pools than there are gun accident fatalities, while 5 times more homes have guns than have residential swimming pools.

[one-eyed fat man]

125. Skewed statistics.

Kellerman counted only burglars, intruders or criminals who died as a successful defensive use. If they were captured unharmed, wounded, ran off without completing the crime, those did not count as a successful defensive use.

On the other hand just about any harm to a family member, even getting a case of M1 thumb counted as an injury to a loved one. He counted homicides and suicides caused by guns owned by others. If a person was killed by an intruder and there was a gun in the household, it fell into the "47 times more likely" pile even if the household gun was in no way involved.

Something about figures don't lie, but liars can figure comes to mind.

[Starboard Tack]

146. Sorry, I'm not familiar with Kellerman. I didn't find that name in the link I posted.

I do believe that stats on family members using guns to kill themselves and/or other family members are relevant to the discussion. Do you find the CDC a credible organization?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

149. I dont.

CDC is Center for Disease Control. They are not criminologists. They are calling crime a disease and trying to treat it accordingly.

Since their hypothesis is inherently flawed, anything which follows is even more flawed.

[Starboard Tack]

170. Well, you've made up your mind, but you might want to read this

islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[gejohnston]

172. you know what I noticed

Gun control advocacy is kind of like climate change denial. Here are the parallels:
Gun control research is done by economists and MDs and not criminologists Climate change denial tend to be economists and not climate scientists
studies funded by the Joyce Foundation that also fund astro turf groups like Brady same here, but it is the Kochs funding think tanks

[Starboard Tack]

184. Criminology is a interdisciplinary. Donohue's research was exemplary.

You might want to check out this book which cites Donohue.
http://books.google.com/books?id=u07ci3cidVsC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=john+donohue+criminology&source=bl&ots=uCYldMfNNT&sig=2JE7PXcmrSUOYID-WS5h5LSSwV0&hl=en&ei=NubeTsfQEMmEtgegscH5BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CGMQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

[gejohnston]

186. MDs are not scientists

and multiple regression is total bullshit. While he does correctly point out faults in Lott's stuff, it seems to make the same mistake. While different disciplines can provide useful information to fill in the blanks to complete the picture, an MD or an economist working outside of their specialty really isn't. Their even less valuable when they take grants from organizations that want a certain outcome as part of an echo chamber.
Being cited in a text book does not really does not mean anything to me.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm

Other than you agreeing with it, what makes it exemplary? Have you read, say for example, Kleck's work?

[Starboard Tack]

188. Donohue is not an MD. He is a Law profeesor, Economist and Criminologist, Sociologist, you name it

The man is a major scholar and leading empirical researcher. Doesn't make his work perfect and I don't buy the abortion/crime conclusion. But that was one paragraph in a huge document.

[gejohnston]

190. my bad

I had him confused with another Donohue. Either way, he is not a criminologist nor sociologist.
Like Lott, Donohue used the same junk methodology.


http://www.law.stanford.edu/directory/profile/528/John%20J.%20Donohue%20III/

Speaking of sociologists,
http://faculty.sulross.edu/rkessler/

To quote another criminologist's book:

Raymond G. Kessler, a lawyer-sociologist who has provided some of the most sociologically sophisticated insights into the gun control issue, suggests in a Law and Policy Quarterly gun laws are fundamentally conservative or reactionary, having in times and places served a variety of conservative political functions beyond simple crime control. They "(1) increase citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased police powers and abuse; (2) help prevent opposition to the government; (3) facilitate repressive action by government and its allies; (4) lesson the pressure for major or radical reform; and (5) can be selectively enforced against those perceived to be a threat to government."

http://books.google.com/ebooks/reader?id=QXeGX67ezSYC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&source=webstore_bookcard&pg=GBS.PA6.w.1.1.206

[Starboard Tack]

192. Yes, I have read Kessler.

[one-eyed fat man]

161. Arthure Kellerman, author of the CDC study

originally done in in 1986 where the "gun in the home is 43 times more likely to injure a loevd one" sound bite came from

home.comcast.net/~dsmjd/tux/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

Kellerman used many statistical tricks such as limiting any defensive gun use to that where the trigger was actually pulled and excluding any gun use which ocurreding any gun use which ocurred outside the home (such as the front yard). Using multiple categories and then condensingg the data from there tended to obscure the more obvious factors such as, most suicides in his study did not use a gun. And he also refused to allow criminologists such as Kates and Kleck to examine his "data." Too many to mention here.

Despite the 1986 "study" being trashed by every major criminologist, the "43 times" soundbite that emerged lives on in news stories and HCI literature. The 1986 "study" is actually kind of boring and tacky when compared to Kellerman"s 1993 NEJM submission Again, without a hint of peer-review (since the peers didn't get a chance to look at the data until May of 1997), Kellerman this time has not only one co-author, but nine!! Five MDs, three PhDs and one BA in total, not a recognizable name from the world of criminology among them.

You ask, "...stats on family members using guns to kill themselves and/or other family members are relevant to the discussion?"

That would be good to know. But counting suicides where there was a gun in the house and a member of the household committed suicide by another means is suspect.

Are they credible, that depends. If you are convinced that the only way to define sucessful self-defense is to have a dead criminal you have set the bar pretty high.

On the other hand, some would figure they were successful if their attacker discontinued the attack.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grants do not require the individual investigator to make data public.

[Euromutt]

116. Let's restrict ourselves to the claims that were made, shall we?

As opposed to tactic so common among Republican presidential candidates of answering the question you wanted the moderator to ask rather than the question he actually asked.

In the OP, ileus asserted that "If you carry a loaded gun - you are ready, willing and able to save someone with it."
Bowens43 asserted in response that it's "more likely someone you love will die from that gun."
In other words, bowens43 asserts that, if you carry a loaded gun, it's more likely that that gun will be used--intentionally or otherwise--to kill a loved one than to "save someone."

Or, are you saying that the gun owner is more likely to save the life of another than lose the life of a loved one by that gun?

See, there you're assuming that "to save someone" only means "to save the life of another." However, we could just as readily include instances in which a person was saved from being the victim of a completed physical assault, robbery, or sexual assault/rape, all of which are classed as violent crimes. Even if none of these incidents, if successfully completed, need have resulted in the victim's death, they would result in material harm to the victim, and we should treat any such result being averted as a positive outcome.

While it's impossible to definitely know the number of successful DGUs against violent crimes that occur annually, all the available data indicate that that number is higher in the US than the total number of people killed due to GSWs. Even if you buy the NCVS numbers, which are almost certainly way too low, there are at least seven times as many people "saved" by guns than die from GSWs. Thus, bowens43's claim must be false.

[Starboard Tack]

144. Sorry, I'm not buying your "7 times saved" claim

You cannot exclude suicides. Sorry, but they count in the lives lost column and many of those suicides are committed by family members, rather than the gun owner. Especially male children. Then, we have all those accidents, again many involving children. And last but not least, the settling of domestic disputes, spouse on spouse, patricide, fratricide, matricide, infanticide (think Marvin Gaye).
I don't know if Bowen43's claim is true or false, but it definitely has some merit.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

150. Yes, you can exclude suicides.

Suicides happen at the same rate regardless of firearms availability. Even the CDC and the NEMJ have both acknowledged firearms availability has no effect on suicide rate. In the absence of a firearm, someone intent upon committing suicide will use a different method. Firearms are not used as a cry for help - they are used when people fully intend to finish the job.

At the end of the day ST, no amount of criminal behavior or suicide will EVER justify restricting the rights of everyone else. Nothing you can say is ever going to change that.

[Starboard Tack]

164. Wrong again. Your denial is staggering.

In the new report, in the current issue of The Journal of Trauma, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health said they had found evidence that “the ready availability of firearms is likely to have the greatest effect on suicide rates in groups characterized by more impulsive behavior.”

The researchers, led by Dr. Matthew Miller, compared statistics on gun ownership by state with statistics on suicide. They also took into account factors like poverty, mental illness and drug abuse.

When they looked at the 15 states with the highest firearm ownership, the researchers found that twice as many people committed suicide as in the six states with the lowest firearm ownership. The population in each group of states was about the same, the researchers said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html

[gejohnston]

166. Let's see the study

He is an MD from the Harvard School of Public Health, who gets grants from the Joyce Foundation.
I am still waiting to see one by a sociologist or criminologist.

[Starboard Tack]

171. This is lengthy, but worth perusing.

islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

[one-eyed fat man]

175. Here is one critique

http://www.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg15614.html

Many articles have been published finding that shall-issue laws reduce crime. Only one article, by Ayres and Donohue who employ a model that combines a dummy variable with a post-law trend, claims to find that shall-issue laws increase crime. However, the only way that they can produce the result that shall-issue laws increase crime is to confine the span of analysis to five years. We show, using their own estimates, that if they had extended their analysis by one more year, they would have concluded that these laws reduce crime. Since most states with shall-issue laws have had these laws on the books for more than five years, and the law will presumably remain on the books for some time, the only relevant analysis extends beyond five years.

If you want to argue that if a person is suicidal, and that if they know there is a gun in the house and can get at it they may be more inclined to use it than hunt through the garage for a rope and hang themselves you might have a point. The same might be said for people who live in tall buildings, they don't have to go out and buy a gun when they can just walk out the window. Particularly people who really mean to die, not the drama queens who swallow a few pills, call all their friends, and wind up in the emergency room.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x405962#406561

[Starboard Tack]

185. Well, there's the rub. Most suicidal people are seriously depressed. They are ill.

The fact that family members fail to notice only adds to their feelings of despair. Gun suicides have a 95% success rate, other methods average around 30%. Accessibility has to be a relevant factor. Many are children, teenagers struggling through puberty. We have CAP laws. Are they working?
Also, the time it might take to go to the barn, find a rope, tie the right knot etc. might make all the difference. Going to a draw and pulling out a loaded handgun in a moment of desperation is much easier.

[gejohnston]

187. does that number include

all other methods combined? Does that include someone that hang themselves (or drinks battery acid even when guns are available) that is seriously fed up with life with those who take pills and called the hot-line? If that is all part of the 30 percent, then the number is skewed. If it is only the former vs firearms, then the statistic really means something.

[Starboard Tack]

189. You can look it up if you really care.

[gejohnston]

191. your argument, not mine. and I'll take that as

probably mixed serious by other means and reaching out.

[Euromutt]

168. I concede I overstates, but not because I was excluding suicides

It was because I incorrectly remembered the number of DGUs according to the NCVS as higher than it actually was. Nevertheless, my point stands, albeit less dramatically.

Back of the envelope calculation here:
The 1993 NCVS counted 108,000 DGUs; according to the CDC, there were just short of 40,000 deaths due to gunshot wounds that same year. So assuming these numbers are accurate, DGUs outnumbered firearm deaths (including suicides and accidents) by a factor of 2.7.

However, the evidence is strong that the number of DGUs produced by the NCVS is far too low, because the survey does not explicitly ask about DGUs.

Should I have clarified that "GSW" is short for "gunshot wound"? Because I get the impression you interpreted it as something else. If so, my apologies for that oversight on my part.

[ileus]

43. Double wrong...

[oneshooter]

93. "NO ONE should be allowed to carry one." This includes LEO's also does it not? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

129. Upon what do you base that claim?

Why should no one be able to own a handgun? Do you have any actual facts which indicate the basis for your statement? Facts, mind you, not fantasy or fear.

You may believe the whole protection thing is bullshit, but if that is the case, perhaps you could tell us why they seem to work so well for protection?

[rl6214]

139. This opinion is pure bullshit

spread by the morons that want to infringe on our constitutional rights.

[petronius]

10. I would replace "are" with "ought to be" - carrying alone doesn't make you ready and able,

that requires training, study, and practice. (Same thing goes for just having a gun in the house - a great deal of effort and thought should go into keeping it safely. (And, to carry on this nested train of thought, the same thing goes for a lot of other items besides guns.))

That's why I favor shall-issue CCW, but with a comprehensive training requirement...

[ileus]

44. Fight the way you train....you are correct.

Just buying a firearm and sticking it in your purse or pocket does not make you ready. I don't know if anything really makes you ready, and with some people they just may never be up to the task no matter how much training.

Buy the best equipment you can.
Get training and train.
Be aware at all times.

Because lives depend on it...not just preventing an attack on your person or your loved ones, but the safety of those around you that are depending on you to handle your firearm safely.

[aquart]

11. LOL! Is that the delusion?

You're a white hat gunslinger who rescues the unarmed weak?

[SteveM]

77. No, just your rank fantasy...

There is ample evidence where hundreds of thousands of crimes each year are thwarted by the actions of a gun-owner; most of the times by announcing or revealing a firearm; very few times by even firing a shot.

Open your mind, aquart. The data is there.

I have to ask: What would you do if someone, an "unarmed weak" someone, were attacked by another and you had the capability to stop the attack?

[johnd83]

12. Doesn't work in practice

There was in interview with a guy right after Congresswoman Giffords was shot who was armed and ran out of the store right after the actual shooter was disarmed. He nearly shot the guy who disarmed the actual shooter because he still had the gun in his hand. Having a gun does not really make it any more likely you will stop a serious incident. It is just as likely you will make an incident worse.

[Straw Man]

13. Oh really?

Doesn't work in practice

As in "never"? So these accounts are all fictional?

http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

There was in interview with a guy right after Congresswoman Giffords was shot who was armed and ran out of the store right after the actual shooter was disarmed. He nearly shot the guy who disarmed the actual shooter because he still had the gun in his hand. Having a gun does not really make it any more likely you will stop a serious incident. It is just as likely you will make an incident worse.

Go and look up the incident. He never drew his gun. He figured out quickly enough what was going on. How could he have "nearly shot the guy" without drawing his gun? How did he "make an incident worse"?

[johnd83]

19. This article is a little old but i doubt the statistics have changed much

It is a peer-reviewed article and cited by a large number of papers.

A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. Handguns were used in 70.5 percent of these deaths.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406

The fact that the particular armed guy was able to recognize the situation quickly enough was lucky. Even trained police mess up in the same situation. An average person does not have the years of training and experience.

[gejohnston]

22. statistically, a cop is more likely to fire

because he or she is often trained to have their guns drawn, reducing reaction time. I grew up in a family of cops and gun buffs. Most were both.

If anyone has the misfortune to be in the tackler's situation, do not pick up the gun. That can get you mistaken for the bad guy. Kick it out of the reach of the shooter and put your foot on it until the cops secure it.

[johnd83]

24. I really wish we had something like a stun phasor

that would just knock people out for 15 minutes while people figured out what the hell was going on. Of course non-lethal weapons have potential for abuse (think casually pepper spraying cop guy) but at least it would leave people angry and not dead.

[gejohnston]

25. True

My oldest brother was the biggest gun nut I have ever known. As a cop there have been cases where he could have used his .357 but used his mace and stick instead (pre taser days). He once told me that the luckiest day of his life was when his shotgun jammed seconds before the robber surrendered.
That was about the only armed robbery in the county in 50 years.

[SteveM]

80. Good idea, if it wasn't used on OWS protestors!

:-)

[We_Have_A_Problem]

134. I wish we did too.

However, as of yet, technology has not reached the point where there is a non-lethal device that is as easy to use, cost effective and reliable as a firearm.

When one comes out, i'm positive the market will rapidly shift to it.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Error.

Self-protection does not require killing your attacker.

Most home invasions that are interrupted by a victim with a firearm, result in an injury, or the attacker fleeing, unharmed. It's still a successful case of self-defense, even if the attacker does not die.

[johnd83]

29. Statistically you are still far more likely to hurt yourself or your family

than successfully protecting yourself. I have never seen a study that wasn't put out by a lobbying group that says otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Every study I have seen that made that claim...

was also put out by 'a' lobby group.

[gejohnston]

31. The study you mention was paid for by a lobbying group

or more accurately, the astroturf group that also funds the lobby group. I was not aware of any lobbying group that funded a study that said otherwise.

[johnd83]

32. Uh, the study was from the New England Journal of Medicine

From the Departments of Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, and the King County Medical Examiner's Office, Seattle. Address reprint requests to Dr. Kellermann at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Department of Medicine, 877 Jefferson, Room GO-71, Memphis, TN 38103

[gejohnston]

34. it was published in the New England Journal of Medicine

written by an prohibition militant ER doctor that gets money from said foundation. I read is screed. It was a biased hit piece based on a population made up of people who hang with the wrong people. While the editors know medicine, they don't know criminology.
Find one that was done by a criminologist or sociologist.

[johnd83]

36. Here ya go

This article summarizes the scientific literature on the health risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/her family. For most contemporary Americans, scientific studies indicate that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home.

http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502.short

[Straw Man]

38. Ah, Hemenway...

The poster boy for tautology.

The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns.

Yup. Kind of hard to have a gun accident without a gun, doncha know...

[gejohnston]

94. A fourth rate economist that also takes money from said foundation and

his research partner is a paid employee of VPC. So what are these gun lobby paid studies?

[pipoman]

99. wrong place

[pipoman]

104. The biggest problem with these once written, twice believed

NEJM/Kellerman devotes is that there are literally volumes of "peer reviewed studies" published previously in NEJM, and virtually every other "peer reviewed" journal, which are later found to be incorrect, wrong, fallacious,nonsense. It is laymen who invariably misunderstand the use of these journals. They are not settled science, they are places of learning for academics in the field the journal is published. Some of the studies are bolstered by experts in the given field through their own studies prompted by the publication of the first study. Many more are proven to be partially correct or a finding in the paper leads to another issue or problem, thus stimulating thought on that topic. Many published studies are also found to be completely false, as with the Kellerman study. This is the facts recognized, in fact encouraged, by the publishers of most good scientific/trade journals.

Further, if it weren't for the NEJM's slant on this one issue, there would have already been published in their journal an updated study of this subject..they have been done, but I am sure aren't worthy of publication in NEJM. :sarcasm:

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Would you accept medical advice from a criminologist?

Same principle applies...

[pipoman]

100. The "study" is so debunked, even MAIG and Brady

don't cite it any longer. You do realize that there are volumes of studies published in NEJM which are later determined to be fallacious, no?

* "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."<12> <13>



* Reasons for elimination: This statistic is based on a three-county study comparing households in which a homicide occurred to demographically similar households in which a homicide did not occur. After controlling for several variables, the study found that gun ownership was associated with a 2.7 times increase in the odds of homicide.<14> This study does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility because:



1) The study blurs cause and effect. As explained in a comprehensive analysis of firearm research conducted by the National Research Council, gun control studies such as this (known as "case-control" studies) "fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized."<15>



2) The study's results are highly sensitive to uncertainties in the underlying data. For example, minor variations in firearm ownership rates (which are determined by interview and are thus dependent upon interviewees' honesty) can negate the results.<16> <17>



3) The results are arrived at by subjecting the raw data to statistical analyses instead of letting the data speak for itself. (For reference, the raw data of this study shows that households in which a homicide occurred had a firearm ownership rate of 45% as compared to 36% for non-homicide households. Also, households in which a homicide occurred were twice as likely have a household member who was previously arrested (53% vs. 23%), five times more likely to have a household member who used illicit drugs (31% vs. 6%), and five times more likely to have a household member who was previously hit or hurt during a fight in the home (32% vs. 6%).<18>)

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times

[We_Have_A_Problem]

135. Nope - not even true.

Would you accept the simple fact that there are over 300 million firearms in this country and fewer than 1000 accidents involving them annually as proof that your statement is utterly flawed?

The only "study" which supports your claim is the one from Kellerman - and that one is pure crap.

[Straw Man]

37. Your stats are about use in the home.

I believe we were talking about carry scenarios. Many people who have a gun in the home have never touched it and don't have the foggiest idea how or when to use it. When they do have recourse to it, the results are predictably disastrous. Many states mandate training for people who want to carry a firearm rather than just keep one at home, and concealed-weapon carriers are more likely to seek training on their own even when not mandated.

I would like to see that study adjusted for many things, including the level of training of the gun owner and whether or not criminal activity (read "drug dealing") was taking place in the household.

The fact that the particular armed guy was able to recognize the situation quickly enough was lucky. Even trained police mess up in the same situation. An average person does not have the years of training and experience.

What is an "average person"? Many cops only shoot for their annual or bi-annual qualification, and the courses of fire gauge marksmanship only, not assessment of situations, etc. I have many friends who train harder and more frequently than police are required to do. Some of them are themselves cops, but others are just "average people."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

133. Old and worthless

That is the much debunked Kellerman study which even the author has acknowledged is flawed to the point that it is utterly worthless.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. By the time he was in a position to SEE the attacker

it was already over.

He never drew his firearm. He never fired a shot. If he, or someone else carrying, had been right there in the crowd when Loughner started shooting, things may have been different.

Having a firearm doesn't make you superman, able to see through walls, and equipping you with super speed to dash hundreds of yards in microseconds.


If Loughner had managed to reload that piece of shit glock, The fellow from inside the safeway may have been extremely useful.

[ileus]

45. But he didn't....

I know people wish he'd shot the wrong man, but the truth is he didn't.

The last thing you want to do in a mass shooting like that is pull your own firearm and try and be a hero. That's asking to get shot by responding officers, or being ID'd improperly by another CCW.

Same thing would have happened if an officer had responded to the same incident.

[SteveM]

79. You may wish to read again what really happened.

Recognizing what this armed man did will go a long way to dispelling some of the hokus-pokus used by those who fear the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

131. Blatantly false.

His gun NEVER cleared the holster.

Don't let actual facts get in the way of your mental masturbation though. After all - fantasy is the best fuel for such a thing...

[rl6214]

140. He didn't "nearly shoot" the guy who disarmed the shooter

He didn't even unholster his gun so you can't almost shoot someone. Get your facts straight.

[Union Scribe]

14. Yup. nt

[mike_c]

16. better to just stick with comic books, I think....

Mike_c to the rescue, guns a'blazin! Eat lead, bad guys! KerPOW! Blam!

[jpak]

21. We who are about to die salute you

Gun Hero!!!11111

:rofl:

[ileus]

46. That's twice in two threads you've claimed to be a criminal? Why the worry?

[jpak]

52. Nope - guns everywhere all the time + castle laws = dead innocent citizens

"better tried by 12 than dead by six"

"shoot first ask questions later"

etc.

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. your math is off -- may I suggest a math class

geared toward the 12 y/o mentality -- should fit quite nicely . . . I would think

[We_Have_A_Problem]

136. Facts say otherwise.

There are over 25 years of history in a number of states which prove the reverse of your claim.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. I think my 12 y/o plays that game -- want me to set up a play date?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. I would make the same statement as the subject line of the OP.

I carry. I am trained. I am willing to assume risk, to protect human life.

I also carry a first aid kit, a CPR mask, airway, etc, and the training to employ all of it.

Human life is precious to me, and I will go to great lengths to protect it.

[pipoman]

42. No need to carry the CPR mask anymore

it is recommended not to do breathing anymore when performing CPR..I guess that makes it CR?

[AtheistCrusader]

59. That wasn't in our last round of training.

They were talking about/studying it. Which I think is great. Wasn't the official curriculum yet, but I expect it will be in the next recertification.

[pipoman]

89. I think the only time it is recommended is when

respiratory failure occurs prior to heart failure..drowning, etc. or if response time by ems crews exceeds a certain amount of time.

[Hoyt]

50. Please, Ileus, I don't want gun carriers' help/protection because guns in public are not answer and

You are not the public's defender, or judge and jury.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. Walking away is always an option.

[Hoyt]

63. Walking away from what -- some gun toter playing public protector?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. walking away from a person in need

like I am walking away from you and this thread . . .

[Hoyt]

70. I'm not saying walk away from a person in need. But, poster above thinks he's Bat Man with a gun.

Leaving your house with the intent of protecting the public with a gun is totally different from stepping in if a situation arises.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

81. being prepared for emergencies that might arise in any given situation

is just good common sense. Something that adults consider and take the responsibility. Choosing to walk away from someone engaging in nonsensical behavior is always an option. First rule is: NEVER PUT YOURSELF IN DANGER. Assess the situation and make a determination.

I hate to say it Hoyt. but -- I can see myself walking away from you if you have put yourself in danger due to your antagonistic attitude.

[Hoyt]

119. Yea, I bet you walk around with a defibrillator and other emergency equipment.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

137. no, but I do know first aid and CPR. I am not qualified as a First Responder

but, having worked in an ER for several years -- I know how to assess and determine how to stay safe and keep others safe. Safety is one thing, saving lives is another. I would rather be safe than sorry.

[ileus]

138. about half the time I do have a defib in my trunk

of course it may be broken or I may have already repaired/calibrated it....50/50 chance it's GTG

I have 21 I'll be checking this weekend.


IMHO my firearm is basically a defib it just saves lives in a different way.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

151. Not a defibrilator...

but I carry a large amount of emergency equipment at all times. My "first aid kit" is a lot more than a couple of band aids.

In my case, it isn't because I'm an EMT or anything even close to the sort, but because if I or someone I ride with has an accident, I don't want anyone dying because we waited for the "authorities" like good little sheep.

[Hoyt]

173. Guns fit in nicely with your life saving emergency stuff.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

177. Yep they sure do. Don't even take up any room in the saddlebags.

I keep mine in a holster under the jacket.

My wife, who is a nurse by the way, keeps hers in the same place and sees nothing even slightly contradictory about it. Saving your own life is sometimes necessary.

[beevul]

87. Uh...batman didn't use firearms, generally. LOL. N/t

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Bullshit.

You are willing to step in? Doubt it. But if you are, have fun if you are unprepared for the consequences.

[oneshooter]

105. He won't step in. He believes that is the job of the Government ( police). n/t

[Hoyt]

118. Actually, lots of things one can do without a gun -- but you won't even try leaving yours at home.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Unqualified absolute.

Depending on the circumstances, yes there are many things you can do without a gun.

There exist some circumstances where you may not survive if you are not prepared to fight for your life. A firearm can be a useful tool while fighting for your life.

No one is claiming anything more than that. They are not magic talismans. They do not always save you depending on circumstances, or how you employ it.

But there are certainly situations where having one is better than not. Hell, we had an off duty cop stop to help someone change a tire, he was robbed and shot/killed for it. He was unarmed. Had he been armed, he might still have died depending on how they surprised him. But then again, he may have been able to save his life.

[oneshooter]

61. You always say this"because guns in public are not answer " but you never, ever

tell us what the answer is.
So the question to you is" what is the answer?".


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

62. Answer surely is not some cowboy walking out door ready to play police and Spider Man with a gun.

[oneshooter]

71. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or are you just ignorant?

That is not an answer.
Please answer the question you were asked.

So the question to you is" what is the answer?".

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. Spiderman

holy batshit.

perhaps we should arrange a play date for you and jpak . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=483976&mesg_id=484019

[beevul]

88. Uh...spiderman didn't use guns either.

Just dive in head first, and characterize anyone that carries or supports it as "the punisher" and get it over with already.

[SteveM]

143. Didn't he have some god-awful phlegm that squirted from the palm of his hand? nt

[beevul]

165. Depending on the story, yes.

He was a rude toter of "assault webbing" launchers. LOL.



Thinking on this, I just had an epiphany.


Certain people who spout the same tired mantra as if by clockwork, are to guns, what J. Jonah Jameson is to spiderman.

J.Jonah Jameson...the attitude he espouses towards spiderman...LOL...where have we seen that sort of attitude before, and from whom, hereabouts?

Rhetorical, obviously.








Looking at matters with that in mind, and considering the ensuing entertainment value in pointing out the apt comparisons which do and will exist...makes me smile.

[gejohnston]

167. I always thought of Spiderman as a commentary on

propaganda and manufactured "news". On that level, I rank it up there with the movie Network

[We_Have_A_Problem]

152. Sigh...

Nobody is walking out the door to pretend they are a cop. Besides, if that was the goal, you'd be better served with a notepad. Cops do not stop crime and they are not even under an obligation to stop one in progress if they see it happening. Their sole job is to show up after the crime has been committed and if possible, find and arrest the offender. That's pretty much it.

Self defense is entirely the responsibility of the individual.

Do you really have a problem with people defending themselves? What is your problem with guns? Assuming one does not misuse one, why does it bother you so much?

[one-eyed fat man]

67. You have made your position clear.

On March 13, 1964, some fine upstanding citizens of New York put, "I didn't want to get involved," in the American lexicon.

Thirty-eight neighbors of Kitty Genovese were aware of the murder that was taking place during that time and yet all of them chose to do nothing in rescue of the assaulted girl. One cold-hearted bastard turned up his TV so the screaming of the girl being butchered at his doorstep wouldn't interfere with his evening.

Winston Moseley chased her down and stabbed her in the back twice. She screamed and he fled, returning ten minutes later. Seeing his prey lying on the ground almost unconscious, he stabbed her several times more, he stole her money, and for good measure, raped her.

Would you view an individual who intervened and gotten injured or killed in the process as foolhardy? Had an individual had been able to stop the assault by killing the assailant would he be a vigilante? Is simply calling the police enough? Or will you close the window and turn up the TV?

[Hoyt]

72. Walking out your door thinking you are a public protector with a gun is dangerous.

Waling away or ignoring a situation that occurs in front of you is pretty sad, as is stuffing your gun in your pants while thinking you will protect the public.

[one-eyed fat man]

106. Like I said, you have made your position clear

You refuse to answer the question, however.

Were the Good Samaritans in these instances foolhardy for trying to help?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8413723&cmp=twi-kabc-article-8413723

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/passers_by_let_good_sam_die_5SGkf5XDP5ooudVuEd8fbI

The second is especially egregious as apparently the woman who was being assaulted didn't bother to call the police to summon aid for the man who likely saved her life. Of all the people who walked past with a cell phone the only ones who used their phone only did to take pictures of the dying man. The one guy you think is reaching down to help the man turns out to be a more typical New Yorker, he just rifles through the man's pockets.

Was the Good Samaritan who chased after a thief whom he witnessed pistol whip an elderly woman and take her purse a "vigilante" in you view?

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/item_B0XHuSt28tjaVFIPVW23YI

Actually, you want it both ways. If a permit holder only defends himself he is craven; if he intervenes to save an innocent, he is a bloodthirsty vigilante. Were that real life and it's decisions were as simple as you.

Hide and turn up the TV.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

[We_Have_A_Problem]

178. Meh - i don't claim to know what others think.

I do however, know for an absolute fact that I don't ever think of myself as a public protector - with or without a gun.

[PavePusher]

82. Self-defense, or defense of others....

has nothing to do with being "judge and jury".

You may stop your incorrect conflations at any time.

[Starboard Tack]

96. OK, but what about the "public defender" part?

This is the most worrisome to many people - the thought that there are a number of self appointed saviors out there itching to earn their 15 minutes of fame, playing caped crusader. I don't think for one moment that you or any of our regular contributors to this forum fall into that category, but you must admit they are out there. Admittedly, they rarely act out their fantasies, but like much in life, it is a numbers game and the ensuing proliferation of carrying handguns in public can only increase the likelihood of more wannabe heroes.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. In seattle, the 'caped crusaders' are actually ... wearing capes.

And getting arrested for being idiots.

Being equipped to handle a problem, and being willing to step in and protect someone, is not the same as actively looking for a fight.

[gejohnston]

107. You are talking about

people who are more likely to wear tights and capes than a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Oh, that's right. They don't don't need guns. How about Bronson in "Death Wish"?

[gejohnston]

117. Only because

no one from another planet gave him superpowers. No one is advocating vigilantism.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

155. You realize that was a movie, right? n/t

[PavePusher]

157. Ummm.... (fighting for hilarity control)....

You are comparing fictional superhuman characters with fictional human characters.

I forsee a bad ending and much humour here....

[We_Have_A_Problem]

154. Just because you believe people like you describe exist...

...does not mean they actually do, or that your completely fact free beliefs are the basis for public policy.

[Starboard Tack]

179. I don't deal with beliefs, only facts

One our new brethren proves my point. He seems to think it's OK to shoot drivers who appear to be drunk. Others have expressed their intention to use firearms against window breakers and fleeing thieves. Now, am I to believe them or not? It is a fact that these things have been said in this forum.

[PavePusher]

156. Argueably, if I have succesfully defended myself, I have defended the public.

Both in absolute and figurative manners.

[Starboard Tack]

180. As you say "arguably" . It's all about perception

[ileus]

95. I'm not LEO but if I come across you getting gang raped, what am I if I hide and watch?

I'm not going to interject myself into just any incident....I don't need an ego boost bad enough to risk my life for the fun of it. However.com what kind of human would I be if you're getting the crap beat out of you and I just dial 911 and watch.

[oneshooter]

97. jpak? n/t

[Hoyt]

121. Ah, Oneshooter, you might need a gun to step in and help -- but others might not need such support.

[oneshooter]

126. That would still make them a "vigilante" according to the doctrine you espouse. n/t

[PavePusher]

159. I would not "need" a gun to step in, but it would be nice to have one....

just in case pure heart and manly fortitude are not enough.

And many folks are not lower-40's athletic, mid-sized males with extensive martial arts training like myself.

Edit: :sarcasm: , just in case...

[Hoyt]

120. Why would you plan on just "watching"? News for you -- Lots of things people can do without a gun.

And, it happens every day.

But, I guess you've thought about it and you would not step in without a gun or two.

[ileus]

123. Always use the right tool for the job.

[AtheistCrusader]

127. I would.

However, odds of success would be higher with a firearm, and without, one might end up feeling stupid as they are beaten to death.

[one-eyed fat man]

128. Ignoring post 106 for a reason?

Tell us, does a Good Samaritan who gets himself killed meet with your approval?

Do the apathetic citizens who step over a dying man, take pictures of him with their cell phone, rifle his pockets, while he is dying, yet fail to call the police represent the soul of urban sophisticates and uphold the Kitty Genovese tradition?

Is the Good Samaritan who succeeds in stopping an assault always a vigilante in your eyes?

The safest course of action, regardless of how many guns you might have, is to maintain a low profile and hope the aggressor does not see you. You can slink away hoping that you are not recognized in the security film footage.

If a Good Samaritan were in a position to blindside the assailant and stop the crime would your approval depend on his choice of weapon? Would a tire iron or ball bat be less noble than a katana?

The crossbow range was 350 – 400 yards but could only be shot at a rate of 2 bolts per minute. The crossbow was easy to use, requiring minimal training and required little strength to operate. The medieval Knight was the most powerful and effective warrior and said to be worth 10 foot soldiers, who were regarded with the lowest esteem and considered expendable. The crossbow could be used by an untrained soldier to injure or kill a knight in plate armour. The crossbow, itself, was therefore viewed as an inhuman weapon which required no skill and had no honour. It was even banned by the Pope! The Crossbow was, however, a very useful weapon which could be used by the young, the old and the infirm! The crossbow was used throughout the Middle Ages. All attempts to apply a weapon ban on crossbows failed and all such requests were ignored...

In time the musket came to replace the crossbow and the armored knight became a romantic notion. The notion that a criminal somehow deserves special consideration and that to defend one's self somehow requires honorable comportment directed toward an unprovoked criminal assault is ludicrous. An exceedingly naive position that could only be held by someone who has never been in a fight for their very life.

[oneshooter]

160. Because you have told us that you do not need, nor want, to be saved. n/t

However if you continue to chase down suspected concealed carriers, and "detain" them, in order to "check their papers" then you might reconsider that request.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[AtheistCrusader]

101. It's been explained to you before that it has ZILCH to do with 'judge' or 'jury'

quelle surprise you keep on with the dishonest comparisons, when your position is built upon air.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

153. Nobody is claiming to be.

Besides, a judge and jury are not required when dealing with a criminal in the process of attacking you.

The concept of a judge and jury, as well as all of the other rights of the accused, apply ONLY when the state is assessing the penalty. A criminal has no such protections from his victims who may feel free to exterminate him without the troublesome expense of a trial.

[Glassunion]

158. Nah... I just like to look like a bad ass

With my heaters on my hips.

I have special loads just for the occasion.

[beevul]

162. Jojo Krako supports this.

Heaters, that is:



:evilgrin: