HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » Pic Of The Moment: So Muc...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:06 PM

Pic Of The Moment: So Much For Self Defense



Guns are Rarely Used to Kill Criminals or Stop Crimes New VPC Analysis Reveals

153 replies, 19471 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 153 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pic Of The Moment: So Much For Self Defense (Original post)
EarlG Apr 2013 OP
Hoyt Apr 2013 #1
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #14
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #27
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #87
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #58
firenewt Apr 2013 #70
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #91
Wednesdays Apr 2013 #146
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #90
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #93
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #106
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #127
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #134
ctsnowman Apr 2013 #141
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #148
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #149
DanTex Apr 2013 #150
appal_jack Apr 2013 #140
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #144
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #100
BainsBane Apr 2013 #2
Scuba Apr 2013 #26
baldguy Apr 2013 #29
Scuba Apr 2013 #38
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #133
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #59
Walk away Apr 2013 #76
BainsBane Apr 2013 #88
jeff47 Apr 2013 #131
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #3
billh58 Apr 2013 #4
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #9
billh58 Apr 2013 #10
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #15
billh58 Apr 2013 #18
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #24
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #48
billh58 Apr 2013 #49
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #104
Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #32
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #60
louis-t Apr 2013 #152
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #153
Poll_Blind Apr 2013 #5
Jamaal510 Apr 2013 #6
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #7
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #12
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #19
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #37
billh58 Apr 2013 #43
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #66
billh58 Apr 2013 #72
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #81
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #85
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #84
billh58 Apr 2013 #89
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #92
billh58 Apr 2013 #96
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #102
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #107
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #112
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #116
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #98
billh58 Apr 2013 #103
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #105
billh58 Apr 2013 #108
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #114
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #113
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #62
SlimJimmy Apr 2013 #82
IveWornAHundredPants Apr 2013 #122
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #143
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #65
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #68
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #94
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #97
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #117
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #118
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #129
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #132
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #13
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #16
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #51
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #80
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #136
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #145
FreeEmily Apr 2013 #20
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #23
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #55
billh58 Apr 2013 #63
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #71
billh58 Apr 2013 #74
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #95
bobclark86 Apr 2013 #111
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #22
enki23 Apr 2013 #119
AtheistCrusader Apr 2013 #142
Alva Goldbook Apr 2013 #8
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #21
Dan Ken Apr 2013 #53
SunSeeker Apr 2013 #83
thucythucy Apr 2013 #25
SoapBox Apr 2013 #11
Cleita Apr 2013 #17
BlueCaliDem Apr 2013 #28
DeYanko Apr 2013 #30
billh58 Apr 2013 #39
Name removed Apr 2013 #31
Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #33
lark Apr 2013 #44
billh58 Apr 2013 #77
lark Apr 2013 #147
cyberswede Apr 2013 #36
billh58 Apr 2013 #42
Name removed Apr 2013 #52
cyberswede Apr 2013 #56
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #75
cyberswede Apr 2013 #79
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #86
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #41
patrice Apr 2013 #73
catbyte Apr 2013 #34
Amimnoch Apr 2013 #35
Flatulo Apr 2013 #54
DainBramaged Apr 2013 #40
patrice Apr 2013 #78
neverforget Apr 2013 #101
radhika Apr 2013 #45
samsingh Apr 2013 #46
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #50
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #47
billh58 Apr 2013 #57
GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #61
Dan Ken Apr 2013 #67
billh58 Apr 2013 #69
Pholus Apr 2013 #99
geckosfeet Apr 2013 #115
IveWornAHundredPants Apr 2013 #121
TeamPooka Apr 2013 #64
bobclark86 Apr 2013 #109
toby jo Apr 2013 #110
cantbeserious Apr 2013 #120
MicaelS Apr 2013 #123
fascisthunter Apr 2013 #126
Ellipsis Apr 2013 #124
Yukari Yakumo Apr 2013 #125
IveWornAHundredPants Apr 2013 #128
NickB79 Apr 2013 #130
ProudProgressiveNow Apr 2013 #135
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #137
FailureToCommunicate Apr 2013 #138
cleduc Apr 2013 #139
liberal N proud Apr 2013 #151

Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:10 PM

1. Good find. There are a lot of gun cultists who consider Zimmerman commited a "justified" homicide.


We'll never know how many of those 230 could have been handled without a bullet to someone's head. Those who train to shoot folks with targets that resemble humans, aren't going to pass up a chance to shoot someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:09 PM

14. Now with the "Shoot First Ask Questions Later" - I mean, "Stand Your Ground" laws

infesting states, dollars to donuts that these laws were implemented to beef up the "self-defense" numbers since they're so pathetically low. The "self-defense" argument you get from gun-fanatics every time anyone tries to push for sensible gun laws, won't hold water with paltry numbers such as 1% of guns that have been used in self-defense over a five year period. KochBros' ALEC needs to give the gun-fanatics their pound of propaganda so people will dutifully continue to support the U.S.'s gun and ammo conglomerates and their billion-dollar bottom lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:24 PM

27. Bingo. That is exactly what AtheistCrusader is doing in this thread.

See his post #16 below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:48 PM

87. Except of course

I have pointed out multiple 'bad' aspects of firearms in this and other current threads.

(I only objected here in that the OP's infographic is only a tiny fraction of the story, omitting the threat of deadly force in self defense, and in the commission of a crime, and actual non-fatal injuries in self-defense and in the commission of a crime)

(We can omit unsuccessful suicide by firearm, because it is such a tiny percentage of people that attempt it.)

(Also not in a firearm's general acceptability's favor)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:50 PM

58. Shoot first ask questions later? You have got to be kidding me.

 

You apparently don't know of self defense means. It means that if you don't act with deadly force you would have likely been seriously injured or been killed. NO ONE is going to shoot first. You think anyone is going to volunteer to incur 6 figures in legal fees?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:05 PM

70. Defending the NRA position is unthinkable. Are you a Zimmerman fan? "No one is going to shoot

 

first" eh. I recall a number of shoot first incidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to firenewt (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:40 PM

91. Yes, I believe it is.

I wonder when they'll deliver him his pizza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #91)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:13 PM

146. Nope...

Chance of serving on a Jury: 39% (explain)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:39 PM

90. Yeah, I know it's a joke, but it's what you gun-fanatics support.

I can easily look up a few "shoot first ask questions later" incidents that happened already and post the links here, but I doubt you're open to anything other than, "Guns GOOOOOOOD. Gun laws, BAAAAAAD".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:00 PM

93. No, it's not what I support.

 

A "shoot first incident" is a crime. Shooting in self-defense really does mean self-defense. Or would you rather this woman have been killed?



Or would you have preferred that this sweet 89 year old lady to have been killed?



Or would you have preferred that this shooting spree not been stopped?



Or would you have preferred for this convenience store clerk to have been killed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #93)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:43 PM

106. Wow. You had all those videos on the ready! Good for you!

You came prepared with your stash. I can only wonder why.

That said, Zimmerman shot first, asked questions later. There's no refuting that. But since SYG was passed into law, there have been some very ugly unintended consequences. The people in your video are not good examples to defend Shoot First Ask Questions Later laws. They were defending a clear attack, and in the United States, we have a right to defend ourselves if we can't retreat - which none of them could. We didn't need no stinking Republican Shoot First Ask Questions Later laws.

From the Tampa Bay Times article:

People have had the right to defend themselves from a threat as far back as English common law. The key in Florida and many other states was that they could not use deadly force if it was reasonably possible to retreat.

That's no longer necessary now with Jebbie's SYG, is it? A person only has to look at you funny, make you feel "threatened", and then you can shoot them dead in the street - and be exonerated in the courts! A criminal's paradise!

Drug dealers and gang members walk free and get away with murder merely citing SYG as their defense. But I guess you're ok with that. I'm not.

Those people you have on vid are doing nothing that they weren't allowed to do BEFORE "Shoot first Ask Questions Later" laws were passed in states. They have a right to defend themselves. But that KochBros funded ALEC bill gave this right to EVERYBODY. Not only law-abiding citizens, but even ex-felons, gang members, neighbors with a grudge against you or your dog, and drug dealers can shoot first under a "perceived threat" and happily use SYG as defense and WIN on the flimsiest of evidence.

Florida's "stand your ground'' law has allowed drug dealers to avoid murder charges and gang members to walk free. It has stymied prosecutors and confused judges. • It has also served its intended purpose, exonerating dozens of people who were deemed to be legitimately acting in self-defense. Among them: a woman who was choked and beaten by an irate tenant and a man who was threatened in his driveway by a felon.

Seven years since it was passed, Florida's "stand your ground" law is being invoked with unexpected frequency, in ways no one imagined, to free killers and violent attackers whose self-defense claims seem questionable at best.

Cases with similar facts show surprising — sometimes shocking — differences in outcomes. If you claim "stand your ground" as the reason you shot someone, what happens to you can depend less on the merits of the case than on who you are, whom you kill and where your case is decided.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/florida-stand-your-ground-law-yields-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133


As the link in the OP shows, over a five year period, 1% of guns were used in self-defense. The SYG laws were implimented not for the pubic safety, but to beef up those sad and pathetic stats. And it has, just as it's helped criminals to eliminate their competition or people they just don't like, and get away with it scot-free. And you agree with that. Sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #106)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:49 PM

127. Utterly wrong. You just don't understand the law.

 

It's not your fault, I'm sure you're not a lawyer.

Before I begin, let me say a few things. 1) I am a progressive. I just happen to be pro-gun. 2) I am NOT a member of the NRA or any other gun rights group. 3) What you understand of the stand your ground laws is based upon what you've read in newspapers, written by journalists. And sadly, many journalists are as dumb as rocks. To illustrate this point, Sarah Palin has a journalism degree. Journalists tend to be as wrong on gun laws as they are on scientific matters like say climate change.

Now onto your points: Do a google search. Zimmerman's legal team declined to use the Stand Your Ground defense. There's a reason for this. He would lose such a defense.

Here's the deal: The law is very specific about when you're legally allowed to use your gun for self-defense and when you can't. I know my own state's gun laws the best, so I'll start there. Under Virginia state law, I am legally prohibited from even taking my gun out of it's holster when I'm in public unless two legal criteria are met.

1) I reasonably feared for my life.
2) I can demonstrate to a reasonable person, that if I did not act with deadly force, I would have likely been killed or seriously injured.

Suppose I look out my window at 2 am and see someone trying to break into my car. I am explicitly prohibited by law to use my gun to prevent this crime from happening. I can't shoot the guy. I can't scare him off with my gun. All I can do is call the cops.

Now suppose my wife is in the car at the time. Then I can use my gun. Why? Because her life may be in danger.

If someone breaks into my home I can use my gun. Under the castle doctrine, anyone who breaks into my home is someone who automatically is determined, under the law, is someone who is trying to harm me. Out in public, that's the different story. Out in public, those legal tests I mentioned come into play.

Suppose I'm at the grocery store putting groceries into my car, and someone approaches me and hurls an insult at me. I am not legally allowed to use my gun. I must demonstrate those legal tests. If that person says, "I'm gonna kill you!", and that person is a 5'4 100 pound girl, then I'm not legally allowed to use my gun. Force of numbers, Force of size come into play. Those are legal definitions. Suppose the person who says this is 6'5 and looks like a body builder. Then I'm on better legal footing using a gun. Force of numbers doctrine. Suppose the person is a male, 5'8 and of average body size. Not so clear legal footing. Suppose average body size guy says, "I'm gonna kill you" and he's holding a knife pointed in my direction. Then those legal tests have been met. Suppose same guy is holding a knife, but it's not pointing in my direction and he doesn't say a word to me. Then I can't use a gun.

Suppose instead I'm putting groceries into my car, and someone hurls an insult at me. I say nothing. The person shouts more things at me, and pulls out a knife and says he's gonna kill me. I can shoot him, but I will be arrested. Once I'm arrested, I will plead a "justifiable homicide" defense. Under the law, this is the same as pleading guilty (to murder), and I must prove my innocence. I have to prove those two tests.

Suppose instead, I'm putting groceries into my car, and someone insults me, and I insult them back. They say something else, and I say something else too. Things escalate, and guy pulls out a knife and says he's going to kill me. Am I allowed to use my gun? No. Why? Because by arguing with the guy, I escalated the situation. I am legally not allowed to use my gun. If I do, I will go to jail for murder. Instead, I must do two things, under the law:

1) I must retreat. Run away. Run until I can't run any more. If then, I am still being attacked I must
2) Tell my attacker that I'm surrendering. I give up. I'm not fighting anymore. If then I'm still being attacked, then, and only then can I use a gun for self defense. Even then, I am not legally allowed to plead "justifiable homicide". Rather, I must plead "excusable homicide". This is far less in my favor legally, much harder to prove in court, and thus more costly to defend. This is when you get into the 6 figure legal fees that later force you to declare bankruptcy. Trust me, it's not shoot first. It's shoot as a last option.

For these reasons, I always carry myself in a polite and courteous manner. I never road rage. I never say anything mean to anyone. Why? Because I have a gun on me. If I behave rudely to anyone, and they get angry, I'm in big do-do.

Under Florida state law, they have a Stand Your Ground law. Virginia has long standing laws on using guns in public, but other states do not. 20 years ago, most states didn't have concealed carry laws. What Stand Your Ground laws do is bring the Castle Doctrine out into public. It is not a shoot first ask questions later sort of thing.

Under Florida law, I am allowed to use a gun to protect my property, even if no one's life is threatened. For instance, if someone is trying to break into my car in Florida, then I can use a gun to prevent that. However, I can only do this if I am the sole owner of the car. If I'm paying the car off, then I'm not allowed to do this. If I own the car with someone else I can't do this. If I have kids and the kids grandmother stops by the house, I'm not allowed to use a gun in self-defense, even if she stops over in the middle of the night. There are a number of other exceptions all laid out in the law.

Now let's get to the Zimmberman case. Under the law, Zimmerman cannot claim stand your ground. Why? Because Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin. This is what led to the events of that day. Had Zimmerman not approached Martin, that tragedy wouldn't have happened. By approaching him, under the law, Zimmerman was the aggressor. That is why his lawyers smartly decided not to plea a Stand Your Ground defense. He would have lost.

Now there's been some people who say that this gives a drug dealer the ability to say, "I shot this guy in self defense", when the drug dealer was committing a criminal act. That it lets murderers off the hook. But the reality is that murderers have been pleading defenses like this for a very long time. It's the "I didn't do it" or "they did it to me" or "I'm innocent and I promise I'll never do it again, just let me go" defense. That's been used forever, and smart investigators have always been able to get their convictions anyway.

I hope you can see, that the law on these matters is quite complex. And it's perfectly understandable to be irate by your understanding of the law given the media reports of them. But journalists aren't lawyers. They're not scientists either. And most of them are pretty dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #127)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:50 AM

134. Zimmerman's attorneys

wanted to use the SYG law, but as the media attention got brighter and the inconsistencies in his testimony of the events began to multiply, of course his defense attorneys declined to use it. But it's disingenuous at best that you completely omitted to mention that fact in your response.

I'm also certain that you didn't read the article, otherwise you'd know that it's rather long and it includes instances when SYG failed as a legal strategy. You're giving your interpretation of the Shoot First Ask Question Later law - and that's the problem. There are too many interpretations of this badly written law. Hence my contention that it was written not as a self-defense option, but to beef up the self-defense numbers {which has happened now it's passed} in order to continue selling more guns to frightened Americans. As you've pointed out, I'm not an attorney, but most people aren't. And that's the problem. People will bad intentions will use this badly written law as an open invite to settle scores and shoot and kill people they don't like with a 50/50 chance of getting off. That's not a good mindset for people who believe in a civilized society.

Two examples below that illustrate that fact:

And courts are divided on what the law is when a victim is retreating.

David Heckman of Tampa lost his bid for "stand your ground" protection because his victim was walking away when Heckman shot him.

"We conclude that immunity does not apply because the victim was retreating," the court said.

But Jimmy Hair, who was sitting in a car when he was attacked in Tallahassee, was treated differently. He shot his victim as the man was being pulled from the vehicle. An appeals court gave immunity to Hair, saying: "The statute makes no exception from immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."

While many have argued the law does not allow someone to pick a fight and claim immunity, it has been used to do just that. It is broad enough that one judge complained that in a Wild West-type shootout, where everybody is armed, everyone might go free.

"Each individual on each side of the exchange of gunfire can claim self-defense," Leon County Circuit Judge Terry P. Lewis wrote in 2010, saying it "could conceivably result in all persons who exchanged gunfire on a public street being immune from prosecution."


SYG is a BAD law. It is ambiguous at best. It should be repealed indefinitely.

I love spaghetti westerns, but they have no place in the real world where people actually die. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #134)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:47 AM

141. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #134)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 01:48 PM

148. Utterly Wrong, Again.

 

Let me just say that I'm no lawyer either, but for a layman, I understand gun laws very well. This is due to spending many an hour reading everything I can find on the subject, and I read the actual statutes, court interpretations, and legal experts in this field like Massad Ayoob.

It makes no difference if Zimmerman's attorneys wanted to use SYG. They couldn't. Not unless they wanted to lose the case. And I was unaware that they even wanted to (I'll take your word for it that they actually did).

There is nothing ambiguous here. Every single shooting incident is unique. The law will apply differently depending upon seemingly unimportant details. For instance, it is very clear that someone who is walking away is not attacking you. Someone getting out of a car is a different matter. Suppose the guy who was walking away was in the process of getting a couple of his friends to all come after you? Details like this matter.

It is also important to understand that what the shooter believes plays an important part of this. Suppose someone looks angrily at me and holds up a knife like he's about to strike me with it. I shoot the guy in self-defense, and the guy lives. He tells the police that it was a fake knife and he was just playing a practical joke on me. The question then becomes, did I really believe that my life was in danger? And would a reasonable person, if they were in my shoes, have done the same thing? Details like this matter.

It doesn't matter if people with bad intentions will use SYG laws to try to settle scores, or if they think it gives them a license to kill. It will not give them a 50/50 chance of getting off. All it will do is put more people who probably should be behind bars behind bars quicker. People who do this will try to claim immunity with SYG, but the vast majority of the time, the facts of the case will come to light and they will be found guilty.

Here is a presentation from Massad Ayoob on SYG laws. He is a retired police officer and one of the foremost legal experts on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #148)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 02:25 PM

149. Cherry-picking information to support your fetish with guns doesn't help you.

You call journalists dumb. Well, anybody who supports SYG is, too. Remember . . . Sarah Palin supports it, too. 'Nuff said.

The overall consensus is, Shoot First Ask Questions Later is a horribly flawed law, meant solely to beef up the almost non-existent numbers of guns used in self-defense {the most important reason for people to excuse their gun fetish}, and to sell more firearms to fatten the bottom lines of merchants of murder.

I'm sorry, Goldbook, but I believe your myopic reasoning; dismissing the very real and proven unintended circumstances this Koch Bros law has created, is as flawed as the law itself.

You won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Let's agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #148)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 05:45 PM

150. LOL. Massad Ayoob.

You know that he's not actually a lawyer, right? He's just a gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #127)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:42 AM

140. Excellent, well-reasoned response.

Welcome to DU, Alva Goldbook.



-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:03 AM

144. Legally, it might appear well-reasoned, but in practice, it's not.

The flaw in that reasoning is simple: not everybody is an attorney. Not everybody knows the intricate ins and outs of the Shoot First Ask Questions Later law that you support. Not even criminal defense attorneys. Not even judges. It's just dumb to applaud a law so badly written that you can drive a Mack truck through it unless, of course, you believe people should take justice into their own hands. Little people killing little people, and pumping cold hard cash into gun manufacturers' bank accounts at the same time is a moneyed wanna-be fascist's wet dream {Koch Bros}.

In practice, this law has proven to be so full of holes that one person using it as a defense might get off with murder {like Hair} where another will not {like Heckman}.

Smart people would demand that this law be repealed. And by the way? It's an ALEC law, a Koch Bros law - and you're applauding it on a Democratic Party supporting site? Methinks you're lost, Jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:22 PM

100. How many gun owners can afford 6 figures in legal fees?

And it's still better than being dead from the shoot first (oops stand your ground) self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:15 PM

2. But suicides don't count

nor do accidental deaths, so claim our resident gun zealots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:24 PM

26. Some should. The "spur-of-the-moment" action made simple by use of gun.

I tried to make the case here that suicide is one reason some reasonable, sane people might want to keep a gun around. This was not well received.

In the absence of a "lethal dose", a gun is a quick and easy solution.

Still, many suicide-by-gun cases are spur of the moment and not made by reasonable, sane people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:27 PM

29. Wait ... you're advocating FOR suicide?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #29)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:02 PM

38. I've long felt I should have the right to end my own life if I choose to do so.

Hey, it's my life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:49 AM

133. Euthanasia robs Big Pharma and Big ProfitCare of vital profits.

That's why it's still illegal in this country when it's perfectly fine if one wants to humanely euthanize their terminally ill pet when we know they'll otherwise suffer in pain.

Surely we didn't think Congress cared about us? It's all about their benefactors' {future employers?} bottom line, and that's the ONLY reason why euthanasia hasn't become legal. We're expendable only after they've sucked every penny they can get and we're tapped out.

Once we understand that, we'll be able to use that disappointment and empower ourselves to get the people we need in power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:51 PM

59. when someone hangs himself, do you blame the rope? (end)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:13 PM

76. That page of the NRA handbook must be almost worn out by now!

Can't you people find a new non argument? This one is played out completely!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:14 PM

88. I'm not one of those people

I'm mocking that argument. I find is repulsive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #59)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:31 AM

131. No, because the rope gave them time to rethink their suicide.

Takes a bit to strangle yourself, giving yourself a chance to change your mind - the most common result of suicide attempts.

A gun to the head doesn't do that. There's no chance to change your mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:18 PM

3. Having a gun in the home increases your chance of a gun death many times over.

Owning a gun for personal safety purposes is irrational. We need to educate people that if they want to protect themselves and their loved ones, they should clear their home of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:23 PM

4. But, but

in order to protect our rights under the Second Amendment, we have to allow for oopsies like the first three categories. 28,273 insignificant deaths is the price that needs to be paid in order to take 230 criminals off the streets, and save the taxpayers all of that "justice" money wasted on trials. Small price to pay if you ask me...

(if necessary)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:42 PM

9. Defensive gun uses

 

There are actually 1.5 million self-defense uses of guns every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:53 PM

10. And there are actually

30,000 needless deaths and many more needless injuries from guns every year. What's your point?

BTW, another "expert" from the Gungeon states that there are only 108,000 defensive gun uses per year. You NRA apologists should really get your mind-numbing statistical manipulation act together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:10 PM

15. That one

is just spreading pro-NRA propaganda. It's copy and pasting its post to other threads, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:14 PM

18. It's amazing how

transparent they are, and they don't seem to care. Hope it enjoys the pizza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:18 PM

24. They don't care because they get paid

to spread their propaganda.

I hope the pizza is delivered SOON.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:32 PM

48. Bill....the numbers are different because the 2 studies use different methodology.

 

The 108,000 number comes from the National Crime Victim Survey (NCVS) is was specifically designed to detect how often people are victims of crime. For many reasons, it's a poor study to determine how often guns are used for self-defense. Just about every criminologist in the field agrees with this.

The Justice Dept. found that there were 1.5 million self defense uses of guns (DSU's), but it could be as high as 4.7 million. This is in line with private research from Florida University that puts the number at 2.5 million. These studies did not use the NCVS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:39 PM

49. The OP is about

deaths from guns and has absolutely nothing to do with "brandishing." Thanks for playing, and enjoy your short stay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:39 PM

104. Mischaracterize much?

I said 'at least' not 'only'.

The implication hopefully being that a right wing think tank funded creep (Kleck) may not be trustworthy for the 2.5 or follow-up USDoJ study using Kleck's methodology that resulted in 1.5 million, but hopefully a plain USDoJ study of it's own is acceptable as a minimum baseline data point that can be sort of trusted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:33 PM

32. Source? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:41 PM

152. Says an NRA 'study'.

They used to say "1.9....2.9....2 MILLION TIMES A YEAR!!11!!" The numbers are made up. What, they asked 60 million people if they had ever used a gun in self defense? Did they include some jackass walking into a bar with a gun in his belt? Some guy who wandered around outside with his Glock after he heard a squirrel on his roof? OK, try NRA talking point #3. I forget, which one is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis-t (Reply #152)

Fri Apr 26, 2013, 05:33 PM

153. No, it's called extrapolation. It's used in every poll.

 

You ask a random sample of people how many times they use a gun for self-defense, and you extrapolate that out to the rest of the population. It's basic statistics. No, I don't think the Justice Dept. asked people in bars about this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:28 PM

5. Pretty amazing infographic there, EarlG. nt

PB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:33 PM

6. Guns don't kill people,

but they sure do make it easier to kill yourself and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:33 PM

7. US DoJ shows the vast majority of lawful defensive gun uses do not involve fatalities.

Defensive gun uses
NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are some- times invoked as a measure of the public benefits of private gun owner- ship. On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.


So, right there, if you trust the United States Department of Justice, you've got 108k per year, lawful defensive gun uses.
(Usually the nationwide number of lawful DGU's resulting in a fatality is closer to 600/year, wonder what causes the downtick, if that VPC number is accurate)

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf


Edit: In fairness to the point trying to be made here, the VPC didn't include the number of people INJURED by criminal mis-use of firearms, or failed suicides either. Including both would give a clearer picture of the total butchers bill on both sides.

The only solid point I can extrapolate here is, Americans are pretty violent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:02 PM

12. From the report cited in another reply. I guess we can all cite stats as needed.

Defensive gun uses

NSPOF estimates. Private citizens sometimes use
their guns to scare off trespassers and fend off
assaults. Such defensive gun uses (DGUs) are
sometimes invoked as a measure of the public
benefits of private gun ownership. On the basis of
data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics'
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data,
one would conclude that defensive uses are rare
indeed, about 108,000 per year. But other surveys
yield far higher estimates of the number of DGUs.
Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz. The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.

The NSPOF survey is quite similar to the Kleck and
Gertz instrument and provides a basis for
replicating their estimate. Each of the respondents
in the NSPOF was asked the question, "Within the
past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even
if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone
else, or for the protection of property at home,
work, or elsewhere?" Answers in the affirmative
were followed with "How many different times did
you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect
yourself or property in the past 12 months?"
Negative answers to the first DGU question were
followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend
yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original).
Each respondent who answered yes to either of these
DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional
questions concerning the most recent defensive gun
use in which the respondent was involved, including
the respondent's actions with the gun, the location
and other circumstances of the incident, and the
respondent's relationship to the perpetrator.

Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use
in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the
sampling weights, these respondents constitute 1.6
percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million
adults. Almost half of these respondents reported
multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis
for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23
million ...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:14 PM

19. Uh huh. What was your point?

I cited the same starting paragraph. I OMITTED the wildly inflated Kleck numbers on purpose. Not sure why you would add them in, since I specified only the ~108,000 from the NSPOF itself.

Were you going to try and 'cite stats' that disprove the DoJ's lower number?

(I think the Kleck study is absurd as well.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:59 PM

37. My point is that the number used in the OP is wildly low and the Kleck study wildly high. The

true statistic lies somewhere in the middle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:14 PM

43. You are comparing

apples to oranges. ALL of the numbers in the OP represent deaths from guns, and have absolutely no bearing on how scary a gun may be. Security warning signs and visible cameras most likely contribute to the prevention of crimes as well.

When you compare a lethal shooting to a show of force, you are being willfully obtuse in order to dilute the message of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:01 PM

66. Not exactly.

The OP is making an inferential cost-benefit analysis of firearms.

Access to them costs us significantly in successful suicides, and homicides, and to a very small degree, accidental deaths.
The 'benefit' proposition here is a very, very tiny number of lawful homicides in self defense.

This ignores the well known, well-researched, and I would have thought, broadly aware fact that the vast majority of successful uses of firearms in self-defense do not involve a fatality at all, let alone an injury. Most don't require the weapon be fired.

So if we are going to make a USEFUL cost-benefit analysis, we need to include:

1. Lawful DGU's in which someone is killed.
2. Lawful DGU's in which someone is injured.
3. Lawful DGU's in which no shots are fired, and the threat of force is sufficient.

We ALSO need to include criminal uses of firearms with those three outcomes as well.
This is important, because you might be perfectly legally and reasonably justified in using a firearm/lethal force in self-defense in cases where the assailant isn't armed with a firearm at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:06 PM

72. Yeah, I get it.

More guns will make us a saner, more safe society, and it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later. Cost benefits analysis? Really? People like you boggle the mind.

Buh bye Bubba...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #72)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:40 PM

81. Actually, including all sets of numbers, I suspect the cost would roll AGAINST the use of firearms.

But hey, way to jump to conclusions there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:46 PM

85. Absolutely ... well stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #43)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:44 PM

84. I'm not buying the lethal use of force metric as the only one that qualifies. That's not being

obtuse, it's being realistic. If a person brandishes a firearm and prevents an assault of other crime, that counts as far as I'm concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #84)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:17 PM

89. By that little twist of

logic then , we should be able to count all of the accidental discharges that didn't injure or kill, all of the people who picked up a gun with the intent of committing suicide and didn't, all of children who found unattended guns and played with them, but didn't shoot themselves or any of their friends, etc. See where I'm going with this?

Coulda, shoulda, woulda does not equate to what actually happened. Signage, bright lights, fences, strong locks, alarm systems, a police car cruising by -- all of these things can be seen as "preventing an assault or other crime." Violence prevention is a separate category from lethal violence, and that is the point of the OP.

I'm not arguing with your statistics, only that your efforts to dilute the message of the OP seems disingenuous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:57 PM

92. I think the OP is using an extremely strict metric in making his point. In the interest of fairness

it should be expanded to a more reasonable definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:11 PM

96. That is your opinion

and you are certainly entitled to it. I view the OP as a straight forward comparison of the number of gun-related deaths which happen in this country, and the categories under which they occur.

The needless and potentially preventable (to a degree) gun-related deaths far outnumber the self-defense deaths. All gun-related deaths have a direct link to the obscene number of guns which proliferate our society, and tie directly to the right-wing NRA's support of the American gun culture in its greedy pursuit of even more blood money.

Like many lethal diseases, the proliferation of guns is a communicable health hazard and should be treated as such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:36 PM

102. Not equal.

In the case of a criminal mis-use of a gun, the criminal may shoot someone and flee, without alerting EMS. So the injured party may die before receiving treatment.
A self-defense case will (in lawful cases) be accompanied with summons to law enforcement and EMS, so the injured assailant may survive where the former victim may not.

There are lots of apples to oranges elements of the OP's comparison. To be 'more valid' the comparison must include criminal and lawful injuries committed with firearms, and instances where a firearm was brandished to accomplish either a criminal act, or a lawful self-defense via the threat of force without firing a shot.

Then we can get a clearer picture.

Before you get all excited about biases or 'gungeoneers', using the USDoJ 108k number, against just the number of people injured by firearms in the commission of a crime, per year, does not paint a favorable picture for gun owners. But it is at least a more complete conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:11 PM

107. I view it (at a minmum) as 108k that did not suffer an attack on their person or worse, death.

I'm trying to determine what they would have done in lieu of having a firearm? Calling 911 or running away may have been of little or no use. Depending on the good will of criminals to obey laws is a non-starter. So what is the solution? You seem to be the voice of reason in this thread; what are your thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:48 PM

112. I opt on the side of owning firearms, but expecting reasonable regulation of that ownership.

Meaning that I may not carry in some places, and under some circumstances. Carrying in public must be approved via a licensure process, as is required in my state. That said licensure might require legal training (when is force justifiable) as well as firearms training and qualification. (Not currently required in my state, but prudent.)

Might also include liability insurance (which I have, but is not required), and for non-carry in public, I also accept the possibility (and actually advocate for it) of registration and full background checks for all transfers.



But yeah, I view a firearm as a tool for certain problems, to be applied judiciously, and in fitting with my non-aggression philosophy, only sparingly and in proportion to the threat or actual force I am trying to mitigate. That's all a firearm is to me. Just a tool. Meat on the table. Self defense of family, kin, friends, state, or nation. (Subject to a civilian authority) Nothing more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 07:44 PM

116. Well stated. My views exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:13 PM

98. If I brandish a shotgun at an armed intruder and stop them from assaulting my family, that is

a direct action with a direct result. It has nothing to do with accidental discharges or failed suicide attempts. I don't need to shoot or kill the intruder to prevent the attack. That was my point. The study cited in the OP doesn't consider these actions. I think for the sake of fairness and a better statistical analysis, they should. What I find disconcerting is the OP seems to be using a very finite definition to prove his point.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #98)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:37 PM

103. And again we disagree.

I think you are using an overly broad definition to prove your point, The OP is comparing actual gun deaths, and not gun uses.

You obviously support the NRA's position on the unrestricted proliferation of guns, and I don't. Doesn't make either one of us bad people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:43 PM

105. How on God's green planet do you come to the conclusion that I support the unrestricted

proliferation of firearms? I merely want the definition of defense broadened to be more fair in the analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #105)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:26 PM

108. It appears that I am

guilty of assuming that you are intent on diluting the message of the OP. Under your scenario (as I understood it), the OP should read 28,273 incidental deaths by guns, 230 "justified" deaths by guns, and 108,000 (or 1.5 million depending on the stats you choose to accept) righteous gun brandishings, thereby negating all of the deaths. That certainly puts things in a better perspective now doesn't it?

If I misunderstand your position I sincerely apologize. If I understand you correctly, then I stand by my assessment of your alignment with the aims and goals of the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 07:41 PM

114. I'll reserve judgement on your intent here. But suffice it to say that you have misrepresented my

words severely. The OP doesn't do justice to his argument when he dilutes the result by massaging definitions. If you can't understand that, then any number of explanations won't help, and any further debate is useless.

If you consider my brandishing a shotgun to protect my family as negatively "righteous", then we have nothing further to discuss. I just hope you never have to face that situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:51 PM

113. WHY is the OP comparing the two groups of gun deaths?

What is the useful takeaway from that comparison?

That people aren't shooting other people in self-defense enough?
Isn't it a good thing that when used in self defense (lawful DGU) very few people actually die?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SlimJimmy (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:55 PM

62. Ah, agreed.

(Although they aren't using the same metric. One is lawful DGU's resulting in a fatality. The other is ALL lawful DGU's. Most DGU's don't even involve firing a shot, let alone a fatality)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:42 PM

82. Yes, I also agree with your assessment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #62)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:16 PM

122. Attempting to compile "all lawful DGUs" would be impossible.

Every time Old Man Cavanaugh waves his double-barrel full of rock salt at a passing girl scout who treads on his lawn, do we score one on the DGU ledger? Old Man Cavanaugh would certainly think so, and he's the one who reports it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IveWornAHundredPants (Reply #122)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:58 AM

143. Fair point.

Same is true of unlawful uses. Often banks are robbed with a ball point pen and a piece of paper, with the threat of a firearm that may or may not exist.

So, muddy waters in both directions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:01 PM

65. The Kleck study is not absurd.

 

The Justice Dept. didn't think it was absurd. That's why they did a follow up study after the Kleck study using his methodology and found it was 1.5 million.

What is absurd is Hemenway's study which uses the NCVS as it's basis. Hemenway then does something sneaky in the study. He asked a couple of judges to look for crimes in the reported DSU's. And then he says, this is evidence that most of the people who claim to use guns in self-defense are actually criminals.

One of those "criminal" instances he excluded was a man who was at home when he saw the burglar alarm go off for his near by business. The business owner got his gun and drove to his business, to find 2 burglars trying to break into his business. The business owner fired a single warning shot, which scared the burglars away. Why was this not counted as a self defense use of a gun? Because warning shots are illegal. Therefore Hemenway declares that this man is a criminal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:03 PM

68. Depending on state law.

Not all states make a warning shot explicitly illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #68)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:06 PM

94. Which states?

 

Whenever you fire a round out in public, that is intended, under the law, to be used lethally and it is only allowed in order to save one's life. I don't know of a single state that views this differently.

Regardless of what the law says, you should NEVER fire a warning shot. It is not safe to fire in the air, and it is not safe to fire at anything you're not willing to kill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:12 PM

97. Not all states have statutes regarding this.

Some municipalities have 'discharge of a firearm' ordinances, but not necessarily a law against 'warning shots'.

In MOST states, a warning shot is prima facie evidence the you were not justified in employing lethal force (firing the gun) because you did not direct it at the purported threat. And this is for the reasons you identified, as a public safety issue.

That said, this man fired a warning shot and was not charged with a crime. Some states classify it as a crime, up to a 20 year felony, some are silent on the matter. (You are always responsible for what happens to the bullet that you fired regardless of whether a warning shot is illegal in your state)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:00 PM

117. Warning shots are a very good way to get yourself killed.

Put yourself in the mind of the burglar. He won't know that you are just trying to scare him into compliance, or scare him away. He is likely to think that you were trying to shoot him and missed. He wants to keep on breathing and will likely think that he is in deadly danger. If he is armed he will likely shoot at you to stop you from shooting him.

If you are not ready to put a round dead center of the threat, then keep your finger off the trigger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #117)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:05 PM

118. In florida, a warning shot = a 20 year mandatory minimum felony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #117)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:07 AM

129. Warning shots are a good way to get someone else killed.

 

I once saw one case where a guy shot a gun in the air on New Year's and the bullet landed a few blocks away. Gravity had sped the bullet up enough so that it was going at a deadly speed, and it hit a guy on his back, it hit his heart, and the guy died seconds later. They actually found the guy who fired the shot, and he got put away.

But Green, you're wrong about something here. A warning shot at a burglar would not likely result in you getting killed (unless your own bullet bounced off something and hit you instead).

Part of my gun training has kind of overlapped with my study of psychology, which I did in college. A funny thing happens when someone is shot at. A biological response called the Flight or Fight response kicks in.

The symptoms of Flight or Fight is 1) increased strength 2) tunnel vision 3) loss of hearing 4) loss of fine motor skills (yes, people really do drop their keys like in all those corny 80's horror flicks). None of this is good when you're trying to operate a gun. I won't go into it, but there a kind of training you can practice that will limit this response.

But the interesting thing is that when criminals are shot at, they also go into the flight or fight response. It's just plain instinct. There is rarely any kind of cross fire like you see in Hollywood movies. In real life, when you shoot at someone, they run for their lives. Yes, even if that person has a gun, they seem to forget that they have a gun, and they still run for their lives.

Watch this video closely. 2 armed men rob an internet cafe. And old man wearing old man shorts comes out from one of the tables and starts shooting at the two armed robbers. Do they shoot back? Watch and find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #129)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:36 AM

132. You are right.

I do get a bit hyperbolic sometimes. I forget, at times, that criminals aren't trained combat troops. Warning shots can get someone else killed too. They are a very bad idea, and a waste of ammo at a time when may need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:02 PM

13. Gunners love to cherry pick that 1997 survey, without disclosing the report's conclusion

The report concluded that that defensive gun uses (DFU) was wildly overestimated because of the problematic self-reporting methodology used. As the report noted at pages 8-9:

Each of the respondents in the NSPOF was asked the question,"Within the past 12 months, have you yourself used a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or someone else, or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere?" Answers
in the affirmative were followed with "How many different times did you use a gun, even if it was not fired, to protect yourself or property in the past 12 months?" Negative answers to the first DGU question were followed by "Have you ever used a gun to defend yourself or someone else?" (emphasis in original). Each respondent who answered yes to either of these DGU questions was asked a sequence of 30 additional questions concerning the most recent defensive gun use in which the respondent was involved, including the respondent's actions with the gun, the location and other circumstances of the incident, and the respondent's relationship
to the perpetrator. Forty-five respondents reported a defensive gun use in 1994 against a person (exhibit 7). Given the sampling
weights, these respondents constitute 1.6 percent of the sample and represent 3.1 million adults. Almost half of these respondents reported multiple DGUs during 1994, which provides the basis for estimating the 1994 DGU incidence at 23 million. This surprising figure is caused in part by a few respondents reporting large numbers of defensive gun uses during the year; for example, one woman reported 52!
...
The results still suggest that DGU estimates are far too high. For example, in only a small fraction of rape and robbery attempts do victims use guns in self-defense. It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS (exhibit 8). For other crimes listed in exhibit 8, the results are almost as absurd: the NSPOF estimate of DGU robberies is 36 percent of all NCVS-estimated robberies, while the NSPOF estimate of DGU assaults is 19 percent of all aggravated assaults. If those percentages were close to accurate, crime would be a risky business indeed! NSPOF estimates also suggest that 130,000 criminals are wounded or killed by civilian gun defenders. That number also appears completely out of line with other, more reliable statistics on the number of gunshot cases.
...
The reason this sort of bias can be expected in the case of rare events boils down to a matter of arithmetic. Suppose the true prevalence is 1 in 1,000. Then out of every 1,000 respondents, only 1 can possibly supply a "false negative," whereas any of the 999 may provide a "false positive." If even 2 of the 999 provide a false positive, the result will be a positive bias—regardless
of whether the one true positive tells the truth. Respondents might falsely provide a positive response to the DGU question
for any of a number of reasons:

• They may want to impress the interviewer by their heroism and hence exaggerate a trivial event.
• They may be genuinely confused due to substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories.
• They may actually have used a gun defensively within the last couple of years but falsely report it as occurring
in the previous year—a phenomenon known as "telescoping."

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:12 PM

16. Agreed, the reporting tallies are not accurate.

(The DoJ was also mostly critiquing Kleck and Co. there for their wildly inflated 2.5million DGU's/year.)

I can tell you the VPC is questionable one way or another on that DGU with fatalities number for 2010, becausejust the state of Florida accounts for 35, when their lawful DGU fatalities number doubled after the passage of SYG, which then became an issue in the Zimmerman murder case.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:43 PM

51. And if you extrapolate that out....

 

...it means that there would be 4.7 million DSU's. However, the Justice Dept. set that data aside as unreliable, and came up with the figure of 1.5 million. Dr. Kleck of Florida University helped design this method, and he used multiple questions that had to be internally consistent in order to include that person's data. It was designed to make it difficult to fabricate a story.

It sounds to me that you're taking Dr. Hemenway's word as Gospel. He's the criminologist who's used the NCVS survey, when it seems that every one of his peers has abandoned it's use when determining DSU's. Kleck explained what was wrong with the NCVS here.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Some more interesting reading here.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:29 PM

80. "It was designed to make it difficult to fabricate a story." What bullshit.

Any time you rely on self-reporting via phone survey, with no way to verify, you are not making it difficult to fabricate a story. And contrary to your gun lover links, Kleck has been thoroughly debunked.

As noted previously on this board, the flaws in Kleck's methodology have been shown repeatedly in multiple other studies (Cook/Ludwig, McDowall, Hemenway), all of which conclude that the 2.5M estimate is absurdly high. In Kleck's study, the total number of "yes" answers was about 1% of those surveyed. A "false positive" is when someone says "yes" even though the real answer is no. That means if the false positive rate is 1%, then practically all of the "yes" answers would be false positives.

Unless Kleck can demonstrate a false positive rate of far lower than 1%, then his survey results do not yield a credible estimate of DGU. Kleck never does ever explain why he has a false positive rate this low. Ignoring the problem of false positives does not make it disappear. The burden is on Kleck to provide some quantifiable evidence, not mere speculation.

Phone surveys usually get false positive rates of higher than 1%. For example, if you do phone surveys where the true number is known, for example, if you ask people if they are NRA members, you can actually measure false positive rates (by comparing the results to the actual number of NRA members), and the false positive rate generally comes out to 2% or more.

So there is absolutely no reason to believe that the false positive rate for Kleck's phone survey is uniquely low. Which means that the survey results are simply not credible.

http://www.oneutah.org/tag/kleck-de-bunkerd-kleck-debunked/
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPAM_Cook_Ludwig_Hemenway_2007.pdf
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x440839

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #80)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 02:03 AM

136. Kleck explains this himself.

 

How does a cop know someone is lying? Or a judge? The answer is simple. People tend to remember the truth. They forget lies.

This is why Kleck intentionally set up his questions so that each answer from a reported DSU had to be internally consistent.

In Kleck's own words from this:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm

III. THE NATURE OF FALSE POSITIVES

It is hard to discern exactly what kinds of false positives H thinks most often show up in all these gun use surveys. He waffles on the issue of whether people are: (1) consciously inventing nonexistent events; (2) consciously but honestly misrepresenting accounts of real events that did not really involve DGU (e.g., they involved aggressive use of a gun); or (3) unconsciously distorting real events. He seems to have doubts himself about possibility (1) occurring very often, hastening to assure readers that false responders do not necessarily have to lie, but is otherwise unwilling to commit himself to the relative frequency of these types of misreports.

It is worth emphasizing how difficult it was for our RS to falsely report a completely nonexistent event as a DGU. Unlike the UFO example that H insists is somehow parallel to reports of DGUs, a respondent who wanted to falsely report a nonexistent DGU could not qualify as having had such an experience merely by saying "Yes." Rather, respondents had to provide as many as nineteen internally consistent responses covering the details of the alleged incident. In short, to sustain a false DGU claim, RS had to do a good deal of agile mental work, and stay on the phone even longer. On the other hand, all it took to yield a false negative was for a DGU-involved R to speak a single inaccurate syllable: "No." The point is not that false positives were impossible, but rather that it was far harder to provide a false positive than a false negative.

Consider also the context in which H imagines all these false reports to have occurred. Randomly selected people were called unexpectedly, and questioned rapidly by total strangers, for no more than fifteen minutes, with one question immediately following another. There was no prolonged opportunity to invent a nonexistent event, rehearse inaccurate details, or to otherwise get an false story straight. RS providing a false positive had to be not only dishonest but very quick-witted as well.

Regarding possibility (2), we noted that most of the DGUs were linked with the types of crimes¾burglaries, robberies, and sexual assaults¾where there is little opportunity for participants to be honestly confused about who was the victim and who was the offender. While a few RS may well have consciously misrepresented aggressive actions as defensive, and a very few might have consciously invented entirely fictitious events, it is hard to see how RS could report an account of a real burglary, robbery, or sexual assault in which they were aggressors and somehow honestly distort it into a DGU incident.

This kind of misunderstanding of real events in a way that falsely qualifies them as DGUs is more plausible in connection with male-against-male assault incidents, such as when people prefer to characterize their partly aggressive, partly defensive behavior in "mutual combat" incidents as purely defensive in character. We addressed this latter possibility in our article and showed that it could not account for more than a small fraction (probably less than a tenth) of the incidents we counted as DGUs. H does not rebut that evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 11:14 AM

145. And this is why Kleck has no credibility.

The tone, let alone the vacuous nonsense of that explanation shows what a gun nut tool he is. He brushes off the false positive issue as "hard to see," saying it's more "difficult" to say "yes" than "no" because if you say "yes" you then you must describe the incident and lying is hard--you have to "stay on the phone even longer."

LOL. Have you ever met a gun nut who didn't love talking about his gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:16 PM

20. Not Americans

 

People are violent all around the world. Not just in America. Don't blame geography for the human condition. Also the universe is a very violent place and most certainly deadly to all humans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeEmily (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:17 PM

23. Per capita violent assault comparisons to other G20 nations are not... favorable to us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:47 PM

55. Wrong. The US has lower rape and assault rates than many gun-free countries.

 

I first saw this reading the Sam Harris blog on this subject.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/faq-on-violence

From the post:

Incidents in the year 2010 per 100,000 population

Rape:
U.S. 27.3
UK (England and Wales) 28.8
Australia 88.4
Sweden 63.5

Assault
U.S. 250.9
U.K. (England and Wales) 664.4
Australia 766
Sweden 936.6
Scotland 1449.7

It seems to me that guns may not prevent people from being murdered, but they certainly seem to prevent assaults and rape.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:59 PM

63. Now there's a fine

example of making shit up. Are you seriously suggesting that more guns equal fewer rapes, and less guns equal more rapes?

I didn't realize that the NRA had an indoctrination course for conjecture and supposition based on made up shit. You and the rest of your NRA apologist cronies keep finding new ways of saying the same thing: a few (thousands of) needless gun deaths and injuries every year are worth it for the privilege of being the most heavily armed society in existence.

Convoluted reasoning, thy name is NRA apologist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:06 PM

71. No, Bill....

 

...I think that fact that we're a more rural country over all is the primary reason why we have lower assault and rape rates. There are lower crime rates in rural areas, even on a per capita basis, and we have more parts of our country that are rural. But I would certainly say that since more and more women are carrying guns, that certainly is a deterrent to committing acts of violence against women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:07 PM

74. Do you report the income you receive from

the NRA?

Buh bye Bubbette...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #74)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:07 PM

95. The NRA? I'm not even a member.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:40 PM

111. Ahh...

the fine art of confusing correlation and causation. That's like saying you're more likely to get raped if you don't speak English.

And as far as rural goes, Australia's about the size of the CONUS. Oh, and the population is only a fraction of the U.S.

Again, correlation =/= causation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:17 PM

22. True.

The only solid point I can extrapolate here is, Americans are pretty violent people.

And a violent people shouldn't have access to deadly weapons of mass destruction. Yet under the pretense of a "individuals have a right to bear arms" {any goddamn arms they please - especially when it's profitable for corporations}, we have the worst stats compared to other wealthy nations.

And that's very troubling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:09 PM

119. Yeah, I'd bet the unintentional shootings are far more likely to be fatal than the intential ones.

Which explains why there are more than twice as many unintentional firearms deaths as there are justifiable homicides. When people accidentally shoot themselves, it's random. When it's a defensive shooting, they tend to aim for the shoulders, just like a movie villain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enki23 (Reply #119)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:57 AM

142. Shootings classified 'unintentional' are often

some old guy going to the range, firing a few rounds, laying out a can of break free, and a rag, then shooting himself in the head.

Some people might call it insurance fraud.
(An enormous number of unintentional shootings are 'I didn't know it was loaded' after it was aimed at someone and the trigger intentionally pulled)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 12:40 PM

8. So WILDLY Wrong it's laughable.

 

This seems to be assuming that the ONLY time a gun is used for self defense is when a "justifiable homicide" has occurred. That is a legal definition. There are also "reasonable homicides". Furthermore, this assumes that homicides is the only time a gun is used for self-defense. The majority of times, just showing a weapon is enough to prevent a crime. Recently a Wisconsin man held a man at gun point on the street after he saw him beating a defenseless woman nearly to death. No gun fire happened. He just help him there until the police arrived. Is that not a defensive use of a gun?

The Justice Dept. looked into this, and found that there are 1.5 million self defense uses of guns every single year. Don't believe me? Check this out and scroll about half way down until you see the section "Defensive gun uses".

https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:16 PM

21. It is the figures you cite that are wildly wrong and laughable.

You cite the same 1997 survey your fellow gungeoneer above you cites (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf), except that you cite a harder to read text file of it. Please see my response to him at post #13.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:45 PM

53. That paper you cite was published 16 years ago and has been challenged.

 

I don't know if you are aware of that. Many of the "self-defense" reports were from the gun carrying people, themselves, not from objective reporting of each incident.

Anyone can say that their holding or showing a gun prevented a crime, but it is difficult to align those reports with the number of crimes committed where no gun was present, the number of incidents where the criminals held the gun, and the total number of reported crimes. How many reported crimes were there in 1997 or beforehand each year? Two million? Twenty million? Two hundred million? In any given year, in the 1990's how many crimes were reported. That is a number we need to know to make the claim have any value.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dan Ken (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:43 PM

83. Yes, I do know. Did you mean to reply to me or our new gungeoneer (post #8)?

Sounds like you are trying to make the same point I made in my post #13 (and post #51) in this thread re the false reporting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alva Goldbook (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:19 PM

25. See post 13;

and you might change your mind as to which posts on this thread are "laughable."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:02 PM

11. Exactly!

...we talk about this in our house and have wondered how many times all those millions
of guns are used in "justifiable" situations.

Thank for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:12 PM

17. Good joke on Steph this morning.

It takes a good guy with a pressure cooker to take down a bad guy with a pressure cooker, paraphrasing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:25 PM

28. Hah! She's always so sharp! Love the woman. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:30 PM

30. Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2011

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DeYanko (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:02 PM

39. And yet another

NRA Gungeoneer statistician joins the discussion with an observation that gun deaths and injuries are "statistically insignificant," so what's the big deal y'all?

Obviously what's needed in this country is more guns, and then the death rates from cancer and other diseases would probably fall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)


Response to Name removed (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:35 PM

33. Welcome to DU.

Why are you here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:17 PM

44. Lots of new very pro gun people popping up today.

I doubt it's a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lark (Reply #44)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:16 PM

77. MIRT found and

disposed of at least one of them. Hopefully the rest of them are in MIRT's sights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #77)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 01:07 PM

147. Hoping so

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:45 PM

36. You're so compassionate...you must be a conservative.

As far as suicides go, a good deal of them would do it anyway. It also has no effect on anyone but that family. They want to die, fine, as long as it doesn't involve killing or physically hurting anyone else, not a gun control problem.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:07 PM

42. They're coming out of the woodwork

this morning. The NRA must have driven to the day laborer pick up point, and yelled: "Need 25 shills to attack Democratic Underground today, and we're paying a whopping $4.25 an hour!"

I certainly hope that we have enough pizza for these hard working trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #36)


Response to Name removed (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:48 PM

56. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:09 PM

75. I am very busy missing the show what happened???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #75)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:23 PM

79. A sad little gun troll had to go bye bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyberswede (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:47 PM

86. Thanks, another bug sprayed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:07 PM

41. Bullshit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:07 PM

73. Your last sentence is something that some of us want to consider, but, as there SHOULD be in any

mutually enabled open agenda:

The basic trait of the kinds of citizens you are trying to defend, the thing that justifies your defense of them, is that, as free citizens, they have chosen to be LAW ABIDING. This is what earns y/our trust of them and their gunownership because we know you wouldn't choose to create violence in your own community and home. That's what I ask of others, even gun owners - and -

NO ONE has my permission to over-throw "our" government, no matter what the Constitution "says".

Government should be met with non-violent Voice and committed ACTIONS, to family and friends in my case.

All I need from anyone else is to know whom we are talking about relative to ASSAULT WEAPONS (domestic AND FOREIGN markets and all of the problems that emerge from IRRESPONSIBLE GUN PROFITEERING amongst vulnerable people.)

I WANT to know gun owners who recognize the necessity of KNOWING who has that kind of violent power to so horribly effect the LIVES of others, no freelance claim to that kind of power in a COMMUNITY can be allowed. Period.

Grandmothers VOLUNTEER in our communities and other kinds of family volunteers and church communities do not deserve this violent environment in our city streets - MUST STOP.

Teach non-violence in the streets. And teach Labor solidarity and worker-co-operatives, because the sorts of things that are resulting in ir-responsible gun-ownership have to do with ECONOMIC INJUSTICES in multiple dimensions of the commonweal.

RESPONSIBLE Gun-owners are worth protecting from the non-responsible gun-owner<--->SELLERS! connected to MIC around the world. No one wants to talk about the gun sellers. It could be dangerous. And, yet, everything is done to distract our attention from them, even in this thread.

The de facto terrorism caused by ir-responsible un-regulated gunownership is all that I cannot tolerate. This is why I am trying to speak up, here, about my strong resolve in supporting responsible gunownership and if I were a gun owner, I'd think it rational that my claim to that very flexible very violent powerful effect on the lives of others, If I were to want to become a gun owner and claim that kind of powerful effect upon the lives of so many people, I would consider it a rational responsibility that OTHERS know that they can trust me and I that I can trust them. What on EARTH is so un-acceptable about OUR COMMUNITIES' NEEDS. If gun-owners were reasonable members of COMMUNITIES that include NON-GUN-OWNERS, they'd see Self-regulation through self-awareness makes it possible for gun owners and non-gun owners be able to live together.

.........................

Social contracts.

Law abiding self-regulation. Networks of trust.

FOR OUR COMMUNITIES!

& WORKER Solidarity,

Allwin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:36 PM

34. But, but, but, that's because everybody isn't packing heat!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 01:40 PM

35. The thing I really DON'T like about this picture,

Those aren't even the kind of guns that was facing the pathetic and weak regulation as it was!!!!!!!!!

That sad assed law that, even in its completely ineffectual, and useless form, and still couldn't pass WOULDN'T HAVE STOPPED OR AFFECTED ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS!

This isn't fucking 1776 where people need muskets to protect their homestead that they stole from the natives. You know, the situation the people of the 13 states faced when the 2nd amendment was written.. This is 2013, where we have a HUGE military establishment (ridiculously huge) for defense of country. This is 2013, where population density and urban cultures make the availability of guns within city limits of any large city DANGEROUS TO THE POPULATION THAT LIVES THERE. This is 2013 where 1 gun operated by 1 person can fire enough rounds in a minute to equal the amount of ammo that it would have taken the combined forces under George Washington at the battle of Lexington in a minute, when the most experienced and best trained of troops had the ability to get off 2 shots in a minute.

100% gun registration required.
100% destruction of any non-registered gun found, and severe penalties.
100% loss of right to own when any registered weapon is found in the possession of ANYONE who it isn't registered to.
100% loss of Right to own for all household members ANYTIME a minor is found in possession of a firearm.. locked or unlocked.
1 person, 1 handgun, 6 rounds MAX after background checks clear... period. A firearm safety class must be completed, along with a psychological profile test.


Anything less is a red herring and an insulting joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Amimnoch (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:46 PM

54. Your proposals would allow any non-crazy person the right to armed

self-defense, if they felt they needed it.

The only problem I have, and this has been a real issue here in Massachusetts in the past, is that many cities and towns have anti-gun chiefs of police who by default deny LTCs to applicants, forcing them to go to court. What happens is that only friends of the chief, local bigwigs and polital pals get approved. Everyone else has to sue. In other towns, the chiefs hand out the permits to everyone with no questions asked.

There needs to be universally accepted and truly objective standards that most civilians without domestic violence or violent psychiatric issues could meet.

Of course this is all just crazy talk if we couldn't even get expanded background checks passed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:05 PM

40. Que the NRA talking points in 3-2-1.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:19 PM

78. Nailed. it. That post was a bullshit set-up, as in volleyball. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:25 PM

101. The gunners flock to these threads like a moth to flame

Now that it's on the front page of DU, we get new gun trolls.

They have to defend their precious inanimate objects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:19 PM

45. Gun manufacturers profit from each and every case...

As long as the money rolls in, they will fight for the status quo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:22 PM

46. sensible gun control would still have allowed

people to protect themselves.

I also wonder how many of the 230 were truly justifiable? some may have required less force. others may be attributed as justifiable by proponents of stand your ground laws that are very loosely applied.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:41 PM

50. The 203 number is a low number.

It does not include excusable homicide, nor does it include those cases that are first reported as murder and are then changed to justifiable or excusable. Local police departments don't have to report such changes, while they do report the initial homicide. Time magazine did a study some years ago. They listed each gun homicide for one week, and then a year later went back and looked at each one. The number that were found to be justified in the final article was about double the number that were first listed as justifiable.

In many states (Including Texas), a homicide has to go before a grand jury before it can be dismissed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:31 PM

47. Let's look at those.

Gun suicides.
It is true that having a convenient means to commit suicide does increase the suicide numbers. In the UK, in the 1950s, laying your head in the oven and turning on the gas was a popular method of suicide. The kitchens became more electric and suicide numbers dropped. So fewer guns will reduce the suicide numbers. However, that is a risk that I choose to accept for myself, just as others choose to accept the risk of other types of behaviors. Protecting me from myself is not something that I wish to government to do, and that extends to not wanting the government to supervise me when I eat or drink.

Accidents.
We are a nation of 310+ million people. 606 gun accidents annually is not a large number.
3,443 died of drowning.
29,846 died of accidental poisoning
1,138 died from walking
1,449 died from Natural/Environmental (Whatever that is.)

So 606 isn't going to get me excited.

Justifiable homicides
That number excludes "excusable homicides" and does not include homicides that are first reported as murder and then are cleared later by the justice system. The actual number of legal homicides is about two or three times as high.

Criminal homicides.
If someone is going to illegally kill, does anybody here really think that they will obey a gun law? It is very rare for a legal gun owner to become an illegal killer. (Note: Rare does NOT mean never. Rare means rare) Usually illegal killers will already have a record of criminal violence. That fact is well know by criminologists, but is almost unknown by the general public. (Murder mysteries are boring if the killer is a street thug. The culprit has to be a trusted person to be interesting.)

Violent crimes.
This category isn't listed, but it is the reason why I have guns and carry one. According to the FBI there were 1,203,564 reported violent crimes in the U.S. in 2011. (2012 stats aren't out yet.) Violent crime is greatly underreported because many victims don't bother to let the police know, either because they are afraid, or because they believe that it won't make any difference. While that number is another decrease in a long continuing trend, it is still a high number. Being a victim of violent crime isn't a completely random event. Criminals select their victims for several reasons, some of which I can control, some I can't. So if a criminal does select me, he will find that I am not an easy victim. Of course, I will be happy if I am never put to that test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:49 PM

57. Thanks for all of the

NRA talking points, and the mind-numbing statistical analysis of why we need many, many, more guns on our streets. I'm sure that Uncle Wayne is very, very proud of you, and that your Gungeon buddies are feeling all warm and fuzzy about your dressing down of us mean old "grabbers."

Now go cuddle your big old gun and keep telling everyone who will listen what a tough guy you are...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 02:54 PM

61. Calling something a talking point is not a rebuttal.

Since you chose personal insults over intelligent discussion likely means that you are unable to rebut anything I have said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:02 PM

67. Your arguments have been answered with logic many times here at DU

 

Your rationalizations for no more gun restrictions is equivalent to rationalizing taking down all traffic lights and stop signs because some people will break the law and run through them and kill somebody.

That's not a logical argument, that's why we call it a "talking point" made by the NRA folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:03 PM

69. Yep, got me pegged

Bubba. Your entire "gun lover" philosophy is an insult to rational reasoning, and your statements both in the Gungeon and here on the saner part of DU are rebuttal enough. I can't add anything more damaging to your cult-like behavior than what you post in your own (read NRA-parroted) words.

Buh bye Bubba...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 05:15 PM

99. I could never rebut your statement that you are a cow.

Or longhorn. Or something like that. How did that go again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 07:43 PM

115. Yes. And 390k from smoking, 49k from second hand smoke alone - that one always gets me.

80k from alcohol abuse.

Somehow guns are a bigger problem.

Sorry op - I feel safer with guns in the house than without. Call me names etc. if you want. But I feel safer knowing that's all you can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geckosfeet (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:56 PM

121. You might feel safer still if you duct tape pillows to all the sharp corners of your furniture.

You may wish also to tape up some sheets of plastic over the windows and doors - that would probably make you feel safer yet. Once you've installed the armored pizza slot so food can be delivered into your house - be sure to make it an air-lock system so the pizza guy can't try robbing or gassing you through it - you'll feel just about as safe as can be. Watch out! It's a scary world out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 03:01 PM

64. K&R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:30 PM

109. Thank you...

I was questioned about this at work today: I knew the last figure was quite small, but I didn't have it before.

I wouldn't say 230 is rarely (about once every 30 hours or so... it ain't death by rabies rare), but by comparison, it's much, much less common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 06:39 PM

110. Thanks, Earl. Great stats.

We get all spastic over 'terrorism' and just let the rolling internal violence get it on.

Countries with no guns have the opposite thing going on. They're used to the terrorism, it happens. They do their best, don't overreact, pick up the pieces and move on. When their own people start taking out the neighbors, it freaks them out.

That's normal. That's the way it should be.

We've lost some internal territory big time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 08:27 PM

120. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise - Will The Gun Violence Fallacies Never End

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:25 PM

123. So is DU now "Officially" Anti-Gun?

Because that seems like what you're really trying to say.

As to myself, just to make it clear, and for the record:

As long as guns are legal, and I not a criminal, and thus may legally own them, and I am mentally and physically capable of using them properly and safely, I will do so.

I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed, guilt-tripped or made to feel some sort of phony remorse into not owning guns. Not by anyone. Not for any reason, and surely not because of anyone else on this website.

If I ever reach the decision to not own guns, it will be solely on my own accord.

I'm not a member of the NRA or any other pro-gun organization. I support Universal Background Checks. I say pass a Universal Background Check law, including Mental Health Reporting. Amend HIPAA as needed, And then make enough available funds to states, so there is no excuse for not reporting violations, or prosecuting, and jailing the hell of Straw Buyers, or felons who attempt to buy guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #123)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:38 PM

126. Just that gun prescence has led to more death than protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 10:54 PM

124. Sounds like a name of a headbangers band...

Justifiable homicides

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Mon Apr 22, 2013, 11:01 PM

125. You do realize this isn't a point in your favor.

The number of criminal gun homicides is not even a third of all gun-related deaths.

That is bright red meat for the anti-control side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yukari Yakumo (Reply #125)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:06 AM

128. There are some crazy people who think that ALL the gun-related deaths are bad!

Imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 12:20 AM

130. Some of us here at DU have used guns in self-defense before

I know I'm not alone, having spoken with several other long-time posters here over the years about their experiences. It's never a fun experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 01:42 AM

135. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 03:29 AM

137. What's more "self defense" than defending yourself against yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:16 AM

138. Thanks EarlG! This kind of post sure rings the dinner bell for the gungions.

Makes it way easier to see who to put on "ignore"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 09:47 AM

139. Of those 230 Justifiable Homicides

I wonder how many needed a big magazine or nasty assault rifle to do the deed.

I expect it would be a small fraction of that number.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EarlG (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2013, 05:57 PM

151. We just need more guns

That's all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread