Revisiting "Just My Opinion"

[flamin lib]

In this OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x391984#39 I was accused of using false information and spinning the presentation. First, the OP is my opinion based on my personal experience so there really isn’t anything to debate. Opinions are like noses; everybody has one and lots of people aren’t interested in anyone else’s, particularly mine.

I didn’t respond to the criticisms there because I specifically said that wasn’t the purpose of the post. I will respond here.
“where is there any evidence of concealed carriers getting killed or seriously injured?” Nowhere in the post did I assert this.

“ 'a small number actually live or work in places that make self defense a real possibility,' In Texas alone over 400K citizens have gotten their Concealed Handgun License. Nationally the best estimates are about eight million citizens with CCWs.” Okay, how many of those people actually live or work in places that present a significant risk of attack? Of the dozen or more people that I know who carry (licensed or not) two have genuine concerns for their safety: a bar manager who closes at 2:00 AM and makes a night deposit and a night clerk at a convenience store. Ironically the clerk doesn’t carry at work because company policy is “no guns on property” and “surrender all cash and valuables to any thief” and the manager has made arrangements with the local police to cover him so his need for carry is considerably diminished. YMMV

“ 'The assailant will always have the advantage because they are prepared and no amount of situational awareness can offset that.' Anybody who would say something like that is completely unaware of proper tactics. The element of surprise can be taken away from the criminal before he strikes so that he attacks into a prepared defense.” I can’t believe that anyone would question the cumulative knowledge of military strategists dating back to Sun Su. The element of surprise is always an advantage and can’t be offset by awareness of surroundings. The best defense against surprise is overwhelming strength of defensive preparation. I didn’t say situational awareness was pointless, only that the prepared assailant who has predetermined a target and planned the time and place of an attack will have an advantage over the target. To think otherwise is other than wise.

“Let's contemplate why having guns should be elevated to a constitutional right, shall we?” This is beyond debate because it is settled law. Even if it weren’t it would not be germane to the purpose of the OP.

One other post questioned my thoughts on self defense. The OP did not assert that self defense wasn’t possible, only more difficult than most who have not been exposed to such situations might expect.

For the most part it seems to me that my critics are straining to find something to disagree with, or as my Mother said, “Scarin’ up snakes just to kill ‘em.” Perhaps I’m wrong and there was a genuine misunderstanding because my presentation was less than perfect. If the latter, I apologize. If the former, perhaps some denizens of the Gungeon come to the discussion board with a predetermined penchant for aggression.

Anyway, thanks for participating.

[Straw Man]

1. "Not a request for debate" is inherently bad faith.

What's the point of a forum if dissent or disagreement is disallowed from the beginning? No one has the right to post opinions unchallenged. If that's what you want to do, start your own forum and ban all dissenters.

[flamin lib]

2. Au contrair! The item open for debate was should those who

have knowledge and experience in firearms take the lead in defining the issues of gun violence and finding policy positions to remedy them. That is a worthy debate to have, not whether it is relevant to pic nits over "clips" vs "magazines". That was the debate asked for, not whether my personal experience is sufficient to support my personal opinions.

As was pointed out in the OP and down discussion big events result in big cries for change yet for every one casualty at Columbine/Virginia Tech/Tucson there are hundreds of other casualties. Why let the outrage overcome reality? At what point does the pro ownership community become proactive in defining and finding solutions for gun violence?

Alas, it seems the Gungeon is more apt to revert to talking points and picking at nits.

It's a sad thing . . .

[X_Digger]

3. Then why include the extra crap if not to intentionally antagonize?

Your last sentence in that OP could have been the whole post and you would have gotten a lot more productive discussion. But no, you had to poison the well ahead of time.

[flamin lib]

4. That part was to explain to the non-gun owners why we really own

and enjoy firearms. Some individual circumstances are easy: collector, clear need for self defense etc. Some aren't and frankly shouldn't be an issue. Is there a huge debate over the constitutional right to collect Hummel figurines? Admit it, for some people guns are fun and enjoyable to shoot and that's about the end of it. I think that once we stop trying to justify that simple fact and once those who honestly want an end to gun violence also recognize it we can move on to real discussion of basic issues and solutions.

I do not entertain the wildest hope that the two extremes will ever take meaningful part in that discussion; it's far too easy for them to make snarky comments or set up straw men/red herrings and find other ways to close the discussion. I do hope that someday those who know guns, embrace responsibility and enjoy their ownership for whatever reason will engage in real dialog on policy.

I didn't poison the well, just invited everyone to drink the water instead of critiquing it's construction.

BTW, glad the knife fight worked out in your favor . . .

[X_Digger]

5. Who's this 'we', Kemosabe?

Who appointed you spokesperson for all gun owners?

[flamin lib]

8. The same guy that appointed everybody who posts here.

Seems to me every RKBAer wants to speak for all. I cited reasons for owning guns and for carrying. I then told the truth for most of the gun owners I know. It's my opinion based on my real life experience and if it displeases you I suggest the ignore feature.

[X_Digger]

9. A qualification next time would help..

ie, 'the gun owners I know think..' etc.

[flamin lib]

10. C'mon, digger.

Of the responses to either "opinion" post you were the only one to actually address, though briefly, the point of who should define issues and solutions. That in itself is a sad statement, but then we, I mean "we" by you and me, run off down this rabbit hole.

Who am I supposed to base my knowledge on? People I don't know? Doesn't it go without saying that opinion based posts are based on such things?

We don't have to be at odds. I read your stuff. Some of it I like, some not so much.

[X_Digger]

12. Basing a discussion on opinion rather than fact isn't very fruitful.

Basing one on opinion presented as fact is even less so.

I try to be careful to qualify my opinion when presented alongside fact to avoid just such a situation.

[flamin lib]

13. *Sigh* nt

[pipoman]

20. The problem is those who have no experience and knowledge

of firearms invariably propose legislative action which is demonstrably, completely ineffectual or redundant.

Wanna talk talking points? How about assault weapons, 30 round clips, 'a guns only use is to kill', killing machines, registration, and the list goes on...

The "pro ownership group" repeatedly suggest solutions which would reduce gun violence. They fall on deaf ears. Those who wish for firearms restrictions are just as vocal as the rest of us on other forums about funding health care in this country yet blow off cries for increased access for all to mental health services and addiction treatment as not reasonable suggestions for reducing gun violence. They act as if the laws on the books are being enforced even when faced with evidence they are not. Refuse to call for stronger sentencing for offenders who use guns. I have yet to see a gun controller on the DU Guns forum agree that these things are at the root of the overall crime problem in the US, and would do more to actually reduce crime than mag capacity or cosmetic regulation.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. Counter-responses

Okay, how many of those people actually live or work in places that present a significant risk of attack?
That is for the individual to decide, not for you. You are trying to go back to the old standard of proving a need for a CCW before being able to get one. The entire idea of shall-issue was to get rid of that arbitary bar. Even people in so-called safe places can still be a victim of violent crime. I carry any time I am out in public, everywhere I go.

I can’t believe that anyone would question the cumulative knowledge of military strategists dating back to Sun Su. The element of surprise is always an advantage and can’t be offset by awareness of surroundings. The best defense against surprise is overwhelming strength of defensive preparation. I didn’t say situational awareness was pointless, only that the prepared assailant who has predetermined a target and planned the time and place of an attack will have an advantage over the target. To think otherwise is other than wise.
There are certain things that a criminal will almost always do that will alert the observant person that they are being targeted. Usually they will attempt to isolate their victim. They prefer to make their attack when the victim is away from other people. They will try to get close to the victim before launching the attack. Good situation awareness will alert you to when someone is trying to isolate you. In the approach phase of the attack, before they get close you can loudly tell them, "Stay Away". At the same time I discreetly slip my hand into my pocket and grasp the gun. I DO NOT DRAW IT -YET. I am now prepared. The criminal will attempt to tell me some reason why he needs to come up to me and talk to me. "No. Stay away. If you come closer I will believe that you mean me harm and I will defend myself."

That scenario is for situation that look threatening. Obviously one would not do that in a crowed mall. It would be more appropriate to an isolated spot in a partking lot.

There are many good books on self-defense tactics. I can reccomment some. Also some good website on self-defense. BTW - I am a retired private investigator.

[flamin lib]

7. Okay, so it's all about denigrating the post, not responding to the base question?

It always comes down to that here. Let's talk about all this other stuff so we don't have to actually think about the point being made.

Responses? Item one is based on my experience and I gave examples. Item two, see Tucson.

[GreenStormCloud]

11. No. It is about correcting your errors.

In Texas alone over 400K people have decided that they need to carry a gun. It is for them to decide what they need, not you.

Tucson was a mass shooter, not a mugger or robber. Further, there was no armed citizen IMMEDIATELY present. The only armed citizen around was inside the store. I can easily post loads of stories from the media of armed citizens successfully defending themselves and several of armed citizens stopping a mass shooting.

[flamin lib]

15. 400k people decided they want to carry. Some lesser number

may need to carry. I have no quibble with want vs need as it applies to getting a license. I just see the difference. To assume that because 400k people decided to become licensed means that they are all in imminent danger of attack is just not very good reasoning.

Your personal need vs want isn't my concern.

Surprise is an advantage. If there are as many opportunities to analyze the behavior of all those around you as you've described and you're still there, well, just well.

I'm tired of chasing little red fish, G'nite.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Who gave you authority to judge another person's need?

Does a threat have to imminent to be prepared for it? If I wait until danger of attacki is imminent before I realize I need to be armed then I have waited too late. Then the danger will be on me and the gun will be in a gun store, unpurchased. Instead I carry because my crystal ball is not able to tell me if I am in imminent danger.

Analyzing others behavior is pretty easy. If I am in a crowd, relax. If I am alone, take notice of those who may be trying to approach me. Also avoid ambush sites, such a blind corners, stuff like that.

BTW - Military history is filled with examples of attackers who thought they were surprising the defenders but instead were actually attacking into the face of alert, prepared defenders.

Here is a good web site about real-world self-defense. The page is "Who is going to rob you?" http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbers.htm

[flamin lib]

26. The same one who gave you the authority to say they carry because

they *need* to instead of *want* to.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. I leave it for each person to judge their own needs in accordance with the law.

All of those people decided they that for whatever reasons, they needed a CHL badly enough to go through the process of geting one. I do not claim to be an authority on other folks' needs. That is your territory.

[Common Sense Party]

21. Hundreds of millions carry auto insurance.

Do they all need it?

Very few of them "are in imminent danger" of getting in a crash.

How many people should actually carry insurance, in your opinion?

[flamin lib]

27. How many would buy insurance if they weren't required to? How many choose

NOT to carry guns? You are mis-construing my posts. I don't give a rats ass who carries or why. It's not a question of *should* and I never once, in this post or any other passed judgment on what someone *should* do.

You're lookin' foe a fight just like damn near every other echo chamber enthusiast here.

[GreenStormCloud]

28. You have set yourself up a judge on other people's needs.

That is the same as questioning their "shoulds". Obviously you do care who carries and who doesn't or you would not be accusing most CCW holders of carrying with a need to.

[Common Sense Party]

31. Anybody with half a brain would still get the insurance--to make sure

they don't suffer catastrophic losses.

OK, you want something non-mandatory? Term life insurance. Millions buy term life insurance, and there is NO law that says they have to. Why would they do so? Very few of them will ever die during the term, but they buy it for the peace of mind, and to make sure their family members aren't financially devastated if the insured dies.

It's the same reason why people choose to carry. They hope they never have to use it. They probably never will. But they get the peace of mind knowing that IF they need to use the weapon, they have it and they know how to use it.

I am not looking for a fight. It's called a discussion. This IS a discussion board. You seem to want to post your opinion but you don't seem to want anyone to comment on your opinion. I'm not sure why that is.

[DWC]

14. Appears you are ready for an open exchange of ideas

To your original post, I responded "Thanks for expressing your opinion openly and honestly. I will respect your request for no debate at this time and will contemplate your points and assumptions. When you are ready for an open exchange of ideas on this topic, just let us know."

I hold a degree in psychology and have just entered my 5th decade in the security electronics industry. My opinions are also based on my life experiences.

First, IMO, your statement "a small number actually live or work in places that make self defense a real possibility" is beyond naive. IMO, the only reasonably safe public places are secured court rooms and sections of airport terminals.

Second, IMO your statement "The assailant will always have the advantage because they are prepared and no amount of situational awareness can offset that." shows a serious lack of understanding the profile of a low echelon criminal. Though still considered predators, they generally share a great deal more in common with scavengers like jackals than lions. They do not plan but are opportunists and seek defenseless prey. They will break off the attack at the first sign of viable resistance.

Third, IMO your statement " self defense ... (is) more difficult than most who have not been exposed to such situations might expect." is 100% accurate. Training in situation awareness, situation avoidance, and self-defense in all forms is critical to success.

I personally hold the ability and willingness to defend myself with all available methods and tools up to and including firearms is not only my right, it is my responsibility.

Semper Fi,

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Well said. N/T

[DWC]

30. Flamin Lib, From your silence

may I assume you agree with my opinions?

Semper Fi,

[PavePusher]

17. Surprise is an advantage, but not always, or even commonly, the deciding one. n/t

[rrneck]

19. I'm not too sure where you're going here

but I don't think it matters.

If somebody feels like they may have to defend themselves they should be able to get a gun. You pays your money and you takes your chances. All this prognosticating about who really needs a gun is a waste of time. And is certainly a waste of political capital. The vast majority of people who own and/or carry them will never need them. I think that's good.

For my part it's really simple: If I can't help you if and when you get attacked I don't have any business telling you how to handle it. If it's none of my business it's none of the government's business. Of course if you fuck up and do it wrong for the wrong reasons, well then it becomes government's business. And mine. Like I said, you pays your money and you takes your chances.

All this controversy is about a small sliver of time out of the lives of a small sliver of the population. We can't say exactly who. We can't say exactly when. We simply can't control it by trying to legislate the particulars of the event or the equipment used to deal with it. The best we can hope for is to allow people access to equipment generally appropriate to the task and educate them as much as possible in its use.

The truth is that the existing gun laws in this country are about as close as we can get to that ideal. The problem is that too many people are making too much money by stirring up shit about it. But that's a red ass rant for another time.

[Common Sense Party]

22. "I'm not too sure where you're going here"

I'm not too sure the OP is sure, either.

[Union Scribe]

23. Oh, okay, all we need to do is make "arrangements with the local police"

What arrangements are those, btw? That if someone mugs you you call 911? That's the arrangement the rest of us have, and it isn't terribly comforting in my part of the country.

[benEzra]

24. Thoughts on the self-defense aspect...

Some of the criticism of your statements on self-defense may stem from the fact that your first scenario is exceedingly unlikely, and the second is a bit of a straw man.

Self defense? At 20 feet an assailant with a knife can reach you in 1.5 seconds. Reaction time of college freshmen expecting a stimulus is .2 seconds, twice that if not anticipating it. That leaves 1.1 seconds to draw, unsafe, aim and fire. The assailant will always have the advantage because they are prepared and no amount of situational awareness can offset that.

Some fallacies here are:

(1) You are postulating an attacker with a knife in his hand 20 feet away who has already begun a lethal lunge by the time you notice him, when in fact that is an exceedingly unlikely scenario;

(2) you are assuming that the response to this far-out scenario from the armed victim would be to stand still and try to speed-draw and drop the attacker on the way in;

(3) there seems to be an underlying implication that the victim would be better off unarmed, when in the scenario you describe an unarmed victim is a lot worse off.

First and foremost, most lethal assaults and other forcible felonies do not open with the attacker running at you like a berserker from 20 feet away trying to kill you. Most involve some warning (your abusive ex is trying to kick in your door, deliberate correlation of strangers' movements with your own, or whatever). Even many murders open with a "just comply and you'll be all right" approach to try to make the victim initially passive. Berserker charges would be really tough for anyone to deal with, but they aren't the likely threat.

Second, the whole point of the Teuller drill is to (a) eliminate complacency and (b) demonstrate why simply standing still is a bad idea. The key response to your imaginary berserker charge is to get off the fricking X while drawing (run to the side, diagonally forward, circle, whatever), try to position yourself on the opposite side of an obstacle from your attacker, etc., but open the distance. Fend with the non-drawing arm if you have to, to give you a chance to fight back. You may get cut, but in most knife assaults, it is not the first couple of cuts that are fatal, it is the last couple, and at least a weapon gives the hypothetical victim a fighting chance to stop the attack.

Finally, if some blade-wielding nut is 20 feet away running at you with the intend of killing you, being unarmed doesn't help you. Having a weapon doesn't offer magic protection, but not having a weapon in your scenario would really, really suck.

Have a gun in your car for protection? What if that “will work for food” guy suddenly sticks a gun in your face through the window and carjacks you? Opening the glove box, console or reaching under the seat is pretty much out of the question so now the guy has your car and a second gun. It might be possible to defend someone else if you aren’t the target, but SELF defense is exceedingly difficult.

This is a straw-man scenario. If you are in your car in the situation you describe, you are in the weapon, as you undoubtedly know. A firearm in the car is generally there to transfer to one's person at the destination, or for contingencies that involve the car being disabled. NC's CHL reform was spurred in part by a state legislator who wanted to keep a firearm in his car during long, late-night road trips, and became frustrated trying to navigate NC's byzantine car-carry regulations.

For someone who does want to keep a firearm in case of carjacking (or for women, attempted abduction, which is always the more serious scenario), the place for that firearm is on one's person with a CHL, not buried somewhere in the car, for ease of access and for retention purposes if you have to bail. But again, the firearm is merely a last-ditch backup in case the primary weapon---the vehicle---cannot be employed to escape or counterattack.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Outstanding and well resoned response. N/T

[spin]

29. I remember a fellow shooter who had an attempted car jacking ...

He was sitting at a traffic light late one night when an individual came up to his car, placed a gun against his head through the open window and demanded he get out of the car.

My friend, who has a concealed weapons permit and always carries, made sure no cars were coming through the light. he then floored his car and yelled, "Fuck you!". He crossed the intersection and drove off leaving the carjacker standing in the middle of the street looking foolish.

[Common Sense Party]

33. Get Off the Fricking X

Wasn't that a song by ZZ Top?