Author Topic: Please sign petition for Target to stop allowing open carry policy in its stores  (Read 101952 times)

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
The same people/political party who support gun rights the most are the same ones who want nothing to do with any type of national healthcare. They couldn't care less about the mentally ill. Or the physically ill for that matter.

This same political party also had a hand in keeping the ATF without a director for something like 7 years. Doesn't seem like gun rights supporters really want existing laws enforced.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 11:57:44 AM by thefinancialstudent »

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
The same people/political party who support gun rights the most are the same ones who want nothing to do with any type of national healthcare. They couldn't care less about the mentally ill. Or the physically ill for that matter.

This same political party also had a hand in keeping the ATF without a director for something like 7 years. Doesn't seem like gun rights supporters really want existing laws enforced.

Well blindly throwing everyone into the same bucket isn't going to help matters much either. Why not take the suggestion and focus on areas you do agree. It seems that regardless of your stereotyping you have some gun owners here willing to look at current gun law enforcement and greater mental healthcare. You can keep up the us vs. them attitude or see an opportunity for working together when it presents itself.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
The same people/political party who support gun rights the most are the same ones who want nothing to do with any type of national healthcare. They couldn't care less about the mentally ill. Or the physically ill for that matter.

This same political party also had a hand in keeping the ATF without a director for something like 7 years. Doesn't seem like gun rights supporters really want existing laws enforced.

Well blindly throwing everyone into the same bucket isn't going to help matters much either. Why not take the suggestion and focus on areas you do agree. It seems that regardless of your stereotyping you have some gun owners here willing to look at current gun law enforcement and greater mental healthcare. You can keep up the us vs. them attitude or see an opportunity for working together when it presents itself.

Ha!  There's no working together!  Are you kidding?  Any Republican who even considers any modification to any gun law will get primaried by a well-funded challenger backed by the NRA.  And of course they know this.  Pretending that all we need is some compromise is dismissing the reality of the situation. 

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
The same people/political party who support gun rights the most are the same ones who want nothing to do with any type of national healthcare. They couldn't care less about the mentally ill. Or the physically ill for that matter.

This same political party also had a hand in keeping the ATF without a director for something like 7 years. Doesn't seem like gun rights supporters really want existing laws enforced.

Well blindly throwing everyone into the same bucket isn't going to help matters much either. Why not take the suggestion and focus on areas you do agree. It seems that regardless of your stereotyping you have some gun owners here willing to look at current gun law enforcement and greater mental healthcare. You can keep up the us vs. them attitude or see an opportunity for working together when it presents itself.

Ha!  There's no working together!  Are you kidding?  Any Republican who even considers any modification to any gun law will get primaried by a well-funded challenger backed by the NRA.  And of course they know this.  Pretending that all we need is some compromise is dismissing the reality of the situation.

True enough in regards to the political aspects but when the quote is -

The same people/political party who support gun rights the most are the same ones who want nothing to do with any type of national healthcare.

Bolded for emphasis. Painting all people as one or the other just further politicizes the issue rather than any actual attempt to find common ground. I really find it odd to hear that compromise is not the solution given the wide wide gulf between the people who've participated in this thread.

Plus what was just being discussed was areas where they can agree like mental healthcare or enforcing current existing laws, not in fact adding more laws.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 12:51:58 PM by matchewed »

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
This discussion piqued my interest to see just how much of a danger firearms in America really are, how much is reality, and how much is hysteria. Here's what I found for the most recent (2010) finalized data from the CDC:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

•Heart disease: 597,689
•Cancer: 574,743
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
•Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
•Diabetes: 69,071
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Since firearms deaths did not make the list (other than being a smaller subset of "Accidents" and "Suicide" above), I had to dig further to find:

- Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 19,392 (i.e., about half of all suicides)
- Accidental discharge of firearms: 606

As far as the statistics for being murdered by someone else with a gun:

- Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 11,078


Of those 11,078 homicides with a gun, it is safe to say that the very large majority of those were between people up to no good (i.e., gang and drug shootings). Still tragic, but not the headline-grabbing "innocent victim or bystander senselessly murdered on the streets" scenario. Likely only a couple of thousand or less fall into that category.

Even then, the total 11,078 deaths pales in comparison to the other causes of death higher on the list.

For comparison, there were 37,961 deaths due to motor vehicle and transport "accidents", 26,009 falling deaths, and 33,041 accidental poisoning deaths that same year.

Conclusion: If we were taking strictly a "numbers" approach instead of an "outrage" or media exposure approach, wouldn't we be better off focusing our efforts on unhealthy lifestyle choices that cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, etc.? The top four killers on the list (heart disease, cancer, respiratory, stroke) cause 130 times more deaths than firearms, and they can be overwhelmingly attributed to poor health habits (smoking, obesity, inactivity).

Or why isn't there similar talk of banning/regulating cars, ladders, and poisons under the kitchen sink that cause far more deaths than guns? I think it's simply the shock and outrage factor at work, much like a plane accident. Even though the number of motor vehicle deaths dwarfs plane crash deaths, a single plane crash gets headline attention. It's the same thing at work with gun deaths -- the occasional mass shooting causes such shock and outrage, but it pales in comparison numbers-wise to the steady drip, drip, drip of deaths from other causes. And if someone thinks, "But what about the children?!" then let's go after poisoning, falls, car crashes, and drowning.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
This discussion piqued my interest to see just how much of a danger firearms in America really are, how much is reality, and how much is hysteria. Here's what I found for the most recent (2010) finalized data from the CDC:

Number of deaths for leading causes of death

•Heart disease: 597,689
•Cancer: 574,743
•Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
•Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
•Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
•Alzheimer's disease: 83,494
•Diabetes: 69,071
•Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
•Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
•Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364

Since firearms deaths did not make the list (other than being a smaller subset of "Accidents" and "Suicide" above), I had to dig further to find:

- Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 19,392 (i.e., about half of all suicides)
- Accidental discharge of firearms: 606

As far as the statistics for being murdered by someone else with a gun:

- Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 11,078


Of those 11,078 homicides with a gun, it is safe to say that the very large majority of those were between people up to no good (i.e., gang and drug shootings). Still tragic, but not the headline-grabbing "innocent victim or bystander senselessly murdered on the streets" scenario. Likely only a couple of thousand or less fall into that category.

Even then, the total 11,078 deaths pales in comparison to the other causes of death higher on the list.

For comparison, there were 37,961 deaths due to motor vehicle and transport "accidents", 26,009 falling deaths, and 33,041 accidental poisoning deaths that same year.

Conclusion: If we were taking strictly a "numbers" approach instead of an "outrage" or media exposure approach, wouldn't we be better off focusing our efforts on unhealthy lifestyle choices that cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, etc.? The top four killers on the list (heart disease, cancer, respiratory, stroke) cause 130 times more deaths than firearms, and they can be overwhelmingly attributed to poor health habits (smoking, obesity, inactivity).

Or why isn't there similar talk of banning/regulating cars, ladders, and poisons under the kitchen sink that cause far more deaths than guns? I think it's simply the shock and outrage factor at work, much like a plane accident. Even though the number of motor vehicle deaths dwarfs plane crash deaths, a single plane crash gets headline attention. It's the same thing at work with gun deaths -- the occasional mass shooting causes such shock and outrage, but it pales in comparison numbers-wise to the steady drip, drip, drip of deaths from other causes. And if someone thinks, "But what about the children?!" then let's go after poisoning, falls, car crashes, and drowning.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

I tried to point this out earlier.  If the concern is really for the safety of everyone, guns wouldn't be the topic at all.  Second hand smoke is a far bigger killer and cigarettes have absolutely no utility at all.  It's simply an irrational fear of guns and the sensational headlines they create that keeps this topic going. 

Cheddar Stacker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3700
  • Age: 45
  • Location: USA
Good thoughts Doubledown, and thanks for the stats as they certainly provide some light.

I'd be interested in more current stats if anyone has some since these are 3 years stale. I can't recall a time like the present when it seems every other day there's another mass shooting.

There is a lot of talk about all the health issues as well, specifically due to the changing healthcare environment, there's just not as much outrage about it.

I agree we need safer roads and we need to be more cautious with leaving poisonous crap laying around for kids to swallow.

One other thought - many of the causes of death listed will be a result of old age as well. Not too many 7 year olds die of heart disease, and not too many 85 year olds are killed via homicide with a firearm. Point being, an untimely innocent death is much harder to swallow than someone who's lived a long life and who's body/mind has given up.

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
Good thoughts Doubledown, and thanks for the stats as they certainly provide some light.

I'd be interested in more current stats if anyone has some since these are 3 years stale. I can't recall a time like the present when it seems every other day there's another mass shooting.

That is just a high information diet talking regarding the mass shootings, or rather the sensationalism of them.

Unfortunately there isn't anymore recent data. 2011 data was just released this month. I'm fairly certain that the last three years won't show a massive spike in gun related homicides.

Cheddar Stacker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3700
  • Age: 45
  • Location: USA
Good thoughts Doubledown, and thanks for the stats as they certainly provide some light.

I'd be interested in more current stats if anyone has some since these are 3 years stale. I can't recall a time like the present when it seems every other day there's another mass shooting.

That is just a high information diet talking regarding the mass shootings, or rather the sensationalism of them.

Unfortunately there isn't anymore recent data. 2011 data was just released this month. I'm fairly certain that the last three years won't show a massive spike in gun related homicides.

I'm sure the media is partly to blame for my perception on this. However, the media has been the same bullshit spewing crap since the 24 hour news cycle started so I don't really think it's anything new. I'm also not much of a news watcher/listener/reader but even my low info diet is overloaded with these stories.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd bet a large portion of my stache there will be a noticable spike in 2012 and 2013 compared to 2010.

ncornilsen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
If there was a huge spike in gun violence over the last few years, it would weaken the case for gun control. It would be glaringly obvious that some other societal factor is the real reason behind the spike in violence, because guns aren't a new thing in the last three years...

matchewed

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4422
  • Location: CT
I do have to say that although I agree that the total data on deaths in the US show that gun related deaths are low, when you isolate for injury related deaths they are still rather high. In 2002 gun related deaths accounted for 19% of all injury related deaths (more than half of that was suicide, not homicide nor accidental). The good side is that it is a trend which has been going down for a long time. Only 7.3% of injuries were gun related homicides at that time, however gun injuries were 67% of all homicides (page 9 of the pdf). If the intent is to lower the amount of homicides then something related to guns would have to be done. But that doesn't mean gun control is the answer.

As for whether there is a peak or not in the last two years, well unfortunately we'll just have to wait. What we can see is a heightened awareness of the issue. That sensitivity allowing us to be drawn to it. Skewing our perceptions of what is happening and making people draw battle lines between each other instead of looking for agreement between each other.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
If there was a huge spike in gun violence over the last few years, it would weaken the case for gun control. It would be glaringly obvious that some other societal factor is the real reason behind the spike in violence, because guns aren't a new thing in the last three years...

If there was a huge spike it it could be argued that it in in response to an overall lessening of gun control laws (specifically CCW).  That being said, there hasn't been a huge spike. 

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
If you're going to compare deaths from medical conditions like cancer to gun deaths, then I really don't think you get the issue. At all. Pretty much all of those conditions are self inflicted or related to age/genetics (things you can't control).

It's also possible for people (citizens and politicians alike) to do more than one thing at a time. Crazy I know, but Michelle Obama can do her healthy eating thing and support gun control if that's how she wants to spend her time. By your own logic, we should quit trying to develop treatments to Alzheimer's because more people die from heart disease.

It's interesting second hand smoke was brought up. The thing we banned in almost all public places.

griffin

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 153
  • Location: Portland, OR
Hmm, so we're comparing guns to cancer? Maybe the solution to lung cancer is giving everyone cigarettes ;)

thepokercab

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 484
It's also hard to find any meaningful research on the impact of gun control and its effects and compare them to other causes of death, because unlike traffic safety, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, etc.. there is essentially a federal ban on gun violence research. (i.e. hardly any federal money is allocated on research on gun violence, causes, etc..)

This basically happened, because in the early nineties the CDC started investigating the relationship between guns and violent crime. In 1993 this study was released by the New England Journal of Medicine, which said: 

Quote
During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance

This basically caused the NRA to pressure congress to strip the CDC of any funding for gun violence research; and employees basically felt like they were putting their careers on the line if they went ahead and tried to continue research.  In short, there hasn't been any meaningful research on gun violence over the last 20 years, as there has been in just about every other major life-threatening ailment. Imagine if we, as a country, just took a 20 year break on researching cancer or heart disease?   

Not only has there not been any meaningful research on gun violence, but we don't even have a true national dataset to work with.  Laws like the Tiarht Amendment passed in 2006, are in place with the goal of minimizing the data that the public has access to. The "National" Violent Death Reporting System from the CDC isn't even a national database(!), but only receives data from 18 states. Data on who owns guns and where they come from is also woefully inadequate. 

As someone who work in data, the lack of data, and the lack of collection methods we have in place for violent crime and gun crime is embarrassing.  Its a bit dated, but this snippet from the 2004 National Research Council report, lays out the issues that still exist today:   

Quote
The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements
 

Basically, we have no idea what effect, if any, open carry or right to carry laws have, or what if any effect prevention programs have because there's no credible data to work with. 

Quote
Nevertheless, many of the shortcomings described in this report stem from the lack of reliable data itself rather than the weakness of methods. In some instances—firearms violence prevention, for example—there are no data at all. Even the best methods cannot overcome inadequate data and, because the lack of relevant data colors much of the literature in this field, it also colors the committee’s assessment of that literature.

When it comes to gun crime, as a society, we purposefully keep ourselves in the dark on causes and possible solutions. Of course, its argued that the lack of data is about privacy, but we seem to overcome this concern in just about every other field of study.  More likely, these barriers are in place so that we can stay in the dark on the why and how when it comes to guns and violence. And really, its not that big of a shock- cigarettes fought the good fight for decades on this. 

Maybe gun violence and death by gun is small in comparison to things like cancer, but thousands of people are still getting killed by guns, and you'd think at the very least we'd want to learn more about why. 
« Last Edit: June 25, 2014, 09:51:47 PM by thepokercab »

bluecheeze

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Age: 36
I think the US is too kind to violent criminals.  We no longer practice "swift" justice.  That kid who shot everyone in the Colorado movie theater.  I think he is still breathing?  He should have been publically executed within 2 weeks (straight after a quick and fair trial).  It is really irrelevant if he was insane or not- he still did the crime.  If our culture stops accepting premeditated, mass murder, and rape (and has swift harsh punishments for the guilty) than I am sure the numbers will go down quite a bit. 

That guy who rapes children?  He really no longer has any use for his twig and berries so just get rid of them and let the country know!
You have 3 dui's and then kill someone while drunk driving?  So sad too bad...prep the gallows that week.

When people start seeing what the consequence of these crimes are they may just reconsider....

Gun laws won't really solve the entire problem (because so many people already have guns and there is no way to take them all away)- I do strongly support background checks and technology that only allows the owner to use the weapon.  What will work is a fundamental change in the way we treat our criminals (refering here to only the most heinous offences).

Luck better Skill

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Virginia
  To Canadians and other foreigners insulted by comments on this thread I apology for citizens of the USA.  I enjoy hearing the views of others even if I disagree.
  Firearms laws are not going to change in any real way without civil unrest in the USA.  Americans love their weapons to much.  When most people were smokers you never could have passed laws banning smoking in public.
  From my talks with law enforcement public distrust is increasing.  Children are taught not to talk to policemen.  This is a culture event in the USA.  There are many factors involved but some are the effects of seat-belt like laws that change the role of police from protecting you from others to protecting you from yourself.  Another is justice is viewed as moving to slow through our courts. 
  Americans love the anti-hero and vigilante.  This is a cultural difference between us and western nations. 
  To thepokercab there is a real lack of data not just in the USA but from Europe.  I have researched guns laws before.  Some interesting finds.
  1.  European gun laws seem to have reduce homicides by 30 to 35%.  That means the USA was always had more homicides then its western counterparts.
  2.  Interpol reports state it is hard to accurately compare data between different nations, even in Europe because how they count homicides and gun crimes.
  3.  Different agencies working with access to the same data get different conclusions.  An example of this is there was a year when Interpol warned Europeans that a Caribbean country was the most dangerous to vacation in, I think it was Jamaica.  When at the same time the UN was reporting it was the safest place to live.  Maybe only foreigners were being targeted.
  4.  I know several people who have prevented a crime or deterred a hostile by the banishing of a firearm.  None reported the event to police.  It makes me wonder how accurate some of our statics are.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
  To Canadians and other foreigners insulted by comments on this thread I apology for citizens of the USA.  I enjoy hearing the views of others even if I disagree.
  Firearms laws are not going to change in any real way without civil unrest in the USA.  Americans love their weapons to much.  When most people were smokers you never could have passed laws banning smoking in public.
  From my talks with law enforcement public distrust is increasing.  Children are taught not to talk to policemen.  This is a culture event in the USA.  There are many factors involved but some are the effects of seat-belt like laws that change the role of police from protecting you from others to protecting you from yourself.  Another is justice is viewed as moving to slow through our courts. 
  Americans love the anti-hero and vigilante.  This is a cultural difference between us and western nations. 
  To thepokercab there is a real lack of data not just in the USA but from Europe.  I have researched guns laws before.  Some interesting finds.
  1.  European gun laws seem to have reduce homicides by 30 to 35%.  That means the USA was always had more homicides then its western counterparts.
  2.  Interpol reports state it is hard to accurately compare data between different nations, even in Europe because how they count homicides and gun crimes.
  3.  Different agencies working with access to the same data get different conclusions.  An example of this is there was a year when Interpol warned Europeans that a Caribbean country was the most dangerous to vacation in, I think it was Jamaica.  When at the same time the UN was reporting it was the safest place to live.  Maybe only foreigners were being targeted.
  4.  I know several people who have prevented a crime or deterred a hostile by the banishing of a firearm.  None reported the event to police.  It makes me wonder how accurate some of our statics are.
Well when civil liberties are being trampled, can you blame people?  What about the case where a military vet was shot and killed because swat came in his house, without announcing, to find drugs (and it was not even the right house!), or the child who is in NICU right now because SWAT again was trying to find someone related to drugs and threw in a flash bomb on an infant.  And they ended up finding the person they were look for, not at the house they injured the child but in another house and swat was not need because they just knocked on the door and the man went peacefully.  SWAT teams are being used for reasons they were not designed for, yet no one does anything.  And even if we take SWAT teams out of this, what about the Davis cop who pepper sprayed the students in the eye? 

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Not talking to the police is the best course of action 99% of the time. If I don't personally know the officer, why would I voluntarily talk or interact with them? The risk of civil asset forfeiture, arrest, injury, death, conviction, jail time, etc is too great.

Unless the culture changes, I'll teach my kids to never talk to law enforcement unless they're the victim of the crime or simply exchanging pleasantries at a traffic stop. Anything more and they should call me or a lawyer ASAP.

Look at the complete joke we call "DARE". That program is designed to trick young children into turning their parents in for smoking a joint. Parents get arrested, kids go into foster care and the cops collect some nice overtime. The sick part is that the people running things think this is a good thing.

Law enforcement in the United States (and I suspect many other places) is out of control and there's a serious lack of accountability.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
I think the US is too kind to violent criminals.  We no longer practice "swift" justice.  That kid who shot everyone in the Colorado movie theater.  I think he is still breathing?  He should have been publically executed within 2 weeks (straight after a quick and fair trial).  It is really irrelevant if he was insane or not- he still did the crime.  If our culture stops accepting premeditated, mass murder, and rape (and has swift harsh punishments for the guilty) than I am sure the numbers will go down quite a bit. 

That guy who rapes children?  He really no longer has any use for his twig and berries so just get rid of them and let the country know!
You have 3 dui's and then kill someone while drunk driving?  So sad too bad...prep the gallows that week.

When people start seeing what the consequence of these crimes are they may just reconsider....

Gun laws won't really solve the entire problem (because so many people already have guns and there is no way to take them all away)- I do strongly support background checks and technology that only allows the owner to use the weapon.  What will work is a fundamental change in the way we treat our criminals (refering here to only the most heinous offences).

This makes almost no sense. The only thing I can think of that the US is more lax on than most wealthy countries is DUI. And even that depends on the state you're in.

The US justice and prison system is based on revenge and harsh punishments for almost every serious crime. We're one of the few countries with the death penalty and we have more prisoners per capita than anyone else.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 03:37:11 PM by thefinancialstudent »

GrayGhost

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
  • Location: USA
It's also hard to find any meaningful research on the impact of gun control and its effects and compare them to other causes of death, because unlike traffic safety, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, etc.. there is essentially a federal ban on gun violence research. (i.e. hardly any federal money is allocated on research on gun violence, causes, etc..)

This basically happened, because in the early nineties the CDC started investigating the relationship between guns and violent crime. In 1993 this study was released by the New England Journal of Medicine, which said: 

...

This basically caused the NRA to pressure congress to strip the CDC of any funding for gun violence research; and employees basically felt like they were putting their careers on the line if they went ahead and tried to continue research.  In short, there hasn't been any meaningful research on gun violence over the last 20 years, as there has been in just about every other major life-threatening ailment. Imagine if we, as a country, just took a 20 year break on researching cancer or heart disease?   

Not only has there not been any meaningful research on gun violence, but we don't even have a true national dataset to work with.  Laws like the Tiarht Amendment passed in 2006, are in place with the goal of minimizing the data that the public has access to. The "National" Violent Death Reporting System from the CDC isn't even a national database(!), but only receives data from 18 states. Data on who owns guns and where they come from is also woefully inadequate. 

As someone who work in data, the lack of data, and the lack of collection methods we have in place for violent crime and gun crime is embarrassing.  Its a bit dated, but this snippet from the 2004 National Research Council report, lays out the issues that still exist today:   

...

Basically, we have no idea what effect, if any, open carry or right to carry laws have, or what if any effect prevention programs have because there's no credible data to work with. 

...

When it comes to gun crime, as a society, we purposefully keep ourselves in the dark on causes and possible solutions. Of course, its argued that the lack of data is about privacy, but we seem to overcome this concern in just about every other field of study.  More likely, these barriers are in place so that we can stay in the dark on the why and how when it comes to guns and violence. And really, its not that big of a shock- cigarettes fought the good fight for decades on this. 

Maybe gun violence and death by gun is small in comparison to things like cancer, but thousands of people are still getting killed by guns, and you'd think at the very least we'd want to learn more about why.

Firstly, I applaud you for finding the NEJM study. On its face, it's very convincing, isn't it? Keeping a gun in the home seems to increase your odds of being shot, even after controlling for all sorts of things. If this is true, it's only rational to not keep guns at home, unless you have a very specific reason to do so and you know precisely what you're doing.

The problem is that the study itself has been--I don't want to say debunked, but it's been called into question, to say the absolute least. For that reason, I'd be very wary before taking it as truth. I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of why I don't find it convincing, but here are a few links that I hope will make you skeptical of the Kellerman study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kellerman-schaffer.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/01/william-c-montgomery/editorial-deconstructing-kellermann/

As far as me goes, I am far from convinced that gun control will necessarily reduce crime. The assault weapons ban didn't work, the concealed carry revolution hasn't led to a spike in violence, and we have far, far more guns (not to mention more exotic guns) than ever before in our society, yet most of us get along in life just fine.

Anyway, there are other things we in the US can do that would almost certainly reduce crime immediately, the most obvious of which is ending the drug war (come to that, MMM's home state recently took a great step in that direction) given that quite a lot of our violence problems involve the drug trade/gang warfare.

I could support universal background checks, but what people have to understand is criminals have a strong tendency to buy guns via straw purchases, or on the black market, and since such transactions are already illegal, they're not going to be affected by a mandate to conduct a background check. Such a measure might weed out a small number of gun transactions that would have led to violence, but not many!

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2075
If you're going to compare deaths from medical conditions like cancer to gun deaths, then I really don't think you get the issue. At all. Pretty much all of those conditions are self inflicted or related to age/genetics (things you can't control).

It's also possible for people (citizens and politicians alike) to do more than one thing at a time. Crazy I know, but Michelle Obama can do her healthy eating thing and support gun control if that's how she wants to spend her time. By your own logic, we should quit trying to develop treatments to Alzheimer's because more people die from heart disease.

It's interesting second hand smoke was brought up. The thing we banned in almost all public places.

Depends on what you define as "the issue." I was stating that from a strictly numbers perspective, cancer, heart disease, auto accidents, poisonings, falls, et al, all cause far more deaths than homicide by firearms. You are correct, that does not mean that we cannot focus on more than one issue at a time. But one could make the claim that we could more rightly petition Target or any other retailer to ban selling Drano and aspirin, or Ford from selling cars, based on the number of deaths caused by those products relative to guns. And auto accidents, poisoning, and many other of those things on the list are not self-inflicted or predetermined genetic outcomes as you've suggested. So where is the outrage over these things?

I'm not against or for this petition -- if people want to voice their opinions to Target, good for them. I was making the point, however, that our society is not really suffering from an epidemic of gun deaths, not relative at least to other things that cause death. Mass shootings get a lot of media attention, and they are horrific, but more children are killed every day in car accidents than by guns.

avonlea

  • Guest
You keep bringing up mass shootings, Double Down.  My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone.  I am more concerned with a heated argument causing someone to reach for a gun or accidental shootings occurring than a mass shooting taking place.  Last month, at a department store located about an hour or so from where I live, the pistol of a law-abiding gun owner fell out of its holster and a woman who was pushing a newborn in a stroller got shot in the arm.  Luckily, she wasn't critically injured.  No criminal charges were filed against the gun owner since he had a permit to carry it.

avonlea

  • Guest

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37
You keep bringing up mass shootings . . . My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone. . . .

Unfortunately, you live in a country where bad guys have guns.  I realize you won't click on all of these links, but below are a couple of articles from the past month where individuals were able to protect themselves because of their guns, some of them were in stores, presumably while shopping.  So for your one instance of a lady getting shot in the arm, here are a couple where that same guy (hopefully with a new/better holster or at least better awareness of his gun) could have helped the situation.  I am not defending that guy, he should be punished within the full extent of the law, reckless endangerment comes to mind, as does unlawful discharge of a firearm...but I don't know all of the facts or the law in whatever jurisdiction this was supposed to have happened in.

June 25, 2014 - http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829109_1_knife-wielding-man-inspector-scott-small-police-officer

June 20, 2014 - http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/25827893/shooting-victim-drives-to-jackson-apartment-complex

June 18, 2014 - http://www.krem.com/news/Coeur-dAlene-man-says-concealed-weapon-saved-his-life--263760671.html

June 18, 2014 - http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1396893474/Man-shoots-home-invaders

June 11, 2014 - http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/employee-stops-robbery-with-legally-owned-gun/21216/5RkqBY_O1USCCMecWEBO0w

May 29, 2014 - http://news92fm.com/442038/us-marine-with-chl-fatally-shoots-robber-in-ne-harris-county/?fb_comment_id=fbc_892777477406499_892937990723781_892937990723781#f205ea4f3c

May 22, 2014 - http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-fights-back-in-attempted-robbery-shoots-suspect-twice/26114890

For those mustachians interested in the 2A, check out gunssavelives.net, they document self-defense news articles and also post on legislative issues pertinent to the 2A.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
And auto accidents, poisoning, and many other of those things on the list are not self-inflicted or predetermined genetic outcomes as you've suggested. So where is the outrage over these things?

Those things are rarely intentional. Shootings are. Accidents and mistakes also usually effect the person who messed up the most. That's where the outrage comes from. Someone accidentally grabs the wrong pill bottle and kills themselves, that's sad. Someone shoots me and I'm pissed off that someone else thinks they get to end my life.

Cars have a primary purpose that isn't to injure or kill (yes I know you can shoot targets. But that's not why most people buy them.) and we've regulated the shit out of cars and driving.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 03:35:45 PM by thefinancialstudent »

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Cars have a primary purpose that isn't to injure or kill (yes I know you can shoot targets. But that's not why most people buy them.) and we've regulated the shit out of cars and driving.

And if guns were regulated to the same extent as cars are, the pro-gun people would have a shit fit

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
You keep bringing up mass shootings . . . My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone. . . .

Unfortunately, you live in a country where bad guys have guns.  I realize you won't click on all of these links, but below are a couple of articles from the past month where individuals were able to protect themselves because of their guns, some of them were in stores, presumably while shopping.  So for your one instance of a lady getting shot in the arm, here are a couple where that same guy (hopefully with a new/better holster or at least better awareness of his gun) could have helped the situation.  I am not defending that guy, he should be punished within the full extent of the law, reckless endangerment comes to mind, as does unlawful discharge of a firearm...but I don't know all of the facts or the law in whatever jurisdiction this was supposed to have happened in.

June 25, 2014 - http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829109_1_knife-wielding-man-inspector-scott-small-police-officer

June 20, 2014 - http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/25827893/shooting-victim-drives-to-jackson-apartment-complex

June 18, 2014 - http://www.krem.com/news/Coeur-dAlene-man-says-concealed-weapon-saved-his-life--263760671.html

June 18, 2014 - http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1396893474/Man-shoots-home-invaders

June 11, 2014 - http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/employee-stops-robbery-with-legally-owned-gun/21216/5RkqBY_O1USCCMecWEBO0w

May 29, 2014 - http://news92fm.com/442038/us-marine-with-chl-fatally-shoots-robber-in-ne-harris-county/?fb_comment_id=fbc_892777477406499_892937990723781_892937990723781#f205ea4f3c

May 22, 2014 - http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-fights-back-in-attempted-robbery-shoots-suspect-twice/26114890

For those mustachians interested in the 2A, check out gunssavelives.net, they document self-defense news articles and also post on legislative issues pertinent to the 2A.
Here is on this I noticed from reading those, most were military or police trained.  If people want to go through the same training and psych evals as our police, sure I'm fine with them getting a gun.  Personally though I think both in general and police/military psych evals need to be stepped up.  But, most people who are pro-gun don't want this, pro-gun groups fight even basic background check laws.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Cars have a primary purpose that isn't to injure or kill (yes I know you can shoot targets. But that's not why most people buy them.) and we've regulated the shit out of cars and driving.

And if guns were regulated to the same extent as cars are, the pro-gun people would have a shit fit

If the primary purpose of having a weapon was not to injure or kill other people, there would be no reason to carry one in a shopping centre and we wouldn't be having the discussion. . . as it's rare to find wild game roaming around or approved target shooting ranges in a department store or family diner.

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37
You keep bringing up mass shootings . . . My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone. . . .

Unfortunately, you live in a country where bad guys have guns.  I realize you won't click on all of these links, but below are a couple of articles from the past month where individuals were able to protect themselves because of their guns, some of them were in stores, presumably while shopping.  So for your one instance of a lady getting shot in the arm, here are a couple where that same guy (hopefully with a new/better holster or at least better awareness of his gun) could have helped the situation.  I am not defending that guy, he should be punished within the full extent of the law, reckless endangerment comes to mind, as does unlawful discharge of a firearm...but I don't know all of the facts or the law in whatever jurisdiction this was supposed to have happened in.

June 25, 2014 - http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829109_1_knife-wielding-man-inspector-scott-small-police-officer

June 20, 2014 - http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/25827893/shooting-victim-drives-to-jackson-apartment-complex

June 18, 2014 - http://www.krem.com/news/Coeur-dAlene-man-says-concealed-weapon-saved-his-life--263760671.html

June 18, 2014 - http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1396893474/Man-shoots-home-invaders

June 11, 2014 - http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/employee-stops-robbery-with-legally-owned-gun/21216/5RkqBY_O1USCCMecWEBO0w

May 29, 2014 - http://news92fm.com/442038/us-marine-with-chl-fatally-shoots-robber-in-ne-harris-county/?fb_comment_id=fbc_892777477406499_892937990723781_892937990723781#f205ea4f3c

May 22, 2014 - http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-fights-back-in-attempted-robbery-shoots-suspect-twice/26114890

For those mustachians interested in the 2A, check out gunssavelives.net, they document self-defense news articles and also post on legislative issues pertinent to the 2A.
Here is on this I noticed from reading those, most were military or police trained.  If people want to go through the same training and psych evals as our police, sure I'm fine with them getting a gun.  Personally though I think both in general and police/military psych evals need to be stepped up.  But, most people who are pro-gun don't want this, pro-gun groups fight even basic background check laws.

Gin,  I just picked the ones that were most recent.  Many of the news articles listed on the gunssavelives website are non-military/LEO people.  If you are okay with ex-military and police having guns because of their "training and psych evals", then you will probably not sleep tonight if you were to google police brutality.  Maybe start here https://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/police-brutality

Did you know that medical privacy laws prevent the linking of many mental health databases to the gun background check system, and some states lack the technology to link domestic violence orders of protection to the background check system.  Nobody is arguing that people that have been deemed unfit to own a gun (because of mental health or criminal background) should be able to get one.  Maybe we start with easy fixes like that because that truly is "common sense."

Could you please illustrate what "basic background check laws" we gun folk are opposed to?  Before you do, please find out what it would take to purchase a gun from the internet in your state.  Call a local gun store and see what you would need to do to have it shipped to you from the internet.


« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 07:11:45 AM by ingrownstudentloans »

Luck better Skill

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Virginia
You keep bringing up mass shootings, Double Down.  My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone.  I am more concerned with a heated argument causing someone to reach for a gun or accidental shootings occurring than a mass shooting taking place.  Last month, at a department store located about an hour or so from where I live, the pistol of a law-abiding gun owner fell out of its holster and a woman who was pushing a newborn in a stroller got shot in the arm.  Luckily, she wasn't critically injured.  No criminal charges were filed against the gun owner since he had a permit to carry it.

  avonlea I think have a reasonable concern.  I sometimes wonder on open carry when it is overboard if they are fringe elements of 2nd amendment or if they trying to incite people to fuel more gun laws.
  Accidental shooting of someone is no different than an auto accident.  I wonder if the woman choose not to press charges.  Our judicial system is not perfect.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
avonlea I think have a reasonable concern.  I sometimes wonder on open carry when it is overboard if they are fringe elements of 2nd amendment or if they trying to incite people to fuel more gun laws.
Accidental shooting of someone is no different than an auto accident.  I wonder if the woman choose not to press charges.  Our judicial system is not perfect.

This where I think people fundamentally disagree. I think you're way more negligent when you carry around a loaded firearm and shoot someone than when you get in a car, take a curve a bit too fast and hurt someone.

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
You keep bringing up mass shootings . . . My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone. . . .

Unfortunately, you live in a country where bad guys have guns.  I realize you won't click on all of these links, but below are a couple of articles from the past month where individuals were able to protect themselves because of their guns, some of them were in stores, presumably while shopping.  So for your one instance of a lady getting shot in the arm, here are a couple where that same guy (hopefully with a new/better holster or at least better awareness of his gun) could have helped the situation.  I am not defending that guy, he should be punished within the full extent of the law, reckless endangerment comes to mind, as does unlawful discharge of a firearm...but I don't know all of the facts or the law in whatever jurisdiction this was supposed to have happened in.

June 25, 2014 - http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829109_1_knife-wielding-man-inspector-scott-small-police-officer

June 20, 2014 - http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/25827893/shooting-victim-drives-to-jackson-apartment-complex

June 18, 2014 - http://www.krem.com/news/Coeur-dAlene-man-says-concealed-weapon-saved-his-life--263760671.html

June 18, 2014 - http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1396893474/Man-shoots-home-invaders

June 11, 2014 - http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/employee-stops-robbery-with-legally-owned-gun/21216/5RkqBY_O1USCCMecWEBO0w

May 29, 2014 - http://news92fm.com/442038/us-marine-with-chl-fatally-shoots-robber-in-ne-harris-county/?fb_comment_id=fbc_892777477406499_892937990723781_892937990723781#f205ea4f3c

May 22, 2014 - http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-fights-back-in-attempted-robbery-shoots-suspect-twice/26114890

For those mustachians interested in the 2A, check out gunssavelives.net, they document self-defense news articles and also post on legislative issues pertinent to the 2A.
Here is on this I noticed from reading those, most were military or police trained.  If people want to go through the same training and psych evals as our police, sure I'm fine with them getting a gun.  Personally though I think both in general and police/military psych evals need to be stepped up.  But, most people who are pro-gun don't want this, pro-gun groups fight even basic background check laws.

If you think that the military or police spend time doing psych evals and defensive pistol training, you are fooling yourself.  I have a large number of friends and acquaintances that are police and a few that are military.  I assure you that I spend way more time practicing defensive pistol training than all of them.  Also, I've never heard of any of them having a psych eval beyond, possibly, an initial hire.  I would venture to guess that a few of them would fail if they did have them. 

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37

If you think that the military or police spend time doing psych evals and defensive pistol training, you are fooling yourself.  I have a large number of friends and acquaintances that are police and a few that are military.  I assure you that I spend way more time practicing defensive pistol training than all of them.  Also, I've never heard of any of them having a psych eval beyond, possibly, an initial hire.  I would venture to guess that a few of them would fail if they did have them.

Also, there is this http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/01/court-oks-barring-smart-people-from-beco  I find it shocking that police departments can say someone is TOO SMART to be a police officer, but even more shocking that certain departments ACTUALLY DO THIS!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
How does one "defensively" train in the use of a purely offensive weapon?

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37
How does one "defensively" train in the use of a purely offensive weapon?

I'm having a hard time trying to decide if you are trying to incite something here (I am pretty sure trolls are prohibited by the terms of the board), or if you actually believe that an inanimate object can be "offensive" (other than the fact that its existence is offensive to you). 

Actions can be categorized as offensive or defensive.  You can train to use an object in an offensive or defensive manner, in other words, you can train to use a gun to attack a target or you can train to use a gun to defend yourself.  Timmmy, I believe, was talking about the training that would allow him to use a neutral tool in a defensive manner.  Correct me if I am wrong, Timmmy.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

No, there is not any special gun-fu to make usage non-lethal.  There are non-lethal projectiles that can be loaded, instead of lethal projectiles.  For instance, if you were to come into my house unannounced and I were to reasonably believe that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, you would receive a "warning" shot which consists of a 12-guage loaded with rock salt instead of lead/steel shot.  If that was not enough to make you rethink your position, and I still reasonably believed that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, lethal options would follow.

You, however, do not understand -or are willfully ignorant to the fact - that lethal force is allowed to be used in self-defense or in the defense of others.  In addition to shooting someone in self-defense or the defense of another (an obviously defensive act), there are many other ways to use a gun.  Maybe you should work on thinking outside of your limited view of weapons.  A short list of other things you can do with a gun: target shoot, collect, use as home decorations (think old-timey muskets here), hunt, use as a tool/hobby to bond with a relative. 

Just because you don't like a hobby doesn't mean that others don't find value and enjoyment in it.  Quite frankly, the only way that I can think of using a guitar is to play terrible teen-angst songs at a high school kegger...an overtly offensive act.  I assume, by your name, that you would disagree?

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

You strap it to your back and go shopping at Target. Sends a real strong message not to mess with you. The world is soooo dangerous today that you never know when you're going to need to protect yourself. When someone tries to shoot up the place, you'll be there to save the day. You'll easily stop the shooter and get the girl. It'll be just like an action movie.

randymarsh

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1369
  • Location: Denver
Now we're comparing guitars to guns. This thread has been fun.

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37
Now we're comparing guitars to guns. This thread has been fun.

Sure, both are tools that can do good and bad, it just depends on who wields that tool.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225061/Church-pastor-killed-Rev-Danny-Kirk-Sr-beaten-death-electric-guitar.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23128
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

No, there is not any special gun-fu to make usage non-lethal.  There are non-lethal projectiles that can be loaded, instead of lethal projectiles.  For instance, if you were to come into my house unannounced and I were to reasonably believe that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, you would receive a "warning" shot which consists of a 12-guage loaded with rock salt instead of lead/steel shot.  If that was not enough to make you rethink your position, and I still reasonably believed that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, lethal options would follow.

You, however, do not understand -or are willfully ignorant to the fact - that lethal force is allowed to be used in self-defense or in the defense of others.  In addition to shooting someone in self-defense or the defense of another (an obviously defensive act), there are many other ways to use a gun.  Maybe you should work on thinking outside of your limited view of weapons.  A short list of other things you can do with a gun: target shoot, collect, use as home decorations (think old-timey muskets here), hunt, use as a tool/hobby to bond with a relative. 

Just because you don't like a hobby doesn't mean that others don't find value and enjoyment in it.  Quite frankly, the only way that I can think of using a guitar is to play terrible teen-angst songs at a high school kegger...an overtly offensive act.  I assume, by your name, that you would disagree?

Less lethal rounds in a firearm seem like a good idea.  It's not what was being discussed though.

I didn't say that lethal force can't be used in self defence.  My belief is that you can't train for defensive use of a gun.  It's a lethal weapon.  You can really just train to kill more efficiently with it.  The term 'defensive pistol training' is dishonest.

FWIW, I don't mind target shooting or hunting with rifles.  I've been hunting many times myself, I get the appeal.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2014, 08:43:38 AM by GuitarStv »

ingrownstudentloans

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 261
  • Age: 37
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

No, there is not any special gun-fu to make usage non-lethal.  There are non-lethal projectiles that can be loaded, instead of lethal projectiles.  For instance, if you were to come into my house unannounced and I were to reasonably believe that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, you would receive a "warning" shot which consists of a 12-guage loaded with rock salt instead of lead/steel shot.  If that was not enough to make you rethink your position, and I still reasonably believed that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, lethal options would follow.

You, however, do not understand -or are willfully ignorant to the fact - that lethal force is allowed to be used in self-defense or in the defense of others.  In addition to shooting someone in self-defense or the defense of another (an obviously defensive act), there are many other ways to use a gun.  Maybe you should work on thinking outside of your limited view of weapons.  A short list of other things you can do with a gun: target shoot, collect, use as home decorations (think old-timey muskets here), hunt, use as a tool/hobby to bond with a relative. 

Just because you don't like a hobby doesn't mean that others don't find value and enjoyment in it.  Quite frankly, the only way that I can think of using a guitar is to play terrible teen-angst songs at a high school kegger...an overtly offensive act.  I assume, by your name, that you would disagree?

Less lethal rounds in a fire arm seem like a good idea.  It's not what was being discussed though.

I didn't say that lethal force can't be used in self defence.  My belief is that you can't train for defensive use of a gun.  It's a lethal weapon.  You can really just train to kill more efficiently with it.  The term 'defensive pistol training' is dishonest.

Agree to disagree...failing to acknowledge that you cannot use a gun in a defensive way, as detailed above, is dishonest.  IMHO

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
How does one "defensively" train in the use of a purely offensive weapon?

I'm having a hard time trying to decide if you are trying to incite something here (I am pretty sure trolls are prohibited by the terms of the board), or if you actually believe that an inanimate object can be "offensive" (other than the fact that its existence is offensive to you). 

Actions can be categorized as offensive or defensive.  You can train to use an object in an offensive or defensive manner, in other words, you can train to use a gun to attack a target or you can train to use a gun to defend yourself.  Timmmy, I believe, was talking about the training that would allow him to use a neutral tool in a defensive manner.  Correct me if I am wrong, Timmmy.

You are correct. 

If I'm punching someone in the face without provocation that is an offensive action.  If, however, someone runs up to me and starts punching me in the face, I think everyone would agree that you could take defensive action that may actually include punching them in the face or doing other harm to them.  Those actions would normally be viewed as offensive but when viewed as a whole they are defensive. 

The defensive pistol training I'm referring to is about how to use a pistol to defend yourself.  Some of it may include offensive actions that could include shooting or striking someone with the weapon. 

Grant Q

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Location: Houston, TX
Why doesn't anyone ever quote the entire 2nd amendment, which says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment was added so that there would be a standing force ready to respond if the country were ever invaded, not so that any nut-job could walk into a gun show and buy an assault rifle with no questions asked.  Less than 1% of the US population feels compelled to join any branch of the military and support that first part of the amendment, but lots and lots of people feel entitled to any weapon they wish to have.  In my opinion most of these open-carry cowards are not upholding their end of the bargain.

That said, I’m still not signing this petition because these clowns are doing more harm to their own movement than the anti-gun crowd ever could.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140607-texas-open-carry-movement-raises-passions-threats.ece

Especially that bit about how they chased a Marine out of Dallas on Memorial Day…absolutely classic.  These guys are shooting themselves in the foot, which I promise is literally going to happen if they keep their nonsense up.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
You keep bringing up mass shootings . . . My personal concern with open carry in stores does not really have anything to do with that.  For one thing, I think it is unnecessary for people to carry semiautomatic weapons while shopping.  I don't live in a war zone. . . .

Unfortunately, you live in a country where bad guys have guns.  I realize you won't click on all of these links, but below are a couple of articles from the past month where individuals were able to protect themselves because of their guns, some of them were in stores, presumably while shopping.  So for your one instance of a lady getting shot in the arm, here are a couple where that same guy (hopefully with a new/better holster or at least better awareness of his gun) could have helped the situation.  I am not defending that guy, he should be punished within the full extent of the law, reckless endangerment comes to mind, as does unlawful discharge of a firearm...but I don't know all of the facts or the law in whatever jurisdiction this was supposed to have happened in.

June 25, 2014 - http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-25/news/50829109_1_knife-wielding-man-inspector-scott-small-police-officer

June 20, 2014 - http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/25827893/shooting-victim-drives-to-jackson-apartment-complex

June 18, 2014 - http://www.krem.com/news/Coeur-dAlene-man-says-concealed-weapon-saved-his-life--263760671.html

June 18, 2014 - http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1396893474/Man-shoots-home-invaders

June 11, 2014 - http://www.pahomepage.com/story/d/story/employee-stops-robbery-with-legally-owned-gun/21216/5RkqBY_O1USCCMecWEBO0w

May 29, 2014 - http://news92fm.com/442038/us-marine-with-chl-fatally-shoots-robber-in-ne-harris-county/?fb_comment_id=fbc_892777477406499_892937990723781_892937990723781#f205ea4f3c

May 22, 2014 - http://www.click2houston.com/news/man-fights-back-in-attempted-robbery-shoots-suspect-twice/26114890

For those mustachians interested in the 2A, check out gunssavelives.net, they document self-defense news articles and also post on legislative issues pertinent to the 2A.
Here is on this I noticed from reading those, most were military or police trained.  If people want to go through the same training and psych evals as our police, sure I'm fine with them getting a gun.  Personally though I think both in general and police/military psych evals need to be stepped up.  But, most people who are pro-gun don't want this, pro-gun groups fight even basic background check laws.

If you think that the military or police spend time doing psych evals and defensive pistol training, you are fooling yourself.  I have a large number of friends and acquaintances that are police and a few that are military.  I assure you that I spend way more time practicing defensive pistol training than all of them.  Also, I've never heard of any of them having a psych eval beyond, possibly, an initial hire.  I would venture to guess that a few of them would fail if they did have them.
Most police department have a psych eval, granted I think there should be one yearly, but once is more than it takes for people to buy a gun, so that would be a step, to me, to making it acceptable.  And most military and police officers do have to certify annually with their guns. 

Luck better Skill

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Virginia
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

  Police officers and MP's are trained to use a weapon in a defensive manner.  Shot to disable versus kill.  Or threat of lethal force to subdue.  A firearm is a tool.

brewer12345

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1381
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

No, there is not any special gun-fu to make usage non-lethal.  There are non-lethal projectiles that can be loaded, instead of lethal projectiles.  For instance, if you were to come into my house unannounced and I were to reasonably believe that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, you would receive a "warning" shot which consists of a 12-guage loaded with rock salt instead of lead/steel shot.  If that was not enough to make you rethink your position, and I still reasonably believed that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, lethal options would follow.

You, however, do not understand -or are willfully ignorant to the fact - that lethal force is allowed to be used in self-defense or in the defense of others.  In addition to shooting someone in self-defense or the defense of another (an obviously defensive act), there are many other ways to use a gun.  Maybe you should work on thinking outside of your limited view of weapons.  A short list of other things you can do with a gun: target shoot, collect, use as home decorations (think old-timey muskets here), hunt, use as a tool/hobby to bond with a relative. 

Just because you don't like a hobby doesn't mean that others don't find value and enjoyment in it.  Quite frankly, the only way that I can think of using a guitar is to play terrible teen-angst songs at a high school kegger...an overtly offensive act.  I assume, by your name, that you would disagree?

Less lethal rounds in a firearm seem like a good idea.  It's not what was being discussed though.

I didn't say that lethal force can't be used in self defence.  My belief is that you can't train for defensive use of a gun.  It's a lethal weapon.  You can really just train to kill more efficiently with it.  The term 'defensive pistol training' is dishonest.

FWIW, I don't mind target shooting or hunting with rifles.  I've been hunting many times myself, I get the appeal.

"Less lethal" ammo is in general a bad idea.  Most of it is perfectly capable of killing and maiming.  If you pull the trigger you should be shooting to kill and be ready to deal with the consequences.

Luck better Skill

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 283
  • Location: Virginia
avonlea I think have a reasonable concern.  I sometimes wonder on open carry when it is overboard if they are fringe elements of 2nd amendment or if they trying to incite people to fuel more gun laws.
Accidental shooting of someone is no different than an auto accident.  I wonder if the woman choose not to press charges.  Our judicial system is not perfect.

This where I think people fundamentally disagree. I think you're way more negligent when you carry around a loaded firearm and shoot someone than when you get in a car, take a curve a bit too fast and hurt someone.

thefinancialstudent - my comment was about the law.  Accident under the law.  Does that clarify?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
How does one use a lethal weapon in a defensive manner?  The only way that I can think of using a gun is to shoot someone . . . an overtly offensive act.  Is there some special gun-fu that's taught to make the usage non-lethal?

No, there is not any special gun-fu to make usage non-lethal.  There are non-lethal projectiles that can be loaded, instead of lethal projectiles.  For instance, if you were to come into my house unannounced and I were to reasonably believe that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, you would receive a "warning" shot which consists of a 12-guage loaded with rock salt instead of lead/steel shot.  If that was not enough to make you rethink your position, and I still reasonably believed that either my girlfriend or I were at risk of significant harm, lethal options would follow.

You, however, do not understand -or are willfully ignorant to the fact - that lethal force is allowed to be used in self-defense or in the defense of others.  In addition to shooting someone in self-defense or the defense of another (an obviously defensive act), there are many other ways to use a gun.  Maybe you should work on thinking outside of your limited view of weapons.  A short list of other things you can do with a gun: target shoot, collect, use as home decorations (think old-timey muskets here), hunt, use as a tool/hobby to bond with a relative. 

Just because you don't like a hobby doesn't mean that others don't find value and enjoyment in it.  Quite frankly, the only way that I can think of using a guitar is to play terrible teen-angst songs at a high school kegger...an overtly offensive act.  I assume, by your name, that you would disagree?

Less lethal rounds in a firearm seem like a good idea.  It's not what was being discussed though.

I didn't say that lethal force can't be used in self defence.  My belief is that you can't train for defensive use of a gun.  It's a lethal weapon.  You can really just train to kill more efficiently with it.  The term 'defensive pistol training' is dishonest.

FWIW, I don't mind target shooting or hunting with rifles.  I've been hunting many times myself, I get the appeal.

"Less lethal" ammo is in general a bad idea.  Most of it is perfectly capable of killing and maiming.  If you pull the trigger you should be shooting to kill and be ready to deal with the consequences.
Agreed, you never use a weapon that you are unwilling to use fully.