Before we talk about gun control

a reply to: rockintitz

My guns tend to stay home anymore. The most dangerous places I go are Walmart and the gas station. But I do always carry a multi-tool when I leave the house. Like you say, you just never know when you might need the right tool to handle a situation.

If I want to do somebody some harm, I bring an extra tool: a valve stem remover.

originally posted by: WeRpeons

So just because Obama didn't make the right move, let's not move on and make them illegal? We can't continue to condemn past presidents for their poor and incompetent decisions. Americans should be demanding better from their representatives and president.

Well if you read my post I said they should be illegal

I still say, any legislation that will impact the lives of Americans, such as Healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare Reform and gun control, should be put on the ballot for "all Americans to decide." Our representatives don't enact legislation based upon concern for the American people but rather for political donors, lobbyists, pressure from party leaders and how a particular legislation will affect the profits of the corporations involved.

Of your list only one is a right and protected by the Constitution...the others are not..

We do put them ALL on the ballot, but people keep voting the same Representatives back in...lol

And are you prepared to take responsibility for the damage you may cause to others as a result of your 'wanting to protect' others?

What about the accidental discharge of your weapon(s) that cause harm?

a reply to: FyreByrd

It goes without saying that making a mistake in this regard will subject you to the full legal consequences of such action. Because of that (in my humble opinion), such motivations are even more admirable. When a projectile leaves your firearm, you are totally responsible for it. Fortunately, this type of incident is extremely rare and is significantly outnumbered by armed citizens who were able to react quickly and safely to stop a deadly threat.

I am one citizen who made the personal choice to carry a firearm, and accept all of the consequences and responsibilities that go along with that. My greatest responsibility is to ensure that my firearm is under my control at all times, including during a high stress or life threatening event. This means not engaging a deadly threat, even when justified, if it will put innocent lives in jeopardy. It also means ensuring that no one can gain access to my weapon in order to cause harm to myself or others. I have personally invested a lot of money into firearms training, and do so with the belief that it may one day save someone's life. I hope that day never comes, and in all likelihood it won't. I do believe that armed citizens make dangerous individuals think twice before trying to victimize innocent people.

That being said, I would love to see free programs offered to armed citizens that provide safety awareness, legal concepts and practice firing under simulated stressful situations. Police officers do a great job, but it is statistically unlikely one will be present in time to actually interdict a deadly threat and prevent them from carrying out their intended atrocities. Armed citizens have saved many lives (including their own), and most do not take carrying lightly.

There is no doubt that certain risks also accompany that choice. You could make a mistake, and wind up losing everything (including your freedom, your possessions or even your life). I fully respect anyone who has evaluated those risks and compared them to the likely threats they will face and determined they didn't need/want to carry a firearm. It is just my personal opinion that these individuals are a "net gain" for society as a whole.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Those families grief ought not be reduced to a mere tool, to lever a person from the right and the means to defend themselves and their community from harm kayaluv.

Its also worth pointing out the following. There were likely as not, responsible gun owners in the crowd, and amongst the dead, who, had they not have been reveling on the night in question, might have had something in their truck that they could have fought back with, but being responsible people, did not bring a long gun to an event where there would be drinking and the making of merry, because these things and firearms do not mix well.

If someone in the vicinity had access to a long arm of significant quality, and the talent necessary to deploy it safely in that situation (i.e. the skillset necessary to fire into that window, and only that window) the event might have gone down somewhat differently than it did, the body count could have been lower.

And lets be clear about this so that there are no confusions, a man with a gun started the carnage, and once began, only a person with some kind of weapon would have been able to end it. As it happened that was true in this case, although he ended the problem himself. I have to make sure we understand here, that if we are simply talking about death toll, I, a man possessing no firearms, could easily have whipped up a batch of some chemical preparation, and a trigger device, without any special or alarming purchases of weapons grade materials, and created a bomb which would have done precisely the same amount of damage in one instant, that he did in ten minutes.

It would take no more than the contents of the cupboard under my sink, and a packet of nuts and bolts to do this, and yet I am no threat to my fellow man. The possession of items is not the problem, whether those are knives, guns, swords, grenades, artillery pieces or the contents of the cupboard under a sink. The problem is that people who are not fit to be walking around as part of society, are free to do so, because governments and societies alike, have outmoded taboos about mental health and dealing with it correctly.

Paddocks father was a bank robber, a confidence trickster, and by all accounts, a classic psychopath. We know as a result of significant study of the criminally insane, that psychopathy being expressed by an individual, requires that a person is genetically predisposed toward it, is then triggered by neglect, rejection, or abuse, or alternatively suffers a trauma to the meat of the brain (although this last part is in only the rarest cases relevant to whether or not a person will express psychopathic behaviours). Well, we know, because Paddock's father was a psychopath, that there is a greater than normal chance that he, himself, would carry the necessary genetic quirk, and we know, because his father spent time in jail, that he would have a greater than zero chance of experiencing some feeling of neglect or rejection, as a result of his fathers absence, and we can assume, since his father, a psychopath himself, would have been some manner of abusive (whether physical or psychological).

It does not take a genius to figure out, that if one is the son of a psychopath, and has experience of that figure in their life, that they will be far more prone to expressing that inherent aspect of themselves, than someone who is not either the son of a psychopath, or someone who is the son of a psychopath but has never experienced serious rejection, abuse or neglect as a child. Should HE have been able to get hold of weapons? No. Should he have been permitted to walk around, like a regular guy, despite having that genetic propensity and all the necessary triggers which would mean that at some point, he was going to do something insane? No.

But should everyone who is not a psychopath, and therefore does not automatically pose a threat to the lives of others, be prevented from arming themselves against very real and present threat of violence? No.

A person must always have both the right and the access to the tools necessary, to see to their own defence. A government must see to it that its mental health infrastructure is equipped and well enough informed, to be able to statistically and factually locate and identify psychopaths by way of lineage, and ensure that they are rendered unable to access regular society, so that things like this are not still happening in twenty years. The solution is to solve the problem of identifying and containing the monsters, not the things they use to do their dirty deeds.

a reply to: rockintitz

And there are a lot who are not like you who get off on threatening people with guns.

What's your point?

a reply to: bgerbger


bg, can you please cite an example of this? I have never encountered one person (that wasn't trolling) who carried a firearm legally and enjoyed the thought of having to use it.

We understand how expensive (legally and psychologically) that any defensive firearm use is, and no one undertakes it lightly. We risk losing our property, freedom and lives in order to exercise our right to defend our lives/others lives if needed. It is a tool of last resort, the final emergency stop-gap measure during a runaway situation that leaves us with only two choices: defend human life, or stand by idly while innocent human life perishes due to the evil acts of a criminal/terrorist.

Anyone carrying simply so they can threaten others isn't a law abiding armed citizen - they're part of the group we commonly refer to as "criminals" and "terrorists." This in no way reflects on the very large body of law abiding firearm carriers out there, as individuals are responsible for their own actions. The firearm community has a way of weeding this people out: ostracism and denouncement.

Most individuals I know personally also carry one or more Less-Lethal tools (OC, Taser, baton, kubaton, and so on) when they carry a deadly weapon (firearm, knife, etc). If anything, this demonstrates commitment to the philosophy of "extreme last resort" as it pertains to authorized & judicious use of lethal force.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: FyreByrd

It goes without saying that making a mistake in this regard will subject you to the full legal consequences of such action. Because of that (in my humble opinion), such motivations are even more admirable. When a projectile leaves your firearm, you are totally responsible for it. Fortunately, this type of incident is extremely rare and is significantly outnumbered by armed citizens who were able to react quickly and safely to stop a deadly threat.

I am one citizen who made the personal choice to carry a firearm, and accept all of the consequences and responsibilities that go along with that. My greatest responsibility is to ensure that my firearm is under my control at all times, including during a high stress or life threatening event. This means not engaging a deadly threat, even when justified, if it will put innocent lives in jeopardy. It also means ensuring that no one can gain access to my weapon in order to cause harm to myself or others. I have personally invested a lot of money into firearms training, and do so with the belief that it may one day save someone's life. I hope that day never comes, and in all likelihood it won't. I do believe that armed citizens make dangerous individuals think twice before trying to victimize innocent people.

That being said, I would love to see free programs offered to armed citizens that provide safety awareness, legal concepts and practice firing under simulated stressful situations. Police officers do a great job, but it is statistically unlikely one will be present in time to actually interdict a deadly threat and prevent them from carrying out their intended atrocities. Armed citizens have saved many lives (including their own), and most do not take carrying lightly.

There is no doubt that certain risks also accompany that choice. You could make a mistake, and wind up losing everything (including your freedom, your possessions or even your life). I fully respect anyone who has evaluated those risks and compared them to the likely threats they will face and determined they didn't need/want to carry a firearm. It is just my personal opinion that these individuals are a "net gain" for society as a whole.

What of the financial resposibilities to those innocents? The average cost of treating a gunshot wound in the US is:

Patients pay a high price for being shot. On average, those treated in emergency departments incurred $5,254 in charges. If they stayed in hospital overnight, charges were far higher – $95,887 on average.

Patients who stayed overnight in hospital were more likely to be discharged to expensive rehabilitation facilities. About a third of inpatient gunshot victims were discharged to another medical facility and incurred costs of $179,565 on average

www.theguardian.com...

... and that is only the direct cost - what about rehab and lost work - or disability.

And you only speak of 'intentional' shots not about accidental discharges? What about discharges by other people of your weapon.

In the US, to drive a car on the street - you have to have insurance with covers all the potential expenses to any damaged by your vehicle. Why is it not required for weapon ownership? Car insurance even covers 'uninsured persons' (for the 'what about illegal gun owners comeback).

I admire your thoughfulness about gun ownership - it does you credit. As a responsible gun owner, you should be happy to insure your weapons, pass a qualification test periodically to maintain a license to carry.

With all rights come equal responsbilities.

The scenario described is extremely rare (I don't recall any such incidents), and I only described intentional injuries because hitting the wrong target (crossfire, over penetration, etc) is really only possible if you are attempting to shoot a deadly threat and miss, striking the wrong person.

There is almost no risk of accidental discharge, since removing your firearm from its holster is usually a crime (brandishing). While it is in a holster, it is actually unable to be fired accidentally. It takes a finger or snag to cause an accidental discharge while removing/inserting the firearm from the holster - which should only be done at home or during a deadly force encounter. Modern handguns are very safe, and come with multiple fail-safe points. To be sure, without human interaction/mistakes, the firearm can not randomly discharge. It is actually a really common misconception that firearms "go off" on their own in certain events. The firearm I carry, for example, can actually be thrown onto concrete or run over by a car and still won't fire (safe action striker fired system). Although there was a day when firearms weren't built with any of the safety features the modern defensive handgun enjoys! In that regard, we are fortunate since technology and training have been saving gun owners' toes for decades

As far as protecting my weapon from unlawful use by others goes, I personally use a multi-stage approach. My holster has two locks that must be disengaged in a certain way, and gun belt is very sturdy (5.11 1.75" thick). I also carry a retention tool on my weak side in order to cause extreme pain to an unwanted hand on my holster. Of course, any attempt to take my gun would be properly treated as a use of deadly force against me by the orchestrator of the attack. When my firearm isn't in my holster, it is locked in a biometric safe near my bed. Our bedroom door has the ability to be locked, as well (when guests are over, birthday parties, etc).

I do think you made some really good points in those suggestions, too. Although driving a car isn't a right like carrying a firearm, I do believe that insurance would be really beneficial. They have another form of legal insurance in the form of services like Legal Shield, but I would love to hear more about the insurance idea. I agree that carrying a firearm in public is a really big responsibility, and it should be taken very seriously by those who decide to do it.

I appreciate the kind words as well, and providing that the insurance wasn't insanely expensive (I'm not rich by any means) and easily accessible to anyone interested (for instance not being unable to obtain coverage due to being poor) I think its a good idea. Although my state allows constitutional carry, I maintain a CHL as they offer us benefits at tax time for doing so (which I think its another great incentive to get people into classes). I'd like to take a step even further and offer public funded training to anyone interested, covering safety, de-escalation, less lethal tools, tactical use, legal issues, first aid (for emergency care after deadly force encounter) and more.

Anyhow, thanks again for the reply and your input here!

originally posted by: JBurns
The scenario described is extremely rare (I don't recall any such incidents), and I only described intentional injuries because hitting the wrong target (crossfire, over penetration, etc) is really only possible if you are attempting to shoot a deadly threat and miss, striking the wrong person.

If it is so 'extremely rare' certainly you have verifiable sources to back up your supposition. You must excuse me for wanting more then just your word on something that is important - the number of 'unintended victims' of honorable gunmen.

Some more informationn good-guy gun ownership.

RESULTS: During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence.

This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides.

Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty.

For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

and more...

Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within Philadelphia, PA, from 2003 to 2006. We adjusted odds ratios for confounding variables.

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: FyreByrd

You're already held accountable for both those occurrences, should unintended harm take place.

One of the reasons my carry stays in its holster until such time, God forbid, I need to protect myself, or my family.

a reply to: FyreByrd


Fyre, thank you for your reply. I apologize for not including sources in my OP, as I do not expect you to take anything I say at face value. I do hope you will realize that I am honestly interested in reducing the stigma attached to the second amendment and working with those who are apprehensive about their fellow citizens being armed.

I have nothing but respect for law enforcement officers, but according to the University of Chicago (link) conducted a study revealing that in 1993 three-hundred-thirty innocent civilians were shot by police officers (with a total of ~700,000 police officers at that time). In that same year, the 80,000,000 gun owning private citizens had accidentally killed thirty innocent civilians. Per capita, someone is 1200 times more likely to be accidentally/wrongfully shot and killed by a police officer as opposed to a private citizen.

This is not an attack on law enforcement, and I recognize that accidents and mistakes do happen. That is why (in addition to your idea with insurance) I believe these numbers can (and should be) addressed through public training and awareness.

I realize 1993 is ~25 years ago so I will see if I can find a more recent study. There is plenty of more recent data out there, but I didn't want to cite information that wasn't part of a scholarly study conducted by an impartial organization. I have found (on both sides) that numbers are very easy to conflate in order to fit a specific narrative or outcome, and I am honestly trying to avoid engaging in any such fallacies.

Thanks again, JB

a reply to: bgerbger

Really? Generally speaking they tend to end up in jail.

I've never threatened anyone with a gun...and the one time I had to show it, I was scared to death the guy was going to take me up on it...

Get off on it? Not even remotely. Those who do, have issues that need addressing.

a reply to: JBurns

Your link is to a book by a know 'gun-rights' advocate. His CV appears solid however there is some dispute about his research among them:

Defamation suit
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit[54] for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book Freakonomics and against Levitt over a series of emails to John McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to economist John McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by several authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.[55]

A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.[56]

Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate.[57][58] The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession."[59]

The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.[60

en.wikipedia.org...

More in the wiki article with appropriate citations.

I am not defaming the 2nd Amendment - but I do believe you are interpreting it incorrectly.

It states only that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

... necessary to the security of the state ... not the individuals. If you are an 'originalist' you must agree with that assessment. If not, I would consider the interpretation a 'living constitution' argument.

Gun sellers - because we are really talking about the PR work of weapons companies here - leave that part out.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: bgerbger

Really? Generally speaking they tend to end up in jail.

I've never threatened anyone with a gun...and the one time I had to show it, I was scared to death the guy was going to take me up on it...

Get off on it? Not even remotely. Those who do, have issues that need addressing.

This, exactly.

The last thing any of us want is to be forced into a position where we have to use deadly force. There is nothing "heroic" or "exciting" about it. It is a situation the majority of us dread, and actively take steps to avoid. I have no problem changing my route/plans to avoid certain areas known for violent crime. I also have no problem apologizing to someone in order to de-escalate a potential confrontation. The paradigm of trigger happy firearm carriers is very outdated, and comes from the notion that we still have a "wild west" mentality - which is simply untrue.

The firearm owners/carriers I have met are thoughtful, reverent of life and generally all-around nice ladies & gentlemen. They are also dedicated to the very personal choice they made to carry a firearm, and spend a lot of spare time learning more about what is loosely termed gun culture. I have met many fellow armed citizens is shooting classes, and I always hear the same thing: "I hope I never have to use this knowledge outside of this training class, but it is nice to know I have the chance to make a difference if my/your/xxx's life is ever threatened."

A firearm isn't an all powerful, fight stopping lightning bolt. It is, however, another tool in your self-defense toolbox that you can pivot to during a crisis. Of course 99.99% of the time everything goes according to plan and (as expected) we don't encounter that 7 ft. tall monster on PCP/Meth with our name tattooed on their knuckles. It's just that in today's world, that .01% has a scary way of popping up where you least expect it, claiming innocent lives and leaving a path of broken hearted families in its wake.

At the core, I would wager that most carry because they want to go home to their families at the end of the day, and want to see everyone else do the same. Thankfully there is nothing to worry about, because the average armed citizen is very professional and respectful in recognizing the gravity of carrying a deadly weapon and potential lethal force situations.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Some would argue that the "state", a free state is you and me, not just as a collective, but as individuals.

I also understand the debate of individual vs group rights, but see the second amendment in more practical terms. Yes, the second has been interpreted by the supreme court as being an "individual" right, but my argument is more an exercise in practicality than constitutional law.

Under the group right argument, there are no reliable means to ensure criminals and others who disregard the law will not get ahold of a deadly weapon (including home-made firearms, firearms stolen from LE, knives, vehicles, explosives, and so forth) so limiting weapons to the state will prevent the individual from defending innocent lives in the here-and-now moment of a deadly force encounter.

It is also important to note that the constitution does not protect individuals who attempt to bastardize the second in order to carry out crimes/attacks with deadly weapons. But preventing individuals from carrying firearms (I know you didn't suggest a total prohibition, just using this straw argument to illustrate my POV) will directly impact their ability to defend themselves, leaving law abiding citizens vulnerable to dangerous attackers and criminals.

I am not saying that our implementation of the second amendment is perfect, nor that it doesn't leave room for clarification and interpretation. I do not feel background checks infringe on the ability of the individual to defend themselves, for example. I also feel (and these are after all just my opinions) that providing training free of charge to those who do carry/are interested in learning more would be a huge benefit to everyone.

The reality is that some people are out there who wish to cause harm to innocent human beings, and deprive them of natural human rights including the right to merely exist.

Yes you are free to argue that. But it doesn't fit the definition of State particularly as used by the founders.

Read Madison, the Federalist papers and other discussion at the time.... it's quite clear that their concerns were (from another lefty source):

The goal of the Second Amendment was to promote state militias for the maintenance of order at a time of political unrest, potential slave revolts and simmering hostilities with both European powers and Native Americans on the frontiers. Indeed, the amendment’s defined purpose was to achieve state “security” against disruptions to the country’s new republican form of government.

In the late Eighteenth Century, the meaning of “bearing” arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want. Indeed, the most lethal weapon that early Americans owned was a slow-loading, single-fired musket or rifle.

One of the first uses of the new state militias formed under the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts, which required able-bodied men to report for duty with their own muskets, was for President Washington to lead a federalized force of militiamen against the Whiskey Rebellion, a tax revolt in western Pennsylvania in 1794.

In the South, one of the principal reasons for a militia was to rally armed whites to put down slave uprisings. On the frontier, militias fought against Native Americans over land. Militias also were called up to fight the British in the War of 1812.

consortiumnews.com...