Michigan bills would allow concealed guns in more places

[Bragi]

Those with concealed weapons licenses would be able to carry a firearm essentially anywhere in the state under legislation introduced Tuesday...

The proposal would scrap the "no-carry zones" — defined as schools and their property, day care centers, arenas, bars and restaurants where alcohol is the primary revenue source, churches and other places of worship, stadiums with seating for 2,500 or more, hospitals, casinos and college campuses.

From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110126/POLITICS02/101260352/Michigan-bills-would-allow-concealed-guns-in-more-places#ixzz1C97C5oey

Why are a minority of people afraid to leave their homes without being armed?

Why is this minority so gripped with fear that they feel they must be equipped with lethal weapons whenever they go to malls, schools, restaurants, etc?

Why can't these frightened people be helped so they can live their lives like most people in society -- unarmed and unafraid?

I think there needs to be a public outreach campaign to help the frightened and fearful minority who think they must be able to threaten and shoot other people with lethal weapons just to feel safe.

It's time for the majority to reach out with compassion, and to ask their armed friends and neighbors to overcome their fear of others, and to start living a gun-free life, just like most people do.

[DrDan]

1. schools, daycare centers, bars . . . what could go wrong

[Name removed]

19. Deleted sub-thread

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

[WinkyDink]

2. So often they become UNconcealed.......

[svsuman23]

3. do you have any proof?

[Bragi]

6. You'd like "proof" would you?

What typically happens here is that the fear-gripped gun owner demands proof that guns do any harm (imagine?) then they attack any statistical evidence that is brought forward, and everyone ends up mired in discussion over details, like what constitutes peer review.

Interestingly, the NRA itself contributes to the evidence gap here by successfully lobbying Congress so that outfits like the CDC are not allowed to use their funding to do research that "might" provide evidence of the public health damage inflicted using guns, and supporting more effective gun control.

Then their frightened supporters demand "proof" that the proliferation of guns does harm!

See "N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say"
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html>

[svsuman23]

34. that doesn't answer my question..

I said I wanted proof that "So often they become UNconcealed..."

[PavePusher]

105. Again you ignore evidence that guns are frequently used in defense.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. Nothing is stopping *privately* funded research. So why has it not happened yet?

[WinkyDink]

13. What about the U.S. crime-rate do you not understand? Do you think these guns are for ballast?

[Statistical]

15. Us violent crime rate is at 30+ year low, it is now lower than the gun-free utopia UK. n/t

[Bragi]

33. Could be lots of reasons

Different demographics, for one, since reduced violent crime is strongly associated with higher average age levels in any society.

However, what with the NRA blocking research studies into things like the public health impact of guns, it's hard to know if crime rates wouldn't be even lower in the U.S without the proliferation of guns.

This being so, I would urge DU members who are also members of the NRA to demand that that organization drop its opposition to generating the actual evidence needed to accurately understand the impact of guns on society.

Until then, we'll just have talking points, not proof of anything, which I suspect is the goal of the NRA anyway.

[WinkyDink]

44. Since you like stats so much, TRY THESE. We lead in GUN MURDERS, if not over-all "crime."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/01/13/the_exceptional_american_berserk_murder_guns_freedom_and_gabrielle_giffords_108521.html

RealClearPolitics analyzed the most recent United Nation's data to better understand American violence. The assault rate in Scotland, England, Australia and Germany is more than twice the US-assault rate, at times far more. Yet the US-murder rate is at least four times the rate of these developed nations. America's murder rate ranks 53 among 153 nations. No other developed nation ranks within the top half. The comparison between assault and murder rates is rough; an assault is not always reported or discovered. Both rates are, however, based on criminal justice sources from 2003 to 2008. And the comparison, for all its imperfections, captures an important fact: Americans are not exceptional for their violence but exceptional for their extreme violence--murder.

[Statistical]

49. Why is gun murders a useful stat? Honestly would you feel better if you died from a knife?

UK banned guns and has a higher violent crime rate than the US does.
Most of mainland Europe has a lower homicide rate than the US but THEY HAD A LOWER HOMICIDE RATE BEFORE BANNING GUNS.
Japan has a very low homicide rate and almost no gun crime however despite the fact the US has "lots of guns" we kill more people WITHOUT GUNS than they do by all means.
Mexico has complete ban on civilian ownership of firearms and leads the continent in violence and homicides.

Think the issue might be more complicated than low guns = low crime. Think maybe it has a lot to do with education, opportunity, economic justice, strong social safety net, good access to public health (especially mental health), war on drugs, culture, etc.

Banning guns to "solve" crime is an idiots solution. There is no evidence anywhere in the world that banning guns reduced crime or homicide rates.

[WinkyDink]

53. The topic is concealed guns. Not concealed knives. Not concealed rocks.

And the topic is not "banning guns to 'solve' crime," now, is it?

BTW: How many do you imagine would've died in Tucson from a crazed knife-wielder? Or needed brain surgery?

[Statistical]

54. Once again why is gun murder a useful stat?

300 years ago mortality was much higher but automobile deaths were 0.

"Gun Deaths" is a bogus and worthless metric. If Gun deaths is a useful metric then logic would say the middle ages was a safer time to live because gun deaths were much lower (0) then.

[one-eyed fat man]

126. How about....

if he used a Buick?



The question has never been about crime....

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, 1996, Washington Post

It has always been about the ban, a complete and total ban. That has always been the goal.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Anything short of a total ban is simply a step along the way. The proponents of gun control, the charters of their organizations, their writings and statements have made that clear from the beginning. Anyone who claims otherwise is a liar or a dupe.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

[Recursion]

78. And the "gun murder" rate has been falling for 2 decades (nt)

[Recursion]

77. You mean the crime-rate that is at an historic low?

That crime rate?

[Bragi]

81. The crime rate may be higher than otherwise due to guns

We simply don't know because the data is lacking. The aging of society and other factors may be more important causes for falling crime rates.

However, since the NRA and gun lobby oppose funding for research by orgs like the CDC into the public health impacts of gun use, we aren't likely to have facts on this soon.

The lack of real evidence of the harm done with guns is what gun lobby wants.

See "N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say"

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html

[Recursion]

83. Roe v. Wade has much more to do with it than gun policy in either direction

But crime is heading in the right direction, and has been for 20 years. It's like people freaking out about the state of public schools when graduation rates are at all-time highs.

[cleanhippie]

143. Just how "often" is that?

We must have very different definitions of the word.

Merriam_Websters states it means "frequently", and if that is the case, you could not be more wrong.

[KansasVoter]

4. The gun fans are a paranoid scared bunch. They think they will have a gun battle daily.

[Bragi]

7. Quite so

We need to help them live fear-free lives -- unafraid and unarmed -- just like normal people.

[Statistical]

14. Of course that is your strawman.

Do people who own alarm systems live in fear of a break in?
Do people who buckle their seatbelt live in fear of a car crash?
Do people who check battery in smoke detector live in fear of a fire?

On your way home tonight there is a very high likelihood that if you DON'T buckle your seatbelt nothing bad will happen. The odds are over 99%. More like 99.99% than if you don't buckle your seatbelt you will arrive home safely. Why do you let fear of car crashes control your lives?

A firearm is a tool. People carry them for the same reason cops carry them. They are effective methods of defense. I have no more fear of violent crime than I do of a car crash, however both do happen and often are unpredictably.

It is highly likely that you won't be a victim of violent crime. It is also highly likely you won't be seriously injured in a car accident, have your home broken into, or be in a fire. Still if one of those things do happen some people would rather be prepared.

[Bragi]

20. These analogies fail

Question: What's the difference between fire insurance, seatbelts, smoke detectors and guns?

Answer: Guns are the only form of "self-protection" listed above that can only be used to threaten or kill other people.

[Statistical]

25. They can be misused. Of course they can.

So can a car, either intentionally or accidentally. We would be safer if we all relied on mass transit and let professionals do the driving.

Lots of things can be misused to the detriment of others. Drunk driving for example.

However we have rationally decide to make the misuse prohibited not the lawful use.
Cars are legal - despite the potential danger
Alcohol is legal - despite the potential danger
Car + Alcohol - illegal due to misuse and danger to others.

Self Defense is a human right. The state has no duty to protect your or me. It is unethical for a state to deny responsibility for protecting it's citizens and then also deny them the ability to effectively protect themselves.

[pipoman]

48. Your statement is false

US Olympic Shooting Team

Care to modify your statement or retract?

Answer: Guns are the only form of "self-protection" listed above that can only be used to threaten or kill other people.

[DonP]

128. That's a mean looking bunch of killers, nice uniforms though!.

"Only used to kill or threaten people"

I guess that means target shooting is only practicing to kill people? Wow! Who knew?

How about the millions of American Gun owners, something like 80 million+, that never get around to killing or threatening people? I guess we are all just frustrated killers waiting for our big chance.

[shadowrider]

129. That's it. Look at me wrong at Wal-mart and I'll blast ya into the linen section n/t

[beevul]

135. You say that as if its true...

You say that as if its true, or that it matters.

"Question: What's the difference between fire insurance, seatbelts, smoke detectors and guns?"

Non sequitur.

We're discussing a persons motivation here. Trying to show how things are different has exactly nothing to do with that discussion.

[RegieRocker]

26. They talk about guns which they know nothing about.

It is them who fear. They have never owned a gun, never held one etc.

[Fixed_Based_Operator]

66. I heard a gun guy say

"I have a gun, what do I have to be afraid of?"

I don't get it, I have a cell phone, what do I have to be afraid of?

[Statistical]

70. Average Police response time is >10 minutes and Police have no duty to protect.

Also isn't the cellphone simply a method to have a gun (and cop) delivered to you.

Person 1: "Why do you carry a gun?"
Person 2: "Because it is too tiring carrying around a cop"

[Bragi]

79. Moved by author

[Statistical]

84. The slogan doesn't make much sense you are right on that.

The purpose of the Police is to detain suspects and gather evidence.

The phrase "no duty to protect" is valid and comes from the case precedents. The Police have absolutely no duty to protect the individual. The bar isn't at a guarantee there is no duty whatsoever. The Police protect society in general by detaining suspects and gathering evidence to sustain a conviction. Now if in the process of doing that job you are protected well that is great but it is a side effect of the goal which is to uphold laws not protect individuals. The individual has no expectation of protection from the Police.

The precedent is strong and unbroken going back to 1858 (South v. Maryland).

Even in cases where the Police are negligent in their response to investigating crime no duty arises and the unprotected have no claim to damages. Warren v. District of Columbia the women were detained and raped for days because Police dispatcher and Police failed to follow their own procedures and even lied to two of the women that helps was on the way.

Even in cases where the Police is already on the scene there is no duty to protect the individual. In Davidson v. City of Westminister the Police were observing a laundromat, they saw the victims being attacked and did not respond. The courts found the victims had no expectation of protection and case was dismissed.

There are thirty or fourty similar Supreme Court cases. In case has a victim ever been found to been owed protection by the government, nor has any damages ever been found due to a failure to protect.

The most recent case was in 2005. Even with a restraining order and Mrs. Gonzalez telling the Police where her husband was, the fact that he was violating the order, and children were in danger didn't rise to a "special circumstance" that would warrant protection. The children were later found murdered in his car, a crime that could have been avoided if the Police had merely gone to the location where the suspect was. They didn't and the courts found there was no duty to protect, no damages awarded, and the state was not at fault.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

[Bragi]

91. The Times article doesn't back up your claim

The article is clear that the appeal in question was centered narrowly on the wording of the law around court orders in the state of Colorado, and whether "arrest was mandatory for violating protective orders."

Unlike the NRA, not even the Scalia court concluded from this case that police have "no duty to protect" citizens.

So what else you got, or is that it?

[Statistical]

93. Read Warren v. DC

The Supreme Court has concluded the Police have no duty to protect individuals going back over 150 years.

You are arguing settled law out of you ass and looking silly trying to do so.

[Bragi]

97. Warren vs DC is a DC court ruling, not SC

Looks like a very bad 4-3 split ruling by the DC court that was never appealed to the SC.

[Statistical]

103. Just google "no duty to protect"

you will find 30-40 cases indicating the exact same thing (including one in 2005 by Supreme Court). You can read them all on your own.

This also goes beyond just Police. The government in general has no duty or obligation to protection you. If they fail to do so there is no resource.

A state or county agency does not have an obligation under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to prevent child abuse when the child is 1) in parental, not agency custody, and 2) the state did not create the danger of abuse or increase the child's vulnerability to abuse. Failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1980)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

Maybe that scares you (gun owners scare you too) but that is the reality.

No matter how long you look you will never find a court case indicating the Police DO have a duty to protect an individual, or that the government can be held liable for falling to protect an individual.

The only persons who the state has a duty to protect are those in custody because they have been denied means to protect themselves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. Then show us an SC ruling that *does* declare a "duty to protect".

[X_Digger]

120. Since at least 1969.. No Duty to Protect..

Riss v. City of New York - "The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular."
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) - "The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) - "Furthermore, they ruled that the DSS could not be found liable, as a matter of constitutional law, for failure to protect Joshua DeShaney from a private actor. Although there exist conditions in which the state (or a subsidiary agency, like a county department of social services) is obligated to provide protection against private actors, and failure to do so is a violation of 14th Amendment rights, the court reasoned “The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf… it is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf – through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty – which is the “deprivation of liberty” triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.” Since Joshua DeShaney was not in the custody of the DSS, the DSS was not required to protect him from harm. In reaching this conclusion, the court opinion relied heavily on its precedents in Estelle v. Gamble and Youngberg v. Romeo."
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

[X_Digger]

150. *bump* .. care to respond? n/t

[pipoman]

133. You're kidding right?

Apparently never waited on a police response when it wasn't even life threatening, huh? I have and 5 minutes is more than enough time to destroy a life and flee.

[Ochsfan]

37. It's all fantasy

They lust after a situation that lets them play "sheriff". They carry the gun in the hope that it leads to them being labeled a "hero" for drawing quick and shooting down the bad guy. The gun is just an extension of an already over-inflated ego. Never mind that the most likely outcome would be a panic state leading to shooting an innocent bystander.

A guy walks into a Detroit police station last week and squeezes off, what, four rounds before the COPS can respond? And these people think they can do better than that? And now they want the law changed so they can play Wyatt Earp at the day care center? Unbelievable!

[Bragi]

43. There are gender factors that support your view

Guns are a "man" thing, which is odd, given that carrying a gun is really a sign of fearfulness, not bravery.

There was a good article on this posted here last week that I read but failed to bookmark.

(If anyone has the url, please repost.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. So, how do you explain women gun owners?

[KansasVoter]

50. So true, a lot of them HOPE they have a chance to use all the money they spend.

[PavePusher]

106. Evidence, as asked for:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[Statistical]

5. Why is the article attacking/insulting cops?

"Why are a minority of people afraid to leave their homes without being armed? Why is this minority so gripped with fear that they feel they must be equipped with lethal weapons whenever they go to malls, schools, restaurants, etc?"

[dmallind]

8. This consistent projection/transference of you fears onto CCW folks is a bit repetitive. NT

[Bragi]

9. I live a fear-free, gun-free life, like most people

As a compassionate person, I just want gun owners to understand that they can go about their daily business like everyone else, without having to carry around lethal weapons so they can threaten or harm people wherever they go. I hope that someday they can live their lives like everyone else -- unarmed and unafraid.

[Statistical]

12. Of course they "can" they chose not to.

People "can" choose to do a lot of things. As long as it is a choice that is great.

Your goal isn't to show people they "can" do something you want to control other people's actions. No different than the so called "pro life" argument. Nobody is pro abortion, they are pro-choice. People should have the choice to live their lives.

You say you aren't afraid but continually display fear of law abiding gun owners. In FL for example tens of millions of CCW permits have been issued but less than 0.2% have been revoked due to a crime (any crime).

[Bragi]

16. Yes, people can "choose to do a lot of things"

However, we should help people avoid irrational choices. One choice that is totally irrational is to choose to go through life thinking that your personal safety requires that you always have a lethal weapon at hand so you can threaten or harm someone else.

I'm a compassionate person, and want to reach out to help such people understand that they can choose to live their lives like most other people in their community -- unarmed and unafraid.

[Statistical]

18. You claim it is irrational but haven't proven it.

Violent crime is relatively rare but it does happen. Firearms are an effective method of self defense.

Statistically speaking you could never wear your seatbelt your entire life and it wouldn't really be that large of a risk. Do you also consider wearing a seatbelt to be a "irrational" choice?

You deciding what is irrational is simply unacceptable. Pro-life people would say abortion is an irrational choice? Should abortion be prohibited because some people consider it irrational. Bigoted people would say interracial or same sex marriage are irrational choices? Should their beliefs carry weight?

"your personal safety requires that you always have a lethal weapon at hand so you can threaten or harm someone else."
Another falsehood. The overwhelming majority (99.8%+) of CCW holders never threaten someone else. If a firearm is used lawfully in self defense I wouldn't (and neither would the law) consider it threatening or harming someone.

[Bragi]

23. hah!

You wrote: If a firearm is used lawfully in self defense I wouldn't (and neither would the law) consider it threatening or harming someone.

Good one!

So you can blow someone's head off, but that wouldn't be considered "harming someone?"

What if you kill bystanders totally by accident? Still no harm done?

[Statistical]

28. I don't really give a shit if violent criminals are "harmed" during the commission of a crime.

I honestly don't.

As far as bystanders if it was negligent then that would be a crime thus it wouldn't be lawful. Civilians using firearms in self defense shoot the wrong person less often then the Police. Are you calling for Police to be disarmed because they are "irrational" also?

I have never hurt anyone with my firearm but I have defended myself. You will never convince me I need to give up that right because you are afraid of what I might do.

Self Defense is a human right. The state has no duty to protect you.

[Bragi]

38. Really?

What if you find out after you kill someone that they really weren't dangerous or likely to do you any harm anyway? You'd be fine with that?

[Statistical]

40. No problem.

If someone breaks into my home for example it isn't my job to determine how much of a threat they are. Same thing with a robbery, or car jacking, or assault or any other violent crime where self defense is applicable.

If they commit a violent crime I have a RIGHT to defend myself. If they are "harmed" as a result that is a consequence of their action.

If you don't want to get "harmed" don't commit violent crimes. Maybe the robber/burglar/etc wouldn't harm me, maybe he would. I am not going to wait and find out.

[Bragi]

47. Any you are qualified to judge threat level?

So if your neighbor gets drunk and accidentally enters your home in the middle of the night, and you shoot and kill them with the haste and ease you claim, you'd be comfortable with your action?

What if it was teens trying to do some low-level burglary? You'd feel fine killing them?

[Statistical]

52. Yeah.

A home invasion is a dangerous situation. A homeowner shouldn't be required to place him or herself at greater risk to determine the exact level of threat. Many states have adopted "Castle Doctrine" laws which generally speaking place a presumption that someone intends harm if they break into a residence.

If you don't want to get shot I strongly recommend not breaking into people's homes. Pretty simply solution.

Lastly you confuse act with intent. The intent of using a firearm self defensively is to stop the threat. Most people survive being shot. Firearms, especially low powered handguns aren't the instant kill machines we see on TV/movies. The intent when deploying lethal force is to stop the threat.

If they run away that is great.
If they are incapacitated until Police/Ambulance arrives that is great to.
If they die from their wounds that wasn't the intent however it is a potential consequence of being a violent criminal.

[michreject]

75. Absolutely

When things go bump in the night, I'm not playing 20 questions. Later is when the police will get involved, along with the coroner.

[beevul]

137. More qualified than YOU are to judge "fear level". N/T

[WinkyDink]

59. In point of fact, it is EXACTLY your "job" to so determine, lest YOU be arrested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

[Statistical]

64. Did you read/understand what you linked to?

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:
* An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
* The intruder must be acting illegally—e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to attack officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
* The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
* The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

The exact language varies from state to state but all that is required is a reasonable belief. There is no "job/duty" to determine if that belief is accurate. Now obviously there are some limits. If someone tells a cop they didn't belief the person intended them harm but killed him because he was tresspassing well that would exclude castle doctrine. Likewise if a homeowner knew the persons "breaking in" had a reasonable reason for being there and shot them anyways that would exclude CD.

If someone breaks into my home and I reasonably believe they are a threat I can use lethal force to stop that threat. If it later turns out they weren't that can't be held against me.

[WinkyDink]

65. Yes; it shows that only 3/5 of the states have any "Castle Laws." It shows that, for many, a

reasonable expectation of harm is required.

My state, e.g., has no such "Castle Law." And PA has quite its share of hunters and other gun-owners.

[Statistical]

68. That is the one thing I agree with.

1) Gun laws vary significantly from state to state.
2) Gunowners need to be responsible to know the laws in their state (and any state they visit).

[PavePusher]

108. How many of these folks were "irrational"?

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[RSillsbee]

121. I've been in at least one situation (outside of the military)

in which my personal safety didrequire me to have a lethal weapon at hand.

Should I have left it home that day and hopped the mugger was in a charitable mood?

[The Straight Story]

22. " so they can threaten or harm people wherever they go." talk about fear....

Why are you afraid of people with guns and think they are going to harm you? Are you afraid people with cars will just up and run you over in a parking lot?

[Bragi]

29. Cars have a purpose beyond harming other people

It's amazing that the pro-gun people seem to be reluctant to acknowledge that guns are rather unique devices in that they are designed for only one purpose, and that purpose isn't transportation.

[Statistical]

30. Firearms are designed to project force.

Harm isn't a requirement for effective use.
Over 99% of self defense firearm uses involve no harm to others, not even harm to criminals.

One can project force without pulling the trigger. Cops carry firearms are they just walking around looking for someone to harm?

[pipoman]

32. Tell it to these people

US Olympic Shooting Team

[Bragi]

62. To be clear

I have no objection to guns used for hunting, precision shooting, etc.

I do object to scared people carrying lethal weapons wherever they go ostensibly to threaten or harm other people who may frighten them.

These are the people I'd like to see overcome their fear and learn to live like most people in society -- unafraid and unarmed.

[pipoman]

71. Yet you want to

repeat the tired mantra of guns only having one purpose...which is demonstrably false.

Further, ignoring the fact that concealed carry laws, now in 46 states, have simply not resulted in people being threatened or harmed, doesn't make your case any stronger.

[Bragi]

73. That's why I clarified my view

As a means of self-protection, guns have but one purpose for the carrier -- to threaten and kill people they fear. Pretty clear statement, yes?

That's why I want gun carriers to look into their hearts, and to acknowledge that they are frightened, and to learn to live like most other people -- unarmed and unafraid.

We can do it!

[pipoman]

76. That's easy to say

if you are lucky enough to live in a nice, safe environment. Not everyone has that luxury. Also to claim, "to threaten and kill people they fear", is silly. Actually the statement could be made true, 'to threaten and kill people who are threatening themselves or others with death or serious bodily harm', in this context, how is this wrong? Would you prefer they not be able to defend themselves against people who are committing an act of violence against them?

[Straw Man]

119. Clear, but wrong.

As a means of self-protection, guns have but one purpose for the carrier -- to threaten and kill people they fear. Pretty clear statement, yes?

Absolutely incorrect. Here's the amended version:

As a means of self-protection, guns have but one purpose for the carrier -- to threaten and kill people they fear to prevent an assailant from continuing a violent assault.

It absolutely doesn't matter if the assailant feels threatened. It absolutely doesn't matter if the assailant is alive or dead. All that matters is that the assault has been halted and the victim is safe from further harm.

I see your meme now has a mantra--"unarmed and unafraid." Cute, but made of straw.

[PavePusher]

139. So, will that stop a criminal from harming me or taking my property? n/t

[krispos42]

148. Yup.

And if the fear is legitimate and reasonable, then the purpose is good and just.

[rrneck]

107. So what solution do you offer

for self defense that is better than a gun?

[beevul]

136. So what?

You keep saying that as if it means anything.

It doesn't.

[oneshooter]

35. Of course you live in Canada where the Government has given you no choice in this matter.

Here in the US we have a choice. If you do not wish to posses a firearm, then that is your choice. If you wish to carry concealed, and pass the required background checks and classes then go for it.

The key word here is CHOICE, our form of government gives it to the individual. Yours does not trust its subjects enough to allow a choice.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Bragi]

39. We don't seem to be as gripped by fear as you are

But as noted below, I'm concerned about close family members who live in the U.S. and who have neighbors who are so scared of others that they think they need guns wherever they go.

[PavePusher]

112. Since you are obviously not here to provide security for anyone...

and have failed to volunteer to do so, how they chose to make such arrangements is patently none of your business.

[oneshooter]

144. Unlike yourself we citizens of the USA do have a choice....

While the subjects in Canada have none.

See to your own laws.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[krispos42]

147. You do realize that hundreds of thousands of Americans a year...

...are violently assaulted, raped, etc., right?

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. You raise good questions.

But don't expect much in the way of answers.

[Bragi]

11. Sometimes it helps just to pose the right questions

I think we might make some progress in the somewhat stalled discussion of gun culture if everyone started asking gun carriers why they are so scared of everyone else.

[pipoman]

17. Federal law prohibits guns at k-12 schools.

I suspect the schools are colleges and universities.

Just because you live in a nice safe place doesn't mean everyone does.

[DainBramaged]

21. YYYeeeeeeeeeeeeee HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Shoot 'em up cowboys.........


How 'bout if I can bring my pet pig everywere? Why not, the fucking gun rights people think that the boogie mans is gonna get them everywhere......my pet pig can be their friend.....

[TheCowsCameHome]

24. You owe me a keyboard........

Aw, Jeez:rofl: what a mess........

[RegieRocker]

27. I'm hungry for some bacon.

[michreject]

31. As a Canadian, how is the MI CPL law affecting you?

You do realize that MI is in another country, don't you?

[Bragi]

36. Thanks for asking

I have close family members in the U.S., and I wish they didn't have to live alongside a small minority of their neighbors who are so gripped by fear that they think they need to be equipped everywhere they go to threaten and shoot others.

I want to reach out and help these people understand that they don't have to give in to their fears, and that they can learn to live happily and safely like most of their neighbors -- unafraid and unarmed.

[michreject]

41. If a CPL holder shoots someone

It's safe to say that person needed shooting.

[COLGATE4]

69. You've got to be kidding. What on earth would lead you to make

such a nonsensical statement??

[michreject]

72. My life is in danger

Seems simple enough to me.

[Statistical]

42. So because you have irrational fears you want to convince other people

who are being proactive in their own defense the problem is with them.

Of course since the overwhelming majority of crime is the result of career criminals (repeat offenders) this wouldn't actually do anything to make anyone safer.

It would merely sooth your irrational fears.

Other people should give up their rights so you can feel better.

[michreject]

45. Addressing this to me?

I have a CPL. I carry a gun every place I go.

I own over 50 guns. I hand load and shoot around 2K rounds a month. I travel around the country and shoot competitively. Believe me, I have no fear of gun owners.

[Statistical]

46. No. Not you. The person who feels the need to deprive other people of their rights. n/t

[WinkyDink]

55. There is no "right" of carrying a concealed gun.

[Statistical]

57. Self Defense is a human right. The state has no duty to protect you.

It is unethical for a state to both indicate it has no duty to protect you and then deprive you of the methods and CHOICE for an effective self defense.

[WinkyDink]

60. You're having a tough time staying on topic, aren't you?

[Statistical]

61. No. Self defense is a human right. Firearms are an effective means of self defense.

[WinkyDink]

63. Examples of when concealed-gun carriers fended off a criminal?

NOT people in their homes; guns in a private domicile are perforce not considered "concealed," a description applied to a gun carried out of view in a public area/venue.

[Statistical]

67. Here

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

Roughly 100K to 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.

Now a relatively small % of population carries firearms away from the home thus it is circular logic to say.

Only a small number of people use firearms defensively away from the home therefore we need to ban/restrict the people who carry firearms thus that will make the number of people who use firearms defensively away from home small.

80% of violent crime occurs outside the home. If there is use for firearms defensively in the home (where 20% of violent crime occurs), then there is use for firearms away from the home (where the other 80% occurs).

[PavePusher]

113. As asked for:

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[X_Digger]

123. Here are three..

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/16/ap/national/main7157952.shtml

As they were trying to tie up the store owner, he took out a handgun from his waistband and fatally shot one of the suspects, Smith said.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content/top_stories/628167/man-at-atm-fires-back-at-would-be-armed-robber

According to police, the man was attempting to use a Cash Points ATM on Eastway Drive at North Tryon Street around 11 p.m. A suspect seemingly saw that as an opportunity and tried to rob the victim at gunpoint.

However, that victim was also armed. He shot the suspect twice in the leg.

http://www.wxix.com/Global/story.asp?S=12299813

CINCINNATI, OH (FOX19) - Cincinnati Police are investigating a shooting where it appears a robber left the scene with the victim's cell-phone in his hand, and a slug from the victim's gun in his lower abdomen.

Police say the robber ran into someone with a concealed-carry permit, and at some point the would-be victim was able to get his gun out and shoot the suspect, who took off running from the shooting scene on Rosemont Avenue south of Glenway in West Price Hill.

[X_Digger]

122. Remember..

It's "keep and bear" -- I prefer to carry concealed, but I'd be okay with open (were it legal in my state).

[beevul]

138. It could be argued that there isn't now.

Then again, we're not through yet taking out the garbage though, either.

[Bragi]

56. Most criminals use guns on other criminals

I think most people go through life without any real risk of assault by career criminals.

I would urge you to abandon your fears and to learn to live like most other people -- unarmed and unafraid.

If other people can overcome their fear of others, so can you!

[Statistical]

58. Well you are right most criminals don't use guns.

A lot do but the majority don't. That being said I have no wish to end up in a physical confrontation with a younger, stronger, more hardened career criminal.

The fact that most criminals are unarmed provides a significant advantage to persons who are armed.

[Obamanaut]

51. I could get behind 'open carry' rather than simply concealed as well. nt

[Fire1]

74. Good luck trying to convince the largest militia group in the

U.S. Membership 10,000 spread across 88 counties.

[Bragi]

80. On the "police have no duty to protect" nonsense

I note that the NRA and the pro-gun crowd here keeps making the case that police have "no duty to proect" apparently relying on several past cases of civil litigation where people lost lawsuits against police for failure to provide protection they felt was "guaranteed".

There is big difference, however, between courts ruling that police cannot be expected to "guarantee" safety, and the bogus talking point that police therefore have "no duty to protect" or do what is reasonable to protect citizens.

This is much the same as, say, cleaning sidewalks after an ice storm.

Civic authorities have a duty to do what is reasonable to protect people from risk of falling on icy sidewalks, but they do not have an unlimited responsibility to do so, nor can they "guarantee" that sidewalks will never get icy.

Similarly, police are there to serve and protect citizens. They can't "guarantee" protection, but they have a responsibility to do what is reasonable to protect people.

Despite the misleading rhetoric from the gun lobby, this does not mean police have "no duty to protect" citizens.

If this wasn't the case, then the common police service slogan "To serve and protect" wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Anyway, I wish gun carriers would drop the fake talking points and address the fear that makes them think they need to have a lethal weapon with them wherever they go so they can frighten or shoot other people who scare them.

[slackmaster]

85. US legal precedent disagrees with Bragi's unfounded claims

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

I can forgive you for being Canadian, but willful ignorance is a sin.

[Statistical]

86. It isn't nonsense. The Police (and govt in general) has absolutely no duty to protect individuals.

The purpose of the Police is to detain suspects and gather evidence. They "protect and serve" society in general by doing that. (Most) people follow the law because they know if they don't they may be arrested. That serves the interest of society. By detaining suspects and gathering evidence to sustain conviction and sentencing society is protected from repeat offenders.

The phrase "no duty to protect" is valid and comes from the multiple case precedents. The Police have absolutely no duty to protect the individual. The bar isn't at a guarantee there is no duty whatsoever (guaranteed or not). You claiming guarantee is a strawman. Nobody has gone to court over no guarantee.

You have no expectation of defense from the Police. Even if you are harmed due to Police misconduct, negligence, or Police intentionally chosing not to respond you have no resourse.

The precedent is strong and unbroken going back to 1858 (South v. Maryland). Maybe it is a scary fact for you but it isn't NRA propaganda it is the rule of law in the United States.

Even in cases where the Police are negligent in their response to investigating crime no duty arises and the unprotected have no claim to damages. Warren v. District of Columbia the women were detained and raped for days because Police dispatcher and Police failed to follow their own procedures and even lied to two of the women that helps was on the way.

I strongly recommend you read Warren v. DC if you think individuals have any expectation of protection from Police:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Even in cases where the Police is already on the scene there is no duty to protect the individual. In Davidson v. City of Westminister the Police were observing a laundromat, they saw the victims being attacked and did not respond. The courts found the victims had no expectation of protection and case was dismissed.

There are thirty or fourty similar Supreme Court cases. In case has a victim ever been found to been owed protection by the government, nor has any damages ever been found due to a failure to protect.

The most recent case was in 2005. Even with a restraining order and the Police having the ability to prevent a crime (murder of children) by responding no duty was found to exist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

[DonP]

130. STOP IT! YOU'RE SCARING THEM!

You're going to scatter the flock.

If these people realize that the police "duty to protect" is not real and has been upheld through generations of SCOTUS, then they may have to actually accept the fact that they have the primary duty to protect themselves.

That obviously, from the tone of some of these posts, rattles their little world view and scares the shit out of them. So they ignore the actual statistics, claiming the NRA has a conspiracy to control the CDC and any independent research firms as well, including the FBI and the UCR, the DoJ are all held under the NRA spell. Wow! What a powerful bunch of guys! Glad my dues are paid for the next 3 years.

They want some amorphous police presence to be an imaginary guaranty of safety so they don't have to think about it for themselves. They are even willing to give up private ownership of all guns for personal defense and make it a true police state to achieve their imaginary utopia.

There seems to be no limit to how many benevolently ill informed Canadians, Australians et. al. are allowed to tell us what our government is doing wrong re: our constitution and how to fix it? How pointlessly "kind" of them to care so deeply.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[RSillsbee]

149. It would seem the gun control reality patrol is out in force to night NT

[pipoman]

88. Maybe we should have a look at police response times, eh?

Even in Tucson it took 15 minutes for the first LEO to get on scene...30 minutes for EMS.

According to the BJS, response times for "crimes of violence" are:

within 5 minutes.....26.6%

6-10 minutes..........32%

11 minutes to 1 hour..29.7%

1 day to longer than 1 day...7.7%

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus06.pdf (table 107)

People die in criminal altercations in less than 5 minutes almost without fail.

The duty of police is only to investigate AFTER a crime is committed.

[PavePusher]

114. How do you propose to ensure...

that a police officer will always be within shouting distance of everyone at all times?

I'm betting you can't...

And yet, you want the Citizens to be dependent on the mercy of a criminal until (or if) the police arrive.

Fail.

[X_Digger]

125. Where is your cite to a case enforcing a duty to protect?

Please, just find me one case where an officer was held criminally or civilly liable for not protecting someone not in custody.

Just one.

I'll wait.

A cop can sit at a donut shop, watching a rape happen on the street, and the most that can happen is he can be fired.

I've cited over 30 cases in other threads. Let's see yours.

*whistles*

*taps foot*

[X_Digger]

132. Another addition..

Google 'Public Duty Doctrine'-

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/public+duty+doctrine

Main Entry: public duty doctrine
Function: noun
: a doctrine in tort law: a government entity (as a state or municipality) cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a public officer's or employee's breach of a duty owed to the public as a whole as distinguished from a duty owed to the particular individual called also public duty rule

[slackmaster]

82. Worn-out amateur mind-reading act is long on drama, short on facts

Why are a minority of people afraid to leave their homes without being armed?

Why are arguments against licensed concealed carry all based on unfounded assumptions that tend to demean those who choose to arm themselves for self-defense?

We have seen over and over baseless claims that they are fearful, or that they intend to use their weapons unlawfully. We see statistics and factoids about how bad the crime is in our country with no acknowledgment that actual crime rates are dropping, and the demonstrably false implication that people who carry weapons lawfully are somehow responsible for crime.

Get real, Bragi. You don't know what's going on in the minds of people who choose to exercise the privilege of acquiring a license to carry a concealed weapon. Your bogus "compassion" can't conceal the prejudice that underlies your bombastic anti self-defense screeds.

Do yourself a favor by taking a self-defense class some time. It doesn't have to involve firearms - Edged weapons or any empty-hand discipline would do fine. A good instructor will teach you what's really going on. Learn what real people are taught about the legal and moral aspects of the use of force.

[Bragi]

87. The data to associate crime rates and guns isn't available

The NRA and the gun lobby actively block any research funding into the impact of guns on public health and on crime rates, so it's all guess work at this point.

See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html

[slackmaster]

90. Paranoid misdirection. The state of Texas keeps detailed statistics you might find interesting.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

[friendly_iconoclast]

118. So does Florida. So your claim of being unable to find data is specious:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[rrneck]

109. Then go find out and get back to us

Until then you got nothing but back handed insults and condescension.

[friendly_iconoclast]

115. Nothing is stopping *privately* funded research. So why has it not happened yet?

[old mark]

89. OP, I carry every time I leave the house, and I have for over 15 years.

I strongly urge you NOT to ever buy a gun since you hate guns and evidently their owners so much. You have the right of free choice, as I do. I am sorry you feel the need to denigrate those whose choice differs from yours. You see, many life long progressives chose to own and carry firearms, and we are not fearful or ignorant.

Simply make yuor choice and respect others enough to allow them to make theirs- this is what real liberals are all about-freedom of thought and choice.


mark

[Bragi]

94. If you aren't afraid of others, why carry a gun?

Presuming you aren't target shooting or hunting, why would you carry a gun with you for alleged self-protection if you are not afraid of other people?

I want to urge all gun carriers to acknowledge and overcome their fears, and to live life like most people do -- unafraid and unarmed.

[Statistical]

95. If you aren't afraid of others why do you care if he carries?

If you aren't afraid of car accidents why do you wear a seatbelt?
If you aren't afraid of a break-in why do you lock your doors?

[slackmaster]

96. I'm not particularly afraid of fire, but I keep fire extinguishers in my kitchen and garage

It's exactly the same thing. To paraphrase the late bail bondsman George "King" Stahlman, it's better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

[Bragi]

98. Failed analogy

Already dealt with.

[slackmaster]

100. You haven't dealt with it at all. Your bias is preventing you from seeing a gun as a defensive tool.

You see it only as a pacifier for the fear that you fantasize, and as a tool of aggression.

Like I said in a previous post, you should take a self-defense class to see what it's really about.

[rrneck]

110. How would you have people

deal with an assault without a weapon?

[DainBramaged]

127. they can't, like any addiction, acknowledging a problem is the first step

they all fail that test.

[friendly_iconoclast]

141. Since you insist on repeating this Big Lie, I ask: Cite to evidence, please.

and no, repeating it ad nauseum isn't evidence....

[petronius]

92. I'm more frightened of violent criminals in public places than I am of legal gun carriers

And I'm not really frightened of criminals at all. Logically, therefore, concealed carriers are an even lower concern.

So in a way I agree with you: people who are irrationally scared that some law-abiding person might have a concealed firearm really do deserve our compassion (but until they overcome their unfounded timidity, we should ignore their baseless opinions on public policy)...

[crim son]

99. Well, that's great.

The more deadly weapons, the merrier.

[Bragi]

101. Off to the pro-gun DU ghetto we are!

See y'all another time...

[slackmaster]

102. Drizzle, drazzle, drozzle, drome...

...Time for this one to come home.

[pipoman]

111. Yep, the home of actual

facts and reality, not merely feelings and fear.

If you aren't afraid of facts, why do you run away?

[PavePusher]

104. I guess all these people should have offered tea and crumpets to their attackers?

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

[Katya Mullethov]

124. I told you this was going to happen

A LOT . And it will undoubtedly suck .

[beevul]

134. Why why why.

"Why are a minority of people afraid to leave their homes without being armed?"

Why is an even smaller minority of people against a group that is more "law abiding" than law enforcement itself?

"Why is this minority so gripped with fear that they feel they must be equipped with lethal weapons whenever they go to malls, schools, restaurants, etc?"

Why are they afraid of not beating their dog.

"Why can't these frightened people be helped so they can live their lives like most people in society -- unarmed and unafraid?"

Why can't these people be helped so they can live their lives like most people in society -- unafraid of guns?


"I think there needs to be a public outreach campaign to help the frightened and fearful minority who think they must be able to threaten and shoot other people with lethal weapons just to feel safe."

I think there needs to be a public outreach campaign to help the frightened and fearful minority who think they must be able to dictate unto others just to feel safe.

"It's time for the majority to reach out with compassion, and to ask their armed friends and neighbors to overcome their fear of others, and to start living a gun-free life, just like most people do."

It's time for the majority to reach out with compassion, and to ask their armed friends and neighbors to help to overcome the ignorant fears of others.

80 million+ people own guns. "Most people" do not live a gun free life.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[cleanhippie]

142. There you go again, with your false assumptions and ignorance on the subject.

But hey, keep typing. Why stop now.

[aikoaiko]

145. Why do you fear the lawful carrying of firearms?

[krispos42]

146. So you walk around dark parking lots and bad neighborhoods without fear?

Ooo, ooo, I have a question... why are you so afraid to drive a car without wearing a seat belt? Why do you feel you must be strapped in with restraints wherever you drive? Why can't you frightened person be helped so you can live your life like most people in society - unbelted and unafraid?

After all, what's the worst than can happen?