Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumAs the pendulum swings, we see a glimpse of sanity on the horizon
For years, gun laws had grown less restrictive. But some gun rights advocacy has been curtailed after the Trayvon Martin shooting, which has provided ammunition for gun control groups.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0419/Trayvon-Martin-shooting-a-turning-point-in-gun-rights-debate/%28page%29/2
Even ALEC is backing off
And on the legislative front, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a 40-year-old conservative advocacy group that supplies legislators with ready-written legislation, announced that, because of pressure from corporations that support its operations, its disbanding its Public Safety and Elections taskforce, which supplied states like Florida with its Stand Your Ground law.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)SYG laws may get revisited and adjusted.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)It is a crying shame a dead 17 yr kid will lead to the change in this dumb ass law.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and most any law that involves a disparity of force is tested with the blood of innocents.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)...and the idea that such a law needs to be "tested with the blood of innocents" is atrocious. Shame on ALEC, Shame on the NRA, and Shame on their supporters.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Sometimes life is atrocious. The world is not an abstraction put here for us to pick ideological nits.
Why don't you produce the rules of engagement where no physical evidence will be available? Let's see if it even makes it out of this forum intact.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)ellisonz
(27,709 posts)I guess we should both turn our pockets inside out and back away.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)is I'm not feeding off the death of that boy for my own amusement. I don't consider his death fodder to be used for scoring ideological points off others for the fun of it.
ellisonz
(27,709 posts)Your post is disgusting. I will no longer take anything you post remotely seriously, you don't deserve such consideration. In fact, I don't need to see it all. and
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Don't trip over your own feet in your flight to umbrage.
If you had attempted discussion instead of playing games you wouldn't have gotten busted.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to keep there dang lethal weapons.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm sure you had a point there somewhere, but damned if I can tell what it might be.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)I haven't actually even looked at a gun, beyond the pictures posted here, in a number of weeks.
You've never seen beyond your biases. Whats new.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)And since we don't have adjudicated facts, yet, please indicate which version of the story you are using.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)However, as a woman, it is difficult for me to think of men having to carry around a gun for their protection and be proud of it. Sounds a bit cowardly if you ask me. You don't see us women locking ourselves home or buying guns to avoid being raped.
Just saying.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Didn't you know they carry to protect their wives and daughters from the marauding mall rapists and church rapists?
DonP
(6,185 posts)Pauline Kael is that you?
Not owning or carrying is certainly you and your circle of friends choice, but the trend is clearly otherwise.
"Nearly 47 percent more women are shooting today than a decade ago, according to the National Sporting Goods Association, and a Gallup poll last year found 23 percent of American women now own at least one gun. Several retailers hold Ladies Nights, and enrollment in one womens only conceal-carry class at the Red Castle Gun Club in Tulsa, Okla., is up 400 percent, according to published reports."
Last edited Fri Apr 20, 2012, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)
Also, put pink toilet paper for sell and suddenly "sisterhood" sets in.
http://www.thegunsource.com/category/2580_Pink_Pistols.aspx?w=%2BCJWDALnoPg%3D Look at the nice selection of guns... pink!
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)I even considered getting one myself (not pink of course).
A 400% increase over 20 would make a total of what, 80?
You are aware, of course, that "shooting" implies "carrying a gun around in public" no more than "speed skating" implies "wearing skates to work", right?
Shooting is a sport. Gun militancy is not a prerequisite for engaging in it, or a necessary outcome.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Still a supermajority of females would NOT buy a gun.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)among the shooting sports as well as to the ranks of concealed carry permitees.
I know several women - my wife among them - who began an interest in carrying a firearm in the aftermath of being sexually assaulted. (Before she and I met). Indeed, it was my wife's habit of daily carry which was one of the triggers for my own interest in obtaining a Texas CHL.
Just saying.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Glad your wife made it safely from her bad experience.
S_B_Jackson
(906 posts)And a frightening realization for a young woman who was very fit (competetive triathloner) to find out that even when attacked by a man who was roughly the same height and build as her was much stronger physically and was she was easily overpowered. Getting raped was inevitable at that point....but luckily her roommate come home unexpectedly for some forgotten paperwork, heard the sounds of the struggle taking place and retrieved her dad's housewarming gift (a 12 guage shotgun). When the attacker heard the distinctive sound of it being racked, he dived out of her bedroom window rather than getting his ass shot.
The experience frightened her, but didn't make her "afraid". She had driven home the cold fact that it was her responsibilty to ensure that she could equalize the dispartity and size and strength between her and a potential future attacker. To that end she's taken several defense classes - finding that Krav Maga suited her best - as well as learning to shoot and taking classes for those as well. She and I actually began dating after I met her at an IDPA (Intl Defensive Pistol Assoc.) event several years afterwards.
I've found that her experiences are not at all uncommon. And your claim that, "You don't see us women locking ourselves home or buying guns to avoid being raped." is pure bullshit. I see and know women who've responded both ways....and as pointed out, women carrying is a growing phenomenon.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I can understand her keeping a gun at home as that's where she suffered a bad experience. And what is your excuse?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Most women who are sexually assaulted are victimized by people known to them: husband or partner or boyfriend (estranged or otherwise), other family member, employer or coworker, friend, date, etc. And most women simply are not going to shoot/kill a person known to them in order to avoid a sexual assault that almost certainly involves no likelihood of serious injury/death to themself.
Women who are sexually assaulted by strangers in public places are not likely to be in a position to use a firearm against the assailant. The assault itself will ikely begin with overwhelming the woman's resistance and controlling her actions.
A woman who has been a victim of a violent sexual assault by a stranger (and I speak as such a woman) is very likely one of the poorest candidates for carrying a firearm in public, in view of the way the trauma of the assault colours future perceptions of threat and danger, i.e. the feelings of generalized insecurity the woman is left with, the heightened startle and fight-or-flight responses, etc. Post-traumatic stress is a significant contra-indication when it comes to whether a person should be carrying a lethal weapon around in public, particulalry when it is so unlikely to ever do the individual any good anyway.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)I have three daughters. One has been robbed a gunpoint in her own garage and the guy threatened to shoot her if she so much as flinched while he took her purse and his buddy cleaned out her car. Her front door was broken down and she was robbed again. Same house. She's since moved.
My middle daughter had an extremely brutal crime committed against her.
My youngest daughter hasn't had anything happen to her yet.
But Lady, I'm telling you here and now. If anyone tries anything against any of them, the bad guys will have guns pointed in their faces so fast they won't know up from down.
I've been to the range with all of them. Call it Dads day out with the girls. All three carry, all three are very good shots, and all three will not hesitate to shoot if they're being imminently threatened.
They are NOT cowards and I take it as an insult they should be considered such simply for carrying firearms to be used for protecting their own lives.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)However, they don't have a need to go around in their trucks with them like Zimmerman did. They have firearms to protect their property and family and thus keep them safe at home. One of them is a gun freak and have several firearms for hunting and was very critical of the SYG law. When I ask why he doesn't carry a gun he simply says that it is asking for trouble. If one is a gun enthusiast or have one for protection I understand they would want to carry a gun. Lots of handicap people and older ladies carry guns specially when they live alone, but going around the neighborhood "a la" Zimmermann whipping their gun around or showing off their gun at a tea party event is nonsense.
I do not oppose guns. What I have a problem with is with the people going around saying that this type of laws are necessary. What is necessary is for people to have common sense. People carry vehicle licenses and hardly remember all the laws relating to driving (can't even seem to use their damn signal lights for example). So, what make anyone think that laws like SYG are going to help?
BTW, sorry about what happened to your daughters. Sincerely.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Damn, you're the polite one. Do you speak to women in the real world that way?
I'm failing to see how having a gun would have helped your daughter who was robbed at gunpoint in her garage. I am seeing how a lot of people seem to think that criminals are even stupider than they are ... maybe those guys announced their presence first and said "if you don't give us your purse and stuff we will pull out our guns", thus giving her a chance to pull hers first ...
Okay, that must have been it, I guess. Bad guy says "stick 'em up or I'll draw my gun", victim reaches for gun ...
Do Dad and the girls vote together too? For whom, I wonder ...
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)to jump in.
As far as my daughters are concerned, they aren't here to defend themselves or to offer their point of view; They are off limits for attack. Got that?
Should they meekly submit like this guy? Care to chime in on this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117232198
iverglas
(38,549 posts)And I don't give a flying fuck. How's that?
Are you pretending that I "attacked" your daughters? Pretty sad.
If you don't want your daughters' experiences discussed, don't talk about them. How's that?
As for your baseless comment:
I guess I'll look at the actual account of events:
Police say the masked suspects also got away with cash from El Chico.
"I've been told, and what we've gathered from the witnesses, no one tried to intervene or struggle with the robbers," says Little Rock Police Sgt. Cassandra Davis.
Gosh, no one tried to intervene when four guys with at least one gun ordered employees into the back of a restaurant, out of customers' view, and shot and killed an employee, all of which plainly happened in very short order.
How surprising. What your point is, I couldn't guess. And how you know anything about the behaviour of the deceased man, let alone why you would publish this intentionally insulting depiction of him, I wouldn't know. Care to justify your mischaracterization?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Some actually do, and really have no choice. It is nothing to be ashamed of.
You speak for all women? Actually, I do see women doing it. I know more women who carry than men.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Never felt the need to actually buying a gun after the service.
However, things change. I will make sure I don't go around supporting SYG laws but responsible ownership.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)so it has nothing to do with service. I have them to target shoot, don't carry (but as you say, if things change). SYG is not irresponsible if properly understood and applied. I basically find duty to retreat as fundamentally unjust in many ways.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)Absolutely!
Retreat will yield the tactical advantage to the attacker with regularity. In what sick, upside-down world should a victim be compelled by law to yield the tactical advantage to his attacker?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)The one where people pretend that the "duty to retreat" means any such thing, I guess ...
HALO141
(911 posts).
sarisataka
(18,216 posts)Since I am not 6'3" 250lbs any more, nor was I ever, I cannot match up against every man. If it should be 3 or 4 to 1, I am in big trouble. Age has this nasty way of diminishing your abilities and arthritis in both knees has slowed my less than Olympic class running.
I prefer 'acknowledging reality'
I recently trained a good friend who just turned 21 so now can carry legally. She is trying to protect herself from an abusive, stalking boyfriend. When he is in jail he has 3, 4, or 8 of his pals go to her house and harass her. They have done nothing physical, just mind games... so far.
The police will do something, should they ever go too far. She would prefer to be alive.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)She started out carrying a 38spl revolver. Now she carries "her" Colt Commander in .45cal.
Her Colt was my carry gun, until she decided it fit her better!
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Of course, it is rare being in TX and not hearing a conversation about outdoor sports and guns. Most responsible gun owners don't brag about having a gun and women owners don't even speak about guns. It seems as if they treat it as a very private matter. I have known ladies for years before finding out they were gun owners. They don't go around talking about it. Like I said before, and perhaps it never occurred to me to point it out before, I don't have a problem with guns but I have a problem with SYG laws. If one already have a gun permit it should be understood that they understand the circumstances where the use of a gun is allowed. This SYG law is only a license to use it against anybody regardless.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And thank you again for bringing a calmer and sensible voice to the conversation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)her understanding of SYG could use some improvement.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The SYG debate is a hot one, both here and in the UK. My view is that if it occurs on your property, or equivalent like a hotel room, the bar should be lower in terms of proving SD. In a public place the bar should be much higher and the onus should be on the one claiming it, not the dead guy. That's why it is perceived as a license to kill. It's going to be hard for Zimmerman to show that because he initiated the chain of events and started as the aggressor, plus he was the only one armed. Take away either of those facts and there would have been no homicide.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Zimmerman, would you still be critical of SYG, or are you against it in principle? The onus should always be on the State/Crown.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If there is any way to avoid escalation it should be taken. If Martin had shown a gun, then Zimmerman may have had some justification. Zimmerman, being the only one armed, has no defense that I can see; plus he initiated the chain of events by identifying Martin as prey.
The onus on the state should be to prove guilt, which is not in question. Zimmerman admits to the killing. Now the onus should be on him to show he had no options. Self defense is not about proving one's innocence, but rather demonstrating a reasonable justification for committing homicide.
Clames
(2,038 posts)If there is any way to avoid escalation it should be taken.
Now the onus should be on him to show he had no options.
Self defense is not about proving one's innocence, but rather demonstrating a reasonable justification for committing homicide.
Self-defense is not about proving one's innocence then what is it? Proving one's lack of guilt? Remember it's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. To anyone who wasn't there and are working from presumptions then there are always "other options" regardless of how actually feasible those options would have been at the moment in question.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Legally, it is called "justifiable homicide". This is the whole problem with SYG laws. The onus is on the victim. Ask Billy Kuch
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/stand-your-ground-laws-coincide-with-jump-in-justifiable-homicide-cases/2012/04/07/gIQAS2v51S_story.html
iverglas
(38,549 posts)If a homicide (or, let's remember, any assault) is committed in self-defence, it is still a homicide (or assault). However, laws pretty universally allow for the act to be justified if it was necessary (generally, as reasonably believed by the person involved) in order to avoid serious injury or death.
NO court every finds anyone "innocent". Courts find people guilty or not guilty under the law, NOT in fact.. The prosecution must prove guilt, and either succeeds or fails.
"Innocent until proved guilty" does NOT mean what so many people would like it to mean. It means that for legal purposes, a person is treated as if they are innocent until they are proved guilty: no one may be punished for a crime unless their crime is proved. An acquittal on a criminal charge IS NOT proof of innocence.
An acquittal based on self-defence means that the mens rea, the intent to commit a wrongful act (in olde English, "malice" , was not proved. That is one of the two things the prosecution must prove, the other being the actus rea, the act in question itself.
Where it is proved that a person killed someone, the requirement that the actus rea be proved has been met.
Where the person presents evidence to show that they acted in self-defence, and the prosecution cannot prove otherwise to the requisite standard, the requirement that the mens rea be proved has not been met. This process, and the burden of proof, may vary from one jurisdiction to another; once again, here is how my esteemed cousin, oft quoted by Rumpole at the Bailey, put it in a case where accident was alleged (accident being another case where the requisite intent is not present):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP
If, in this case, Zimmerman presents some credible evidence to support the claim of self-defence that meets the standard for self-defence, and the prosecution cannot refute it, then yup, he will have created a reasonable doubt as to the mens rea element of the crime, and established that he is entitled to an acquittal.
Unfortunately, if there are no witnesses to a homicide, and the surviving party is able to present an account that may or may not be true but that is credible, someone may in fact get away with murder.
Clames
(2,038 posts)I'm sure you thought you had a purpose in posting yet another wall of words. What that purpose was is anyone's guess. Bye.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)When unable to engage in rational discussion of facts and ideas ...
Or is it unwilling?
I can just never tell.
cognoscere
(461 posts)go to law school and use facts and ideas, you might want to look up the meanings of assault and battery in Black's.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)I'll let you know.
Meanwhile, you might want to consider the fact that the USofA is not the universe, or even the English-speaking common law universe.
You can always consult the Criminal Code of Canada if you're terribly confused.
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
Application
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Oh, nobody cares...
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)I think he was as knowledgeable as I am about SYG. But of course, I wouldn't kill anyone after being told by the cops to stop pursuing the poor guy.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)in this case is somewhat baseless, IMO..This case, Zim's defense, is based on no witnesses...if he kept/keeps his mouth shut, without witnesses or evidence to the contrary of his story, there is only one story.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)She shoots reduced course mostly, but has a ball doing it!
We both shoot pistol on the 50yd range I built on the property. And also shoot against others in informal competition.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Lost on the gun-religionists.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Not rape but robbery. She was always first at work and had the combination to the door. Street thugs decided, "Why bother breaking in when we can make that little (4' 10" old (60 at the time) lady open the door?" After making her open the door they would have had to silence her so she couldn't call the cops while they ransacked the place. But it didn't work as they intended. She was packing a gun. When they saw she was armed they ran like hell. She was never touched.
Would you be happier if she had been helpless and become another murdered crime statistic?
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Since you are against guns then that means that you want her to have been defenseless in those situations.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)posts above this one. Of course, you still believe I want your loved ones dead simply because of your mistaken idea that I want to take everyone's guns away. I truly don't know what to do, if to be angry at you or just laugh at your petty argument. You are literally jumping the gun.
I hope that in the future your emotionally driven responses (which you gave a great example of with your vicious, virulent accusation) don't give way one day to the kind of obscure mindset of the likes of Mr Zimmerman. You shouldn't be carrying a gun around when you get so easily aroused by your emotions as you are showing here tonight. Come back with an useful argument on SYG when you get a grip on reality.
You need to get some fresh air I think. Your brain cells will thank you for it.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You earlier said that people who carry are cowards.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)I am only against cowards and losers like Zimmerman carrying guns. If you are that afraid to leave the house and you are suspicious of everyone around you, consider staying home and catching up with those weekend projects.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...that in 99% of locations, you could leave your doors unlocked, keep no weapons around, and nothing bad will happen to you in your house. Not robbed, not attacked.
Well, maybe not 99%, but it's pretty damn high.
So being untouched by violence while taking no preparations is just playing the odds.
Plenty of elderly people have gone their entire lives without wearing seatbelts, either. Even in the "bad old days" you still have an excellent chance of not being in a fatal car accident. And except for a few cranky libertarians, this feat is not promoted as a moral victory over the prevailing wisdom, or whatever.
HALO141
(911 posts)I guess your definition of courageous requires one to be beaten, stabbed or shot in order to prove one's "manliness." How many attackers, armed with anything from fists to knives to guns, must one person be able to defend one's self against with bare hands for you to consider them brave? Preconceptions such as yours are based on limited acceptance or understanding of the nature of violence or those who choose to live a violent existence. There are a sufficient number of individuals who perpetrate such crimes against other for no other reason than they want to injure or kill.
There is always someone bigger or stronger or simply a better fighter. If that bigger/stronger predator isn't convenient then there are also groups who come together in order to accomplish that which they cannot achieve alone.
http://www.popscreen.com/v/3xsg/Surveillance-Video-Captures-Teens-Viciously-Beating-73YearOld-Elderly-Man
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/243578/stabbing_and_robbery_caught_on_tape/
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80632478/
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/80934451/
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81940711/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/assault/videotaped-baltimore-street-beating-879234
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sacramento-viral-video-plea-982356
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/atlanta-video-beating-765912
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/cctv-released-of-gang-attack-in-mexico/MNA6Qs8XCc1YOQyadA6dWg
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/middle-school-stabbing-is-gang-related
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81275116/
Just a supposition on my part, of course, but as so many on this forum are fond of saying, I bet none of the victims in the above videos (except for the one that was already in prison) ever "felt the need to carry a gun." In view of the reality of just how deliberate, merciless, violent and sociopathic some individuals are, your estimation of what makes one cowardly or brave couldn't be less relevant.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)BTW, the chicken apparently came before the egg.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/17769677
Logical
(22,457 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)"You can't initiate a confrontation then claim self defense. Dumbass."
Logical
(22,457 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But wouldn't that mean going back to DTR? At least when away from home.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)return to our gun laws. I believe this and similar tragedies will cause people to think more about coddling budding Zimmermans through relaxed gun laws.
Very good news that ALEC is backing off to try to save membership.
But we have to keep up the pressure and keep the spotlight on those who abuse guns by carrying in public, accumulating too many, demanding "assault" type weapons from manufacturers and marketers, sloppy background checks, and more.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)What about the rest of us who carry but aren't addicted?
I'm much more addicted to the first aid kit in my car, after witnessing a multiple-fatality rollover accident in Death Valley many years ago. The few first aid kits we had between us in our little caravan were no match for the number of injuries we tried to treat. I never want to find myself so unprepared again.
BTW, most of America believes that sanity is finally returning to our gun laws. Hope you get onboard soon!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm an occasional smoker (pack a week or less). Wouldn't bother me if tobacco disappeared tomorrow. You'll be just fine. Keep carrying the first aid kit, though, there will still be some addicts out there for a while that you may be able to help patch up.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Including 72% of Democrats. Your opinion is not the popular one by any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/gun-control-poll_n_1422625.html
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Americans are broadly supportive of restrictions or regulations on gun ownership.
62% oppose allowing people to bring a firearm into a church, workplace or retail establishment.
91% support background checks for gun purchasers.
69% support limiting the number of guns a person could purchase in a given time frame.
74% support laws limiting the sale of automatic weapons.
However, Americans are also broadly supportive of a number of pro-gun laws including:
Majorities support concealed carry laws and allowing the use of deadly force, both in homes and public places.
Framing this discussion, Americans remain concerned with crime and are concerned about what is to be done about it.
Almost half of Americans think crime rates are going up in their communities.
Note the last sentence. I wonder where that piece of misinformation came from.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Right here:
http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=11545
Bottom of page two. 72% of Democrats support concealed carry, 46% strongly support it. Both numbers are only about 10 points lower than Republicans, pretty much giving the lie to the idea that it's a Democrat/Republican thing.
As for the last sentence, probably the same place that that perception has come from for centuries: the human brain is hardwired to perceive crime rates as rising, even when they're actually dropping.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Somehow a majority want more stringent gun laws, but a majority also wants concealed carry?
??????????????????????????????????????
Forgive if I like reality better than fantasy.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Many Americans think that gun laws are much looser than they actually are; there are people who seriously believe that you can still buy automatic weapons, or that gun purchases don't have background checks. As you've noticed with the poll, when you ask on specific questions and issues, tighter regulations generally fare poorly.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I know that gun-religionists need all the support they can imagine for their poor, defenseless guns.
As a matter of fact, I am very familiar with statistics. I doubt the people who gave the poll have the math background I do. Among other things, I used SAS & multivariate analysis to determine causality and construct mathematical spaces that analyzed noisy data.
The poll is flawed. Take it from a math "expert".
AH1Apache
(502 posts)you say that poll is flawed because it doesn't fit your agenda?
Because of my background in higher math & statistics.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)because of your background in higher math & statistics.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> But I bet you would agree with one that came up with an opposite view
Oh, yes, of COURSE!
AH1Apache
(502 posts)so you admit you have zero credibility. Here's an idea, why don't you do your own poll and post it here?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I forgot the sarcasm tag.
Is there a tag for "obvious Strawman" or "obvious attempt at mind-reading and/or fortune-telling"?
AH1Apache
(502 posts)Have a good night.
> Coming form you, that's rich
Yeah! I make all kinds of predictions about what other people will say in the future! Like in my post #__, my post #__, my post #__.
Wait, I didn't ever do that. Unlike you, who did it a few posts up.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The question was
I would answer yes to that question. Doesn't mean I support the practice of CC.
There are situations and professions where it makes sense for individuals to carry, at times. I wonder how many would have said yes to supporting CC on a regular basis by all law abiding people who just like carrying guns around. I think most would be shaking their heads in bewilderment.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Either you support allowing law-abiding people to carry a weapon, or you don't; you don't get to make yourself the moral arbiter of who really NEEDS to carry a weapon and who doesn't.
Trying to redefine the poll question is nothing more than cherry picking to avoid the fact that you're on the extremely unpopular end of the issue. If you check that same poll, you'll find that 55% of Democrats report a favorable opinion of the NRA, and that doesn't even count those of us who support the right to own firearms and aren't fond of the NRA. There's a good reason that gun control bills and proposals have become politically toxic--it's because most Americans don't support them.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Supporting laws to allow permits is a long way from supporting the insanity of indiscriminate carry. I support laws allowing the issue of permits. I would have answered "yes" and many like me would have answered "yes". Look at the other numbers, like church carry, if you want the real picture, or continue to delude yourself.
I'm not redefining the poll question. The question was
You supplanted the words "Concealed Carry" for the word "laws". Nice try.
Now you say
68% of Dems and 54% of Repubs oppose laws allowing law-abiding citizen to bring a firearm into a church, workplace or retail establishment. There is your support for CC.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Count me in as part of that 72%...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)ellisonz
(27,709 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)And he comes from a family that really enjoys deer hunting season. Guns have always been a part of our lives..my own family enjoys deer season also, but we don't condone people carrying a concealed weapon..that's not safe for anyone.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)But it's not a majority opinion even among Democrats.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hunting is a great sport, but it has nothing to do with self defense and the second. How is carrying a concealed handgun unsafe for anyone?
I carried yesterday, today, and for many many days with zero LTAH's, as I always say safety first. That's the main goal of a concealed safety device like my LCP or P229....safety.
Oh and I also carry a sidearm when deer hunting.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Thanks for adding another sane voice to the debate.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Even if you use VPC's grossly inflated numbers we still come out much safer than the general public. Texas keeps and annually publishes the data on convictions rates of CHL holders. In 2009 there were 2,603 murder convictions, but only one (1) was by a CHLer. Look for yourself: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"62 percent oppose bringing firearms into churches, workplaces or stores." So you, and you buddies in arms, can walk around in the streets with your weapons. Have fun.
You also saw the number who support severe restrictions on "automatic" weapons, which to most people includes semi-autos.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)We have to keep up the pressure?
Exactly what have you done to put any pressure on anyone other than post about it on the internet?
"4% or so addicted to carrying guns in public"
Kind of like you being addicted to whining about it on the internet?
"coddling budding Zimmermans"
New stuff for your shtick
AH1Apache
(502 posts)Your really grasping now. I sure hope you didn't hurt yourself with that stretch.
I will add that to your growing list of mantras.
I carry because my state says I can and on the very small chance I will need it, not because of your dumb ass perception of lawful CHL holders.
Addicted.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"But we have to keep up the pressure and keep the spotlight on those who abuse guns by carrying in public, accumulating too many, demanding "assault" type weapons from manufacturers and marketers, sloppy background checks, and more."
I am sure that you have joined both the VPC and the Brady group, paid dues plus a donation or two. And I know that you have contacted your Reps about changing the laws to more mirror your view of this issue. Positively you have written the city council about changing the local laws concerning firearms, and followed that up with a face to face with them about it.
Or do you bitch and complain on the WWW like an old lady who dislikes everything, but does nothing about it.
Which is it Hoyt?
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)He's out taking guns from lawful CCW people, disassembling them and throwing them in bushes dontchaknow. He out confronting gun carriers and holding them until the police show up so they can check the papers.
That stuff takes time.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)The pendulum has certainly been swinging in one direction this decade. It will be interesting to see whether it's going too far in support of the 2nd amendment, or whether we're simply coming back to center after years of treating the 2A the same way the Bush administration treated the rest of the document.
I suspect that's where most of our disagreement lies.
ileus
(15,396 posts)and Aflac is just another faux boogie man...
If the zimmerman shooting proves out to be self defense maybe we'll be able to continue the progress we've experienced the past several years.
And if he proves guilty hopefully we'll be able to avoid losing great laws because of one man victimizing SYG.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)from a hurricane.
ileus
(15,396 posts)The last time you lied I posted 20 links trying to find where I said what you claimed. This time it's your turn to hunt and show me where I made such a statement.
You've done this what three times this week to people on here and last time I checked hadn't backed it up. So now it's your turn....prove what you claim.
We'll be waiting.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)he disappeared like a ghost.
I think that he has shown his true colors here time after time. As far as shooting unarmed people fleeing from a hurricane, he's been corrected with links before so at this point I think we all know that he's are being dishonest again. The only ones who shot unarmed civilians fleeing were THE FUCKING POLICE Hoyt, not CHL holders Hoyt, the fucking police.
ileus
(15,396 posts)It's kind of funny he has to make up lies to support his world view...
Response to ileus (Reply #64)
Post removed
AH1Apache
(502 posts)you don't believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.
If you had your way, you would just bypass the trial and go straight to the penalty phase and throw him straight into jail.
Myself and most others here, who are BTW, fair minded, will wait for the trial and facts to come out.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Is that not playing judge, jury, jesus, and executioner?
The Damn murderer will get more of a trial than you are prepared to give someone.
ileus
(15,396 posts)AH1Apache
(502 posts)I've made it pretty clear why I carry a firearm, if you don't like the answer, tough shit, and, no, I'm not angry, just sick and tired of all your lies and distortions of lawful gun owners.
BTW, got those links of what you alleged of me yet?
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)lied about what pro-restriction supporters have said -- putting ugly words in their mouths?
ileus
(15,396 posts)iverglas
(38,549 posts)about what another poster has to say, you certainly have a double standard:
Got some proof of that claim, new friend?
In another post in this thread I have suggested that some people need to go to law school. You appear to be another one:
Another one who doesn't know or doesn't want to acknowledge what that actually means.
Post 196 is for you. Or you could just look into your heart and ask yourself whether you really believe that a finding of "not guilty" actually means "did not do it".
Clames
(2,038 posts)...is for posters to look at your transparency page.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)One can indeed learn quite a lot from reading the posts linked on my transparency page.
Hurry before they're gone! Oh, no need; they're mostly also in my "journal". Browse away!
Of course, one can learn loads from reading pretty much any of my posts. Pay attention, and you won't even need to go to law school, eventually.
Oh, and do keep an eye on the transparency page of the person I was actually replying to ...
Clames
(2,038 posts)...that it's a great primer on what not to say when griping about the lack of civility in others....
ileus
(15,396 posts)?
ileus
(15,396 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)Maybe I am not getting your joke.
First we have people being "bigoted" against guns ... now we have somebody who may have been "victimizing SYG <laws>".
I've never heard of somebody victimizing a law. Does it cry?
It's certainly possible to exploit laws -- and sometimes, real people cry as a result.
Societies generally attempt to enact laws that cannot be easily exploited for evil purposes.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)And we are still in the first 1/3 of the year.
Looks to me like the pendulum is still moving towards looser gun restrictions.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Your's and GSC's maybe. Do you think your safety depends on you carrying a gun around? If so, you need a lot more than a gun and America is in more trouble than I thought.
hack89
(39,171 posts)then there is no problem, is there?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)yet society seems willing to accept the great risk they represent.
Lets not forget - you have never been safer. Next year you will be safer yet.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The risk/reward ratio is, shall we say, a bit better on cars than guns.
And being safer has nothing to do with more guns being around.
hack89
(39,171 posts)or smoking - they are killers on a massive scale. Yet society accepts those death tolls.
Never said guns make society safer. I said that more guns have not led to more violence.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> or smoking - they are killers on a massive scale. Yet society accepts those death tolls.
I guess you never heard of prohibition (although repealed), draconian DUI laws, or the massive public campaign against smoking. Where do you live, in a bunker?
> I said that more guns have not led to more violence.
And I showed how that statement is not supported by logic or evidence. It is just your opinion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and still falling. I have posted it many time.
Are you saying that there are not more guns in circulation over the past 20 years? What exactly are you arguing?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Any evidence that gun violence is at historic lows is automatically deemed untrustworthy right-wing NRA propaganda UNLESS it's been peer reviewed and approved by the Brady Campaign and the VPC. (Those are the only two trustworthy sources for all things guns dontchaknow).
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nobody has proven any connection. Anti-gang policing strategies in LA and other cities probably had the largest effect. The death toll going down is more likely connected to improvements in first responder training, ER procedures and MAIG. But you can believe what you want if all that concerns you is reinforcing your position.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what evidence do you have to support such a notion? What hard evidence do you have to show that more guns have had any detrimental effect on American society at all? Facts - not your fears or opinions. Just facts.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Oops! You can't. Wonder why.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the question is whether more guns has made America more dangerous - have the odds of getting shot gone up or down?
Please answer the question.
ileus
(15,396 posts)How do our guns threaten everyone's safety, directly or indirectly?
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Bring your gun into my personal space and we are gonna have a problem. A lot of people share my views on that, so I would be sure to hide it well if you carry it in public.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I claim the right to carry anywhere I legally can.
Just what "problem" are we going to have?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You may have the right, but I'll be damned if it trumps my right to warn others of potential danger.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It may be legal, but don't expect a free ride.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)now your aligning yourself with Hoyt? Because thats what he advocates. BTW, how would you know if someone was carrying concealed, after all, thats what a CHL is for.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I'm aligned with myself, not with you or Hoyt. I was trained many years ago in public safety and saving lives. When I see a potential threat to the public, I respond accordingly. I'm sure both you and Hoyt are good guys, but I don't know either of you apart from your position on guns. My position is somewhere in between, I suspect. But when it comes to public carry, Hoyt and I are on the same page. If you OC, I don't have a problem, because I have the choice, as do others, to avoid you or not. It's not complicated. I oppose CHL, except in highly specific circumstances.
sarisataka
(18,216 posts)Were we to encounter each other at say a restaurant or public playground with my kids and I openly carried my pistol you would have no issue as you could then choose to leave or stay?
The reason I ask is because this is why WI passed their carry bill. People would OC to restaurants, the police would be called and the carriers would be arrested for disturbing the peace or public nuisance or similar law. I am not aware of any that went to court yet these people had to go through the hassle of arrest while exercising a legal right. That provided the momentum to get Walker elected as he promised to sign their CCW bills.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have been in many situations like the one you describe. Restaurants, bars, public spaces. I observe the individual, assess and respond accordingly. I make no assumptions as to the person's motive for being armed, apart from their obvious feeling of necessity. I'm pretty good at risk assessment and know the difference between a good ole boy, in a family restaurant in Wyoming, carrying a .45 in a hip holster, and a paranoid tweaker in Tampa. If I'm already seated, I'm not moving table to avoid the first guy. I'm comfortable just keeping him and his gun in view. If the second guy walks in, I leave and alert anyone I believe needs alerting.
I behave the same way if I spot CC, which happens occasionally. It's not about the bulge. More about the eyes and hands. I think the CC laws are foolish and inherently dishonest.
sarisataka
(18,216 posts)I can accept that (not by any means saying you need my permission or approval). If more people (on each side) could so clearly state their concerns and boundaries, we might actually reach a compromise that would please most.
Some will never be happy short of total ban or legalized backpack nukes...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But trying to be flexible at the same time. I think we can all grow from sharing our thoughts and experiences, rather than piling up the sandbags and hunkering down to defend established positions. It is important to have consistency in one's basic position. Mine is public safety comes first. Killing someone in self-defense comes last. All else is up for discussion.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he is probably a detective. Florida detectives often wear their badges on their belts with their pistols open. At least, they do around here. If you don't see a badge and polo shirt, cops are probably on the way. Florida banned open carry in 1893.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)but I remember guys carrying open in Miami bars in the late '70s. Maybe you meant 1993. I see OC, my first thought is always LE. When in doubt I take a different route.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and they were LE.
If you open carried in my county back then, even the NRA life members would assume you were a New Yorker or from Mass. (stupid easterners don't know the indian wars ended) Now the county where John Perry Barlow grew up, not so much because it was usually ranchers or hunters.
It was banned in Florida because migrant African American workers often open carried. Nothing scared the shit out of Jim Crow types more than a black guy with a gun (other than maybe a white liberal with gun). It was selectively enforced. In 1941 the state supreme court overturned a conviction because the carrier was white.
Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3857/
In case you never heard of it, In These Times makes The Nation look like NRO.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)I live in a state where the dispatcher would probably ask where you're from and then patiently explain to you that they're not in the habit of dispatching officers to observe legal activity. They might wish you a nice day, or might simply hang up in frustration at somebody wasting their time on an absurd call.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Except, how would I know if he is carrying? If I spot the gun, then something is amiss.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)I live in a state that has always had open carry, since long before it was a state. Many years ago we added concealed carry prohibitions to the mix, and later added concealed carry permits. Recently we've even done away with the necessity for a permit, correctly realizing that it's silly to allow people to open carry, but then call them criminals when they don jackets in the evening.
Open carry is quite common, quite unremarkable, and much more likely to draw a compliment than a police response.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You live in a state where guns are normal attire. I'd love to visit your state sometime. I assume it is Alaska, as I have spent some time in every other state and never witnessed anything close to what you describe. Stay warm.
ileus
(15,396 posts)try and pin them down long enough to frisk and ID a weapon...then break off the attack but hang close enough to assure the CHP holder didn't get away while a cops come to investigate if the person was a legal carrier.
Even if he took the less aggressive approach and just grabbed the person by the wrist and applied a simple lock while frisking it's still somewhat risky business attacking someone because you're paranoid they may have a firearm on them legally.
It doesn't always work out attacking a CHP holder, but hey it's his plan.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Even after the fifth or sixth time, that day.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I would not alert on someone who I didn't consider a danger to the public.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't know what they might be alerting on, but if they think I'm carrying a gun, or pose any danger to the public, by all means they should.
petronius
(26,580 posts)did you alert LE in those cases? What happened?
If this actually was your habit, I suspect you'd be opening yourself up to some legal jeopardy. Calling police to report a person engaged in a legal activity, when the only source of your suspicion is that selfsame legal activity, and (part of) your motivation is to prevent them from getting a "free ride", is an inappropriate and unreasonable waste of LE resources. I'll bet the police would explain that to you, and those explanations would become more assertive the more often you called...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Increasing people's awareness is hardly an offense. Example: I'm in a diner and spot someone carrying, do a quick assessment as to the likelihood of danger. If it's Oneshooter and his missus with the grandkids, I doubt any alarms are going to ring. OTOH, if it's a sweaty guy who demonstrates furtive, paranoid behavior, I'm out of there with a word of caution to the proprietor, who can take it or leave it. If someone is entering as I'm leaving, I may well advise them of what I've observed, in the same way I might tell someone that the road ahead is icy. Same if there's a cop around. I'm not dialing 911 unless the gun is out and being pointed at someone.
I am not under any illusion that CHL holders are a dangerous bunch. I'm sure 90% are extremely conscientious, responsible citizens, as are most gun owners. However, by making the choice to carry in public, they open themselves to more scrutiny. When people use objects as empowering accessories, it raises the potential for abuse of those in their vicinity. The same phenomenon applies to people who drive Hummers and similar behemoths that symbolize arrogance.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)as it is delusions of ruggedness. Gated community denizens who sense the sterility of such "life" and buy them to feel alive instead of actually learning how to read a compass and head out in the woods.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe not so much arrogance as trying to compensate for some feeling of inadequacy. Whatever it is, I think there are similar mechanisms in play. The sense of empowerment that some individuals feel, whether it be from wealth, driving a Hummer or wielding a gun is compensating for some impoverished sense of self. Maybe, for some, the handgun is the poor man's Hummer, or gated villa.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)a flintlock over the mantle of a non functioning fireplace, and a coonskin cap bought from a Branson gift shop.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)More in line with a Napoleon complex, showing off one's supposed muscle, not one's wealth. But the feeling of empowerment is internalized in the case of CC..
I find the arguments of OC organizations to be more compelling than any advocacy for CC. The two main points being the deterrent factor of OC and it's inherent honesty.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I mean, when I used to listen to Pacifica (are no stations here) Jerry Brown, Amy Goodman et al all described individual empowerment as good of a thing as community empowerment over corporations. Since when was it a bad thing?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)em·pow·er (m-pour)
tr.v. em·pow·ered, em·pow·er·ing, em·pow·ers
1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize.
2. To equip or supply with an ability; enable: "Computers ... empower students to become intellectual explorers" (Edward B. Fiske).
em·power·ment n.
Usage Note: Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word empower is not new, having arisen in the mid-17th century with the legalistic meaning "to invest with authority, authorize." Shortly thereafter it began to be used with an infinitive in a more general way meaning "to enable or permit." Both of these uses survive today but have been overpowered by the word's use in politics and pop psychology. Its modern use originated in the civil rights movement, which sought political empowerment for its followers. The word was then taken up by the women's movement, and its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all political persuasions have a need for a word that makes their constituents feel that they are or are about to become more in control of their destinies, empower has been adopted by conservatives as well as social reformers. It has even migrated out of the political arena into other fields. · The Usage Panel has some misgivings about this recent broadening of usage. For the Panelists, the acceptability of the verb empower depends on the context. Eighty percent approve of the example We want to empower ordinary citizens. But in contexts that are not political the Panel is markedly less enthusiastic. The sentence Hunger and greed and then sexual zeal are felt by some to be stages of experience that empower the individual garners approval from only 33 percent of the Panelists. The Panel may frown on this kind of psychological empowering because it resonates of the self-help movement, which is notorious for trendy coinages.
petronius
(26,580 posts)The behavior you describe there - which clearly is not what you've shifted to in this current post - is clearly improper and likely would gain you the attention of LE.
So which position are you taking? Is it only the reporting of a completely reasonable suspicion as you described in #195, or the reporting of legal activity for no reason other than the activity itself, as you claimed previously?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I was responding to different people in these posts. So let me attempt to clarify.
I have no interest in reporting legal activity, but if I suspect that it is not legal by demeanor, attitude, appearance etc. I will react accordingly. My point is, that if you are carrying, I am holding you to a higher standard of comportment than someone who isn't. An angry guy wearing a gun in a bar is going to be treated differently to an angry unarmed guy. If I think anyone poses a danger, that will be based on my assessment of them, not on some piece of paper that claims they have a special "right" to carry a gun; and I will exercise my 1A rights if I so choose, to alert any who may be in danger.
CC permits may mean something to you. To me they mean squat. They are not the reason people carry guns. They just legitimize the carrying. I don't know what motivates them to behave in such a way, nor do I care. I only care about their intentions and the danger they may pose to others. If they carry concealed, then I am already prejudiced, because to me it demonstrates a certain insecurity, a level of dishonesty, sneakiness, a possible pathological lack of self esteem and a possible tendency toward the nefarious. I find profiling techniques and LE training extremely helpful in assessing these situations.
petronius
(26,580 posts)Concealed carry - or any other legal activity - is not in and of itself a reasonable cause to alert law enforcement or make a scene, regardless of how you personally feel about it. Your prejudices and opinions don't rise to a reasonable standard of 'feeling threatened' or 'perceiving potential risk', and if you made a habit of contacting LE on that basis alone you would be in the wrong - which I suspect they'd explain to you.
If you agree with that, then we're on the same page, and we can chalk up your statements to the contrary as poor communication (exaggeration? provocation?) on your part...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You can chalk it up to whatever you like. There was no exaggeration or provocation on my part. I have no interest in reporting or alerting on legal activity. The legal possession of a handgun in public would not be my concern. My concern would be only whether I considered the person a threat to public safety. I wouldn't discriminate between an undercover cop and a known mobster. If they aren't acting in a suspicious or threatening way and pose no apparent danger, then they are not my concern. It's about reading body language, demeanor and making an accurate threat assessment, which is what I do when I spot someone carrying. Awareness training is part of any street cop's survival tools. Much more important than a firearm.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"If it's Oneshooter and his missus with the grandkids, I doubt any alarms are going to ring."
You get to Texas and see me. I will arrange a feral hog hunt, with a BBQ to follow very soon after. And don't worry, I have several British built rifles for you to choose from. Just so you don't feel lonely.
Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
PS. I don't have any English riding saddles, so a Mexican high cantel roping saddle will have to do.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Should be down your way around this time next year on our way to JazzFest in NOLA.
Lost-in-FL
(7,093 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Until you people get organized, get some funding for the anti-gun groups and get some laws passed...it's just lip service.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Who are you referring to by "you people"? Democrats? Americans? Sane people?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe you'd care to list those who want to grab all the guns. Do you consider those, like myself, who are opposed to routine public carry, a gun grabber?
hack89
(39,171 posts)There is little difference between you and those that advocate total prohibition - both have the same contempt for the civil rights of others and I see no real point in trying to draw fine distinctions between you.
You want to restrict my civil liberties due to your irrational fear. I am not willing to give an inch to you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't want to grab anyone's gun. That's your paranoia. Read the survey.
Most Dems (62%) and most Republicans (54%) oppose laws allowing law-abiding citizen to bring a firearm into a church, workplace or retail establishment.
That's where I stand. I support gun ownership and I support laws allowing the issue of carry permits. I don't support vigilantism or indiscriminate carry in public. I also don't support the regular arming of police officers with handguns. I would restrict their firearms to certain situations, such as raids on known armed criminals, swat teams and shotguns in vehicles.
I have no irrational fear, but if you think I'm a gun grabber, then it leads me to think you definitely do.
hack89
(39,171 posts)why not leave things as they are. Call me when gun violence stops decreasing.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Zimmerman killing Martin was a harm to society. Anyone carrying a handgun is potentially harmful to society.
Maybe you consider Martin's death statistically insignificant. Maybe you consider 11,000 statistically insignificant.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and it is still going down.
I know you want zero deaths and you want it right now but societies don't change overnight. Why not show some patience - we are definitely on the right track.
While not statistically insignificant, guns are not in the top ten reasons for early deaths in America. There are plenty of other things that kill many more people - for example, dedicating you life to the anti-smoking or anti-alcoholism causes would save millions vice thousands of lives.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There was a peak in gun deaths during the mid nineties, but the numbers today are similar to 1990 from what I can see.
I am very patient, but we are not on the right track, just the opposite. Though as I said, the madness may finally have peaked. We are not discussing other causes of early death here. Why are you trying to change the conversation?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)by eight years. Subtract 2000 total murders. If percentages remain the same, should be half.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Hack said the numbers were half what they were in 1990. In 2009 they were over 11,000 and according to the graph they were slightly less in 1990.
Unless you have some more recent stats that cover the last 2 decades.
hack89
(39,171 posts)2006 total firearm murders = 10,225
2010 total firearm murders = 8,775
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Looks like we are on the right track.
Still trying to pin that decrease in murders on more gun ownership?
I'll call you on that, ummm, "completely unsupported illogical misstatement" every time I see it.
AH1Apache
(502 posts)where does it say that more guns=less crime?
The only thing I see is more guns does not mean more crime.
Quit trying to put words in mouths.
Your side lost, deal with it.
We will never go back.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> The only thing I see is more guns does not mean more crime.
Nope. Completely illogical. Some other factor might be reducing crime MORE, and the greater number of guns is bringing it back up (but not enough to overcome the swing from the 1st factor or factors reducing it)
Logic is fun. But not for gun-religionists.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)by assuming that the guns are making a difference without evidence.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> but you are guessing by assuming that the guns are making a difference without evidence.
I'm not the one making the claim that there is a correlation between more guns & more safety. You should address your objection to those making such an assumption. The gun-religionists.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)he was not making a claim about correlation or cause. That is pretty simple. You are the one making the assumptions.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Logic is fun. But not for gun-religionists.
Change your "is" to another "might be," and then you'll be more accurate: as it is, you are presenting your second assertion as fact, which is not supportable here. What you really need is a second hypothetical.
Keep on speculating. You might stumble across a little piece of truth some day. Or not.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have told you that numerous times - please stop lying about my positions.
I am just pointing out that more guns have not led to more violence. Which undermines the prime argument of many gun grabbers.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> I am just pointing out that more guns have not led to more violence.
Unsupported by logic or evidence. Just your opinion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=33180
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2012, 01:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Unsupported by logic or evidence. Just your opinion.
There are more guns than there were. There is not more violence. You can babble all you want about other causes that may have had an effect on the rate of violence, and how there may have been even less if not for the guns, but that's a red herring. Logic dictates that if there is not more violence now than there was before, then clearly the presence of the guns has not led to more violence, because there is not more violence. Capisci?
Your "otherwise-would-have-beens" are irrelevant. The prediction that "more guns will lead to more violence" has not materialized.
hack89
(39,171 posts)since you need actual evidence of harm before you can restrict civil rights (it is the first part of strict scrutiny) then the status quo is where we remain. Too bad for the gun grabbers.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)big rise in 1994, the last time the NRA convinced their loony followers that prohibition was right around the corner and that marauding blacks would be coming for their women. ( Clinton). Another Dem in the WH, another propaganda campaign. And look at how hand gun deaths account for 1/2 of all of the homicides (almost 3/4 during the peak). Kind of slam dunks the "would you be happier if the murderers had used knives & bats" canard.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Here is an interesting link to LA stats
http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr03x.htm
Here's a national link
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/
and another regarding illegal acquisition of handguns
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)And how, pray tell, does it do that?
Are you saying that in the absence of handguns, people bent on violence would just give up and go home? Or perhaps you're referring to the Golden Age, before the advent of firearms, when there was no violence at all.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I would rather say what guns I would permit, because I believe this would significantly reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by firearms to an "acceptable" level. Shotguns, single or double barrel. Bolt action or lever action rifles. Winchester comes to mind."
"Anything else would require very restrictive permit based on demonstrated need."
"Those who want more than that are free to join the military, or just get over themselves."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458447&mesg_id=458958
("Would you allow semi-auto pistols or revolvers?" asked by another poster.
And answered:
"Unfortunately not. I feel as pissed off as you, but there are too many assholes out there that ruin it for everyone else. Public safety trumps personal desire for me. Sorry. Same for handguns. Bummer."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458447&mesg_id=459077
Some folks seem to believe you can't possibly be a gun grabber unless you want to grab them all...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Or do you just want to quote hypotheticals. The cat is out of the bag Be evil.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Wanna show me where I advocate grabbing/confiscating guns?"
Some folks seem to believe you can't possibly be a gun grabber unless you want to grab them all...
Some of those same folks seem to think making a distinction...pretending theres a difference between prohibiting guns, and confiscating guns...means somehow they aren't gun grabbers.
It is a distinction, without a difference.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You would like to paint me as an extremist, when in truth I am probably the most moderate here. I advocate no banning, grabbing or confiscating. I advocate common sense laws for everyone. I oppose the indiscriminate issue of CC permits and the laws allowing such nonsense. I oppose SYG laws for obvious reasons. I know there are those here who would impose tighter controls regarding firearms purchasing. I find that effort rather futile and counter productive, given the firearms tradition of this country. I believe in responsibility and accountability. I consider routine public carry (with exceptions) to be highly irresponsible in terms of public safety, personal safety, personal integrity and progress. It's an opinion, not a call to arms (or non arms). It is a call to the rational mind. We can disagree. That's OK. No need for broad brush name calling. Let's stick to the issues at hand, stay on topic and we might be able to have some fruitful discussions. I know it gets heated in here and that is understandable, but we can all learn from each other and hopefully grow from the experience.
We all want the same goal - a peaceful society where conversations such as this are irrelevant. We only differ as to how we get there.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)Are you referring to "shall issue" policies? Because they are far from "indiscriminate." "Shall issue" simply means that the state must issue permits to those that meet the criteria it has established: no more unlimited and unexamined discretion by judges and law enforcement officials to deny permits to people whom they don't like for one reason or another. Wrong nationality, wrong politics, wrong religion, wrong gender, wrong sexuality, wrong race: take your pick. That's the sad history of "may issue." New York's history is a case in point:
Editorial, New York Times, January, 27, 1905
Among the best British traditions perpetuated and cherished in America is that of using natures weapons in the act of self-defense. That it is sincerely cherished is shown in the recent introduction at Albany of a bill by Assemblyman Tompkins to amend the Penal Code of this State relative to the carrying of loaded firearms concealed about the person. The amending section reads as follows:
Sec. 411-A Any person other than a peace officer who shall in any public street, highway or place in any city in this State having a population of upward of 100,000 persons by the last State census have or carry concealed upon his person any loaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm, without thereto fore, in the manner now provided by law, having been authorized to carry the same, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Such a measure would prove corrective and salutary in a city filled with immigrants and evil communications, floating from the shores of Italy and Austria-Hungary. New York police reports frequently testify to the fact that the Italian and other south Continental gentry here are acquainted with the pocket pistol, and while drunk or merrymaking will use it quite as handily as the stiletto, and with more deadly effect. It is hoped that this treacherous and distinctly outlandish mode of settling disputes may not spread to corrupt the native good manners of the community. The case of a Columbia student who flourished and fired a pistol at his persecutors instead of using his "bare fist", as his presumably British-American descent would prescribe, is fresh in the public memory. The act now proposed and championed by Mr. Tompkins will diminish the number of homicides.
-- http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C03E4D8163DE733A25754C2A9679C946497D6CF
This is in reference to the Tompkins Act. The subsequent Sullivan Act, in 1911, upgraded it to a felony. In the South, handgun permits were usually at the discretion of the county sheriff. I wonder who got permits and who didn't.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I think permits for CC should be issued only in highly specific cases where demonstrable need is shown to an interdepartmental panel. All others who wish to exercise their "2A" rights should do so openly.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)... since you apparently feel that virtually all CCW is suspect?
What would constitute "demonstrable need"? Who would be represented on this panel? Would they be operating under a set of standards, or would their power be completely discretionary, as it is in "may issue" states?
So you are in favor of permitless open carry? Fair enough, but I'm curious as to why someone who is not a threat to public safety when carrying openly suddenly becomes one by concealing his or her weapon.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I would envisage something like a 3 person panel with all members signing off. There would be established guidelines and restrictions. Not some sheriff handing out permits to his buddies.
I would prefer permitless open carry over permitted CC. The difference, in terms of being less of a public threat, is obvious. People can avoid what they see. It should be their choice. Of course, I and most others would prefer that nobody carry. But as long as we have a SCOTUS that interprets 2A to include individual carry, then OC is preferable. I am in favor of neither.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)So my background check by the state police and FBI for my New York permit doesn't cut it with you?
Again, who would be represented on this panel? What kind of guidelines would they work under?
Sorry, but I find your conception of open carry as "less of a threat" to be laughable. If a person has been vetted to carry a firearm, why would one need to avoid that person? The picture of people scattering through the streets at the approach of a person open-carrying a handgun is ludicrous.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)No your background check means little to me and has nothing to do with "demonstrable need".
All guns in public are a potential threat to public safety. I prefer to be able to see potential dangers, so they may be avoided. Call me crazy.
You ask "Who would be represent on this panel?" The public would be represented, because the purpose of the panel would be public safety. I'd suggest a public safety professional, maybe LE, from the jurisdiction involved, a mental health professional and a local magistrate or judge. Approval should be unanimous, with appeals possible. Permits would be issued for specific purposes and restrictions may apply.
I find the concept of routinely carrying a gun for self defense laughable, but I'm still working to find a solution that allows you to assuage your fears and the public to retain some safety.
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)How else would they avoid the "man with a gun"?
You have yet to define "demonstrable need." I would suggest to you that the burden is on the powers-that-be to demonstrate that I am a threat to society before they can circumscribe my rights. In any case, that's my view of the role of government. Apparently it's one that you don't share.
I don't know about crazy, but I would call that an unreasonable fear. Do you get queasy walking through crowds, knowing that there might be people carrying concealed weapons? It could happen anywhere, you know -- even in Merry Old England.
For example? What "specific purpose" would be sufficient, in your estimation? What restrictions would be appropriate?
You're entitled to your own sources of amusement, as long as your sense of humor doesn't impinge on my rights. However, the latter is clearly what you would like to do. I don't routinely carry a gun, but I appreciate the fact that I can be the one to determine when it is appropriate, within the parameters of the licensing authority and the laws of my state. I live in one of the most restrictive of the 50 states in regard to handgun possession, yet you would raise the bar still higher to assuage your own unreasonable fears. I trust myself to carry a firearm, and the State of New York trusts me. Why would I ever want to substitute your fear-driven and authoritarian strictures for my own good judgement?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)1. Not people scattering at the sight of every gun. Do they scatter now at the sight of guns? Why should that change? With OC they have a better chance of risk assessment and are able to make choices based on such assessment. Some may have no issue while others may choose to take a different route or drink in a different bar or pray in a different church. Pretty much the same choices that smokers and non-smokers have. Everyone has their own set of values and sometimes one may feel offended by the actions of another. We accommodate those differences by being respectful of them. That's how a functional society works.
2. I mentioned "demonstrable need" in respect to the issuance of CC permits. Let's not be naive, we all know that handguns are tools of violence. If you desire to hide one on your person, using a claim of self protection, then you need to demonstrate that need to the satisfaction of a panel, such as I described earlier. If you are denied the permit, then your option should be OC. I have noticed that OC organizations push their agenda on the premise that CC does not act as a deterrent and I agree with them on that. CC just ups the ante and should meet a very high standard. An example would be someone who has received credible threats, or a plain clothes police officer going into a situation where an armed suspect is believed to be.
3. I don't suffer from unreasonable fear. I have a normal survival instinct, which keeps me alert to anomalies. I do not get queasy walking through crowds, but I stay alert and don't lower my guard. I'm a sailor. I wouldn't survive very long if I didn't stay alert or suffered from queasiness. Having grown up and worked LE in the UK, I am well acquainted with concealed weapons, thankfully not handguns.
You seem convinced that I want to impinge on your rights. Not so. Your right, as you and the corrupt SCOTUS determine, is to be able to carry a gun. It does not have to be concealed. That is not a right, but a privilege enacted by weak state legislators cowering to the NRA, the gun lobby and it's minions.
I would like to see it no longer be a right to carry a handgun, but that is wishful thinking on my part, at least in my lifetime.
NB: If you want to continue this conversation, and hopefully grow from it, then please leave out personal snark like
Straw Man
(6,613 posts)So more like just slipping around the corner discreetly? Is that what you would do? I find that just as humorous.
The smoking and non-smoking analogy isn't apt because standing next to a smoker causes measurable harm, while standing next to a person who has a firearm causes none. Trust me. I've done it, as have you.
Please don't lecture me on how a functional society works. I live in one. I've seen some truly dysfunctional societies, and this one, for all its flaws, isn't like those.
Who's being naive? Who has ever denied that? You keep dodging questions about the criteria that determine "need." What are "credible threats"? Must one have already been attacked? Will this panel be able to field the manpower to investigate threats and determine their "credibility"?
I'm sure you are aware that there is such a thing as random and unexpected violence. Why would you deny people access to an extremely effective protection against it? But you would allow open carry by those who fail their vetting? And you believe that would promote public safety? I find that bizarre.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. I find your aversion to firearms to be something akin to a phobia.
I would like to see it no longer be a right to carry a handgun, but that is wishful thinking on my part, at least in my lifetime.
And yet you persist in denying that you are a "gun grabber." You hold my rights in contempt: that becomes clearer with every post. You have essentially outlined the slippery-slope approach to a total ban on handguns. Let me paraphrase: "I don't want to impinge on your rights, but they were granted by a corrupt court and I look forward to the day when they cease to exist. Here's my proposal for the first step in the evisceration of those rights."
You seem to have no compunction about calling my actions fear-driven. Why am I supposed to accord you more respect than you accord me? As for "authoritarian," I can find no more accurate way to describe your attitude.
You are free to quit this exchange at any time, but don't pretend it's because your delicate feelings were hurt. I asked a legitimate question: Why should I value your estimation of my fitness to carry firearms over my own? What reason would I have to wish that the laws governing me were stricter and more arbitrary? Is that the worldview you are asking me to "grow" into? Save your breath.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)We have monthly CHL classes.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I've seen weirder shit than that in churches, including record burning. Very little surprises me anymore, though I would have thought those who attend church might put more trust in their Lord then in S&W.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I put more trust in Walther, S&W, and Ruger than the Lord. I must admit, I have been pondering visiting the local Mormon church (since I have not been to one since I was a kid) but with my luck, a lightening bolt would hit me.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have no interest in churches unless they have architectural and/or artistic value.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)However they are few in number and not well respected. A good thing in my opinion. They tend to be noisy, get press coverage well in excess of their size or merit. The good news is that they often make fools of themselves in the process. Hoyt's pearls are far from unique.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)You just scared the bujeebus outta me.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I'm dying here, man.
Keep the jokes coming!
jpak
(41,741 posts)yup
jpak
(41,741 posts)yup
Where is this so-called backlash you keep refering to?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)So far this year over 20 NRA backed bills have been signed into law and more are on the way. All you have to show are a few speeches and editorials from anti-gun sources.
My frontlash is whipping your backlash's butt.