Skip to main content

View Diary: I can Kill you if I want to (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kasoru, Vet63, LilithGardener

    I don't think that by carrying a gun they are "constantly afraid".  It's called being prepared.  It's a fact that the police cannot always respond in a timely manner and be there to protect you.

    If I carry a spare tire, I am not not aftraid of getting a flat.  I am prepared.  If I carry a first aid kit, I am not afraid of getting an injury.  I am prepared.  A gun is a tool and as such needs to be handled properly.  If someone does not do that, they pay the price.  I DO agree that SYG needs to be handeled very carefully by the police and courts.

    •  Konan (5+ / 0-)

      Are things SO BAD in Florida,that everyone should carry a gun?
      People are murdered everywhere. Usually they don't carry.
      a get out of jail card when they kill.

      Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

      by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:08:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did I say that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vet63

        No, I did not.

        A lot of people have rights they don't use.  Concealed carry is one.  Voting is another.  I could go on and on.

        •  Konan (7+ / 0-)

          I know 3 folks who carry a gun in Seattle. I am aware a person has the right to have and carry a gun. This fact does
          not justify what happened, I am sad if we have a nation
          of the wild west. The folks I know who carry guns,tell me they
          only carry it if their working, They are very careful to put the
          gun in a safe place when they don"t need it. A policeman
          north of Seattle left his loaded gun in the glove box when he and his wife got out of the car for a moment, He left his two
          small children in the car, The 4 year old son,gets the gun
          and killed his  7 year old sister.
          I am not saying this story fits here,but  when guns are everywhere,more people die for no reason at all.

          Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

          by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:44:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you on several points. (4+ / 0-)

            I am not nor have I ever been defending Dunn (for example).  If someone uses a gun in an illegal manner they should be punished for it.

            I am a firm beliver in gun safety.  The policeman in your example was wrong to leave a loaded gun within reach of children.  Wrong and stupid.  And it saddens me that a child lost her life over that.  It should never have happened.  But it is not the guns nor the 4 year olds fault.  It was the fathers (and maybe the mothers but I don't know the facts so I cannot say).

            I think we agree on several points.  And thank you for your service to the country. (I say that based on your name here.)

            •  Um, the policeman in question ... (11+ / 0-)

              ... shot a man in a Pasco county movie theater who came at him with a bucket of popcorn. Really deadly weapon, that.

              When you carry a spare tire, you are prepared for the possibility that you will have to change a tire. When you carry a first aid kit, you are prepared for the possibility that you might injure yourself in a minor way. When you carry a gun, you are preparing to shoot someone!

              You can't get around that, or blow it off, or minimize it, or say it will never happen. When you carry a gun to "be prepared," the eventuality you are preparing for is shooting someone.

              I have walked this earth for 53 years in big cities and small towns, in upscale subdivisions and the south side of Chicago, and I have never felt endangered, never felt that perhaps I should have a gun to "be prepared" for someone attacking me. And this is key — I keep my eyes peeled for potentially dangerous situations and places, and take steps to avoid them.

              That's what unarmed people tend to do — avoid confrontation. It's worked for me. But the common denominator in these incidents is that the people involved in them did not try to avoid confrontation, they walked into it, forced the issue and then shot unarmed people because, they claimed, they were afraid for their lives. A gun gives you a feeling of power, and an attitude that no one's going to mess with you or you will blow them the fuck away. And when you walk around with that attitude — when you are "prepared" for the possibility that any person who confronts you represents a mortal danger to you, someone will die. If the other person is unarmed, you will shoot them. If the other person is armed, it's a crap shoot.

              Guns do not make you safe, they make you dangerous to yourself and others. I saw a TV program where a cop was looking for a suspect in a dark field, gun drawn and in down ready position. She almost stepped on the guy before she saw him. She pointed her gun at him and ordered him up. Because of the darkness and his position, she didn't see the gun he was holding until he turned and fired. Fortunately, she was wearing a ballistic vest, was able to return fire, and killed him. Had she not been wearing the vest, she would have been killed.

              Where am I going with that story? Two places. First, she was armed, ready, "prepared," if you will, and got shot anyway. If someone is determined to do you harm, they will do you harm. But my second point is this: She was in that position because it was her job to be there. It's not my job, or yours, to apprehend the bad guys.

              George Zimmerman was asked by a police dispatcher to stay put. He disregarded the request, put himself in harms way, and an unarmed kid who had broken no law is dead.

              Michael Dunn could have put up with loud rap music for the couple of minutes or so his wife was in the store, driven away and that would have been the end of it. But he had a gun, and so was "prepared" for a confrontation. A confrontation ensued, and a kid who had broken no law is dead.

              Curtis Reeves happened to be sitting in a movie theater behind a guy whose wife asked him to text the babysitter before the movie started to make sure his young daughter was okay. Discourteous, yes. But illegal? No. Reeves could have ignored him, or, if he was really bothered by it, moved to another seat. But he had a gun, and so was "prepared" for a confrontation. A confrontation ensued, and a man who might have gone to jail for simple assault is, instead, dead.

              Make no mistake. When you tell me you carry a gun to be "prepared" for trouble, you are telling me you are "prepared" to shoot someone. You will feel no need to avoid confrontation. You will feel no need to avoid areas where you might become a mark for an opportunistic criminal. You will go wherever you damn well please, because you are "prepared."

              I stand by what I said above. All three of the men I described were "responsible gun owners" right up until the moment they pulled the trigger and needlessly snuffed out three lives. But hey, give them a break — at least they were "prepared."

              I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

              by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:59:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course I am (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Vet63, KVoimakas, Joy of Fishes, Konan

                prepared to shoot someone. However, like virtually all people who carry I REALLY hope I never have to. I'd have to live with having taken someone's life. I'd have to deal with the legal system which has proven it's not always 100% "just", etc...  It would suck really really bad. The only thing worse would be not doing it and me or someone I care about being hurt.

              •  ObamaOcala (4+ / 0-)

                Your message is powerful. You describe what these two
                men who killed  with great insight, These men were on a
                power trip. I knew some guys in Vietnam who loved killing,
                They were killing for the fun of it. These two people  enjoyed
                killing. The "rush" is what they craved.
                Thanks again for this piece. This is not a message,its a
                diary. Thank you for taking so much of your time.
                Mike

                Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:33:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  A related point - concealed or open carry (5+ / 0-)

                includes a desire to have immediate access to a threat of deadly force as a means to influence the behavior of others (others = people or animals).

                I grew up with guns, and also had small arms training in the military. I currently live in NYC unarmed, but if I were to find myself in some future chapter of my life living in upstate NY, or Montana, or Idaho, I would probably own and sometimes carry arms for personal defense.

                You are spot on that if I choose to own/carry, I'm also choosing to carry the increased risk of causing my own death by a gun, the increased risk of causing someone I know to be killed with my gun, and increased risk of becoming a crime victim if/when someone tries to steal my gun(s).

                What seldom gets acknowledged is that if I choose to carry, I'm also choosing a heightened risk of shattering my own life and the lives of many others if I ever have a moment of confusion mixed with fear, poor judgment mixed with fear, or just plain poor impulse control.

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:52:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LilithGardener (3+ / 0-)

                  I read the Harvard study sent to me by a fellow diarist.
                  Violence goes up,when you own a gun, Your thinking about
                  what could happen is something I bet Mr.Dunn wishes he had
                  done. A simple trip to a store, puts him in jail for life,and
                  ends a  magical childs life,
                  Thanks for writting,
                  Mike

                  Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                  by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:03:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Follow along please. (0+ / 0-)

                The policeman we are talking about is the one Vet mentioned where his (the policeman's) gun sadly killed a 7 year old girl.  That is what I was replying to.

                When a reasonable and certified person carries a gun, they may be prepared to shoot someone, but I submit they are not preparing to shoot someone.  There is a huge difference there.

                As for the TV program you saw, I doubt the truth to it.  Police are not dumb and generally don't go walking around in the dark looking for someone.  I know police officers.  I have worked with them.  Your description of events is not in line with training I've heard of.  So yeah... not everything on TV is real.

                I never said it was my duty "apprehend the bad guys".  So that comment is not valid and there is no need for me to address it.

                I also said - over and over - that I am not defending Dunn, Reeves, or Zimmerman.  If someone breaks the law, they should be held accountable.  

                You say "You will feel no need to avoid confrontation."  I disagree.  I think it is different for each person.  To make a statement like that which applies to everyone is reckless in my opinion.

                I think it's not a stretch to say that most people who conceal carry do not want to go to trial, spend Lord knows how much money, and possibly go to jail.  

            •  Konan (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener

              I agree with your every word,thanks for your kind words!
              Mike

              Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

              by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:19:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I did a diary on loaded gun storage. (2+ / 0-)

            I think it works here

            A RFID, biometric, GPS lock box for loaded guns on bedside stands or in glove boxes.

            Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

            by 88kathy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:37:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Spare Tires and Guns (9+ / 0-)

      If you get a flat tire, you have to put on a new tire to drive well and safely.

      if you want to protect yourself from criminals, you have many choices - and many of those choices are non-lethal (large dog, pepper spray, taser, kung fu, etc).  There are many ways to be prepared that are non-lethal.

      The fact that you choose to protect yourself from possible criminal attack by using a lethal device -when other perfectly suitable non-lethal defenses are available - suggests to me that your choice involves something beyond the simple need to be prepared.

      The choice of a gun suggests to me that you are preparing yourself to kill someone.

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 12:16:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have personally witnessed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Konan, Joy of Fishes, Vet63

        A guy take a taser away from the security guard who just tased him with it and use it to beat the security guard in the face.

        Your "kung fu" will also work wonderfully after your assailant shoots you.

        •  Same thing happens to gun owners (8+ / 0-)

          I am sure you are correct.

          And yet, gun owners have the exact same problem.  There are many cases of gun owners who find their guns being used against them.

          Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack.  There are many studies that show a gun owner's gun is involved in more shootings of friends and family (accidental and intentionally) than are used to shoot criminals and intruders.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:07:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's great (0+ / 0-)

            and you can use that information in your own choice to own a firearm or not. Now leave my choice to me thanks.

            •  Your "choice" ends ... (6+ / 0-)

              ... where my right not to get shot by you begins.

              I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

              by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:20:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Fully understanding your choice (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, liberalguy, Vet63

              In America, you are allowed to choose to carry a gun, just as you are allowed to smoke cigarettes.

              But you should be fully aware of the consequences of your decisions.

              If you decide to smoke cigarettes, the consequences include heart attacks and stroke, and many other serious health problems.

              There are similar consequences of carrying a gun.  You yourself are at greater risk for suffering a gunshot injury than are people who choose not to carry a gun.  Your significant other is ALSO at increased risk for getting shot than are the SOs of people who do not carry a gun.  There is an increased risk that you, your SO, and your kids will use your gun to kill your/themselves.

              A "positive" study for gun owners found that a gun in the home is used to shoot the owner, a family member or an invited guest SIX TIMES more often than the gun is used to shot an uninvited intruder (this study was "positive" because the other study that was done found that the ratio of unwanted shootings to defensive shooting was something like 20:1).

              Feel safer now?  It is your choice to carry a gun, but you are not safer for it.  You may "feel" safer, but that is not the objective reality.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:38:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hugh Jim Bissell (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                I am sorry I missed this yesterday,Your messagei is powerful
                and people should read it. It goes without saying,I agree
                with every word.
                Thanks for your wisdom,
                Mike

                Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:04:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  As long as you open carry (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liberalguy, Vet63

              So everyone else can see the gun, where it's pointed, and decide for themselves if they trust you.

              Concealed carry is sneaking around with it, taking the ability of others to get out of the way away from them.



              Women create the entire labor force.
              ---------------------------------------------
              Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

              by splashy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:57:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You don't have a right to invade my (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru

                privacy. I'll carry concealed, thanks.

                •  So, you are very happy to put others at risk (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  LilithGardener, fcvaguy

                  Without letting them know it, right?

                  Way to infringe on others. Take away their ability to get out of the line of fire.



                  Women create the entire labor force.
                  ---------------------------------------------
                  Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

                  by splashy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 08:02:50 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A holstered firearm is not a risk to anyone. nt (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    DavidMS
                  •  Historically, concealed carry was considered (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

                    devious and unfair, because it gave unfair advantage, and induced the bearer to commit criminal acts (paraphrasing and summarizing), and surprise assassinations. I only learned this recently, from reading about the 18th century rationale for prohibiting concealed carry.

                    So, concealed carry is a modern social convention. Keep posting splashy. You're planting seeds every time you lay out your clear and compelling logic.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:26:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Over the past few months (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, LilithGardener

                      my thinking has evolved. If you want to carry a weapon outside your home, it should be in the wide open. No concealed carry.

                      KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                      by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:38:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm not there yet, for a variety of reasons (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

                        but with examining the historical arguments I'm far less certain than I used to be that concealed carry is better. It seems like we failed to learn from our past and so we are unawares, deluding ourselves, blindly repeating the lesson.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 09:54:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I understand (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

                          I'd been thinking the same way. And, I think Splashy up above, makes an excellent point. People should know and be aware of who and what is around them. Interestingly, some of the RKBA seem to not like that idea, citing their "Privacy" rights to conceal their weapons. I don't believe in such an association.

                          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                          by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 05:43:37 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course you don't. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            Which is fine. But you don't get to force your beliefs on other people.

                          •  projecting much KV? (0+ / 0-)
                            you don't get to force your beliefs on other people
                            The only right to privacy with respect to concealed carry exists in your mind only. Not in any juris prudence.

                            You like your guns. You want to carry them everywhere. You've made that clear numerous times.

                            You should do so proudly, and OPENLY.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:17:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right, because only things with clear (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            precedent in the courts or legislation can every truly be correct or right.

                            So, by that standard, you support Heller and McDonald right?

                          •  I support Heller and McDonald (0+ / 0-)

                            You don't. You disagreed with Scalia's ruling where he cited examples of reasonable restrictions.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:32:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, I've pointed to the "cannot ban (0+ / 0-)

                            commonly used firearms" section of that ruling often enough. I don't support "no restrictions" as a policy plank on firearms.

                          •  Scalia: (0+ / 0-)
                            Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
                            Scalia then acknowledged in his interview with Fox that future rulings will sort out "common use" and other remaining ambiguities. Scalia got what he wanted, an originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment. But, he's no idiot. When Heller II and NYSAFE, and other laws get up to the SCOTUS, I think you may very well be seriously disappointed.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:55:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I completely agree with your bolded section. (0+ / 0-)
                            It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
                            I can't carry a bazooka or grenades or a rocket launcher or a grenade launcher (or cruise missiles, etc). There are currently restrictions on who can obtain NFA firearms and devices.

                            When those cases make it up to SCOTUS, what happens if you're the one who is disappointed?

                          •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

                            In previous dialogue, you made it clear you didn't agree with Scalia in the blockquote. That puts you to the right of him even.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:04:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If RKBA was a right/left issue, I could concede (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            that.

                            I don't agree with everything in the original blockquote, which is why I narrowed it down.

                          •  What part don't you agree with? (0+ / 0-)

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I disagree with this: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru
                            For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
                            I'm reading that as any/all current prohibitions, not just some. I have no problem with some restrictions on who can carry, where they can carry, etc. But places like Cali or New Jersey or Hawaii are overly restrictive.

                            Guess we will find out when that recently discussed case hits SCOTUS.

                          •  PS there are three points in the bolded (0+ / 0-)

                            You addressesd one.

                            1) any weapon whatsoever
                            2) in any manner whatsoever
                            3) for whatever purpose.

                            He said that for a reason. You should give it some thought to understand what he was saying.

                            For example, I know you were trumpeting the recent Ninth Circuit ruling overturning San Diego's law regarding concealed carry. However, it was overturned by a 3 judge panel, two of whom are noted conservatives, and not the full court.

                            When it gets to the full court, the San Diego law could very well be upheld under Scalia's "for whatever purpose" clause. We shall see.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 10:07:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There is a direct analogy (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, fcvaguy

                            that might apply the same logic from voting to gun rights. When people want to exercise their right to vote they must register their intent to do so in advance. It's a matter of public record. Their actual vote is private, but their party affiliation and whether they voted are matters of public record. And in most jurisdictions people must show up to vote in person. If they mess up any part of the rules, they have to wait 2 years before they get another chance to exercise their right to vote. But in no case do they ever get to "be a voter" without their families, their neighbors, their friends, their employers knowing about it.

                            IOW we ask people to surrender a little privacy to exercise their constitutional right. It used to be the sane approach to public gun carry too. Now we expect everyone to surrender some medical privacy, for their entire lives, even though the vast majority will never seek to purchase or own a gun.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 06:41:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ... and we demand that (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, fcvaguy

                            of everyone for the convenience of legal and illegal gun owners, so they can buy/sell guns in private, without anyone knowing about it.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 06:47:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do people register for when they want (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            to exercise their freedom of speech or religion? Is this also only a once every two years event?

                          •  thoughtful argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:18:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  To be clear, the analogy (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, fcvaguy

                            gun rights are like voting rights breaks down quickly, but I've seen it tossed out so often I decided to explore some of it's dimensions.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 07:27:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, strawmen get propped up (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            too often in these discussions. The only ones that piss me off is when they say having a gun is like being Black or Gay.

                            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                            by fcvaguy on Thu Feb 20, 2014 at 08:33:20 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  There is absolutely zero association (0+ / 0-)

                  between the right to privacy and concealed carry. And, courts have NEVER associated a right to privacy to concealed carry.

                  KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

                  by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:37:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  splashy (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                I am sorry I ran out of time yesterday to tell you your
                Conceled carry statement goes to the heart of why there are
                so many sad murders in this country.
                Thank you for writing,
                Mike

                Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

                by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 05:09:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  I'd add (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            I'd like to see the stats for this:

            "Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack."

            Since the lowball number of defensive gun uses in the US is over 100,000 a year.

      •  Perfect suitable is relative. (0+ / 0-)

        What if a dog, pepper spray, or such does not midigate the situation?  What if you need more than one dog?  Btw, do you know how much it costs to train an attack dog?  A lot.  Kung Fu is not going to help much if someone is out of range and a threat to me.

        A gun is a tool.  It requires human responsible agency.  It can be used for good or bad.  If it is used in an illegal manner, the person should be punished.  Seems pretty simple to me.

        Regarding your last statement, think of it this way: rather than thinking they are preparing to kill someone, consider instead that they are prepared to protect someone (themselves, a loved one, or someone else).  I'm asking you seriously.  There is a big difference there.  Research and consider how many times guns are used to save a life.

        For the record, I do not carry nor have a permit.

        •  Guns are more dangerous to gun owners (5+ / 0-)

          And yet, gun owners have the exact same problem.  There are many cases of gun owners who find their guns being used against them in a criminal attack.

          Indeed there is evidence that a gun onwer's gun is used against the same gun owner more often than is used to defend the gun owner from attack.

          Most empirical studies of shootings give evidence that guns cause more injuries to the owner, family members, and invited guests, than to uninvited intruders.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:10:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well we could both quote studies all day long (0+ / 0-)

            and get nowhere with each other.  There are studies out there to support either side.  Or any side as the case may be since it's not just a two sided issue.

            Some studies include suicide by gun as an example of a gun being dangerous the gun owner.  Well duh.  But suicide by a gun is far different than an injury or death by someone who was -for example - cleaning a gun irresponsibly.  Two completly different situations.  So we all need to be careful about citing evidence or a study when we don't really know the manner or methods used in the studies.  (For the record, in my "save a life" quote above, I am well aware the NRA or others spins things in their favor.  So one needs to be careful there too.  I would no more trust the NRA than I would the Brady Foundation or whatever the name is.)

            Also the term "more often" is dangerous.  Again, statistics can me massaged in a way to skew results.  But enough of that.

            At the end of the day, if you can save a life with a gun would you?

            That is a personal choice of course.  I would rather save the life than see it lost.  Or to frame it another way, better to be judged by 12 then be carried by 6.  Or being one to help carry.

            I say again: A gun is a tool.  It requires human responsible agency.  It can be used for good or bad.  If it is used in an illegal manner, the person should be punished.

            •  I prefer the Harvard school of public health (3+ / 0-)

              studies, they have been well quoted on this site, societally guns introduce much risk, as an individual believe what you want

            •  I'll show you mine, if you show me yours (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, churchylafemme

              I am happy to compare studies with you.

              The fact is that the vast majority of peer-reviewed published studies of guns and guns injuries show that a gun in the home is a danger to the gun owner, family members, and invited guests.

              Here is something for you to read: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

              What have you got for me?

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:47:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Au contraire, Konan. (0+ / 0-)

              Whip out your pro-gun studies. Go ahead. Let's see 'em.

              Fact is, the gun lobby worked against gun violence studies for a reason: they show that humans screw up with guns.

              At the insistence of the gun lobby, the Affordable Care Act was limited from engaging in gun behavior study in 2013; the Health and Human Services was issued a prohibition in the 2012 budget. Interference with the CDC, the research arm of public health, is still described by health professionals as "chilling."

              I've looked into this subject. Kleck is the only long-term epidimiologist whose figures agree with your premise that  studies support gun mayhem; it was his committee in the CDC 2013 study using those figures.  (He was quoting himself.)

              So let's see your figures.

              _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

              by reasonablegunsplz on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:38:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't hold your breath (0+ / 0-)

                I'd like to see what Konan has got in the way of data or good studies.  

                Tho' I am not expecting much - more fact-free opinionating.

                "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 06:14:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let's start here... (0+ / 0-)

                  I too can go from the specific to the general like so many do here.

                  This.

                  Let us cut to the chase.  Just so I don't have to post them all.

                  As I said above, I can quote other sources but I don't trust them from either side.  If you do, that is your right.

                  Tell me this: which gets more attention in the media: a sensational trial where someone died or a sad moment where a criminal was stopped with a firearm?  Think about that.  Seriously, I am asking you to.  Count out how many people you can think of that made the news due to saving a life with a firearm.  I am guessing not many.  You know why?  Money.  News outlets are in the business to make money.  On both sides of the political world.  They make money by keeping stories alive in the media.

                  It is like a poster wrote here about his experience working in reality television.  They don't do boring.  They script and only show what gets ratings.  All the news and websites you view do the exact same thing.  Sensation and scandal sells.

                  Let me also ask you this: how many of you lock your doors to your domicile?  If you do, then why?  I'm guessing it is because you want to defend yourself against theft or harm.  Enough said.

                  •  39 DGUs in PA. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    terrybuck

                    OK, so the authors say they count 39 defensive gun uses in the state of PA. (tho' I didn't see any further documentation (ya know - police report) about any of those incidents - so how can we know these are all actual defensive gun uses and not Michael Dunn encounters?).  I point out that this article has not been peer-reviewed, and is published in a publication dedicated to glorifying gun use.

                    Tell us - how many criminal uses of a gun have occurred in PA?  hundreds? thousands? hundreds of thousands?

                    Tell us - how many gun suicides have occurred in the state of PA? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?

                    And how many accidental shootings have occurred in the state of PA? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands?

                    What this article shows is that gun owners sometimes sue their guns to ward off criminal attack - something no one disputes.  What this doesn't tell us is that gun owners are made any safer by owning guns (did you notice the brave gun owning defender in the story was attacked by a guy with a gun? - so is this really a story about a DGU or a story about an offensive gun use?).  

                    So there are 39 DGU in the state of PA, and thousands of offensive gun uses, hundreds of suicides, and hundreds of accidental shootings.  How exactly are gun owners made safer by their guns?

                    Here's an article for you to read: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/...

                    I like this game: send me more articles.

                    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 03:40:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Or simply preparing to use the threat of deadly (0+ / 0-)

        force to influence others' behavior.

        The thread of deadly force is extremely persuasive and much easier to apply than many other methods to influence behavior.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:55:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You don't get the juice from the bullets. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NYFM, LilithGardener, Vet63

      It's the gun that is the tool the bullets are a vital part for gun operation.

      The spare tire is like the bullets - your car doesn't work without it. I notice that you didn't talk about how driving a car changes your perspective, or alter your behavior, as that is the part of the argument that your comment here seems to miss the mark on.

      The car is the tool that changes your perspective. Super nice old ladies flip the bird at the drop of a hat. Nice, law abiding citizens go apeshit on eachother when the car is impeded from doing it's job of liberation (traffic jam - asshole driver).

      That stuff happens because the tool changes you.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:08:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you suggesting that we should not drive cars? (0+ / 0-)

        I would submit that we should drive them responsibly.

        I suggest that if someone does something illegal or irresponsible with a car that we punish them.

        Oh wait, we do!

        Just like with guns.

        So what is your point exactly?

        •  if we drove fewer cars and less miles, that would (4+ / 0-)

          be a great gift to all, our personal health, and an environmental benefit

          I see you're pretty new to these never ending debates with gun owners, the car thing's been beat to death

          And yes it's OK to think outside the box

        •  The good old "cars are dangerous too" argument (4+ / 0-)

          Cars are licensed and registered. You must be licensed to own and drive one, and you must prove you are proficient before obtaining that license. You must be insured. You must re-register your car every year or two, and must prove you have driven your car safely and responsibly every year in order to renew your insurance. If you have been careless and racked up tickets and and/or accidents, you will pay more for your insurance and have points assessed on your license. Acquire too many points, and you lose your license.

          I would love to see similar rules applied to guns. But that, apparently, would be infringing upon your freedom in an unacceptable way.

          Your comments in response to others who suggested non-lethal ways of defending oneself suggest that you think your gun makes you invincible. Sure, you say, tasers and pepper spray are fine, but can be taken away. But when others point out that a gun can be taken away and used against the gun owner, you scoff and demand we present case studies proving that has happened. Ask any cop who works in a big city. It happens. But it won't happen to you.

          You scare me, honestly. You are one confrontation away from being the next George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn or Curtis Reeves. And I hope I'm safely out of range when it happens.

          I vote we run Rick Scott out of Florida on a high-speed rail.

          by ObamOcala on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:15:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, Konan

            Only to drive it on public roads. I can own a car and use it on private property all I want with no license and no registration. In fact I do a bit of that. I have a truck that hasn't had valid tags on it since 1997 and I drive it almost every weekend. Just like to carry a firearm in public (in virtually every state) I have to get a permit, pass a test, prove I know the law and am proficient, etc...

            This all skips over the fact that driving isn't an explicit civil right in the constitution and owning firearms is of course.

          •  You do NOT need to be licensed (0+ / 0-)

            and have the car registered in order to drive one.

            That is just something assumed by people who live in cities.

            But it's not true.

          •  Was this address to me? (0+ / 0-)

            If so, you did not read what I have written several times already.  I do not conceal carry.  Or openly carry (legal in certain areas, happily).  

      •  k9disc (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        k9disc

        Having a gun at all times,or several like Zimmerman,makes
        you feel powerful and kils innocent people. Our country
        is barbaric  compared t most other civilized  Countries.
        Mike

        Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

        by Vet63 on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 03:16:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You can't be constantly prepared 24/7. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener

      If the police can't protect you the chances that you preparedness will mesh with that need are slim to none.

      Thinking you can be alert 24/7 is a fatal flaw in your danger mitigation plan.

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 01:34:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are plenty of people who carry who are (6+ / 0-)

      not constantly afraid. Many are so comfortable in their surroundings that they even forget they have a gun in their bag, in their pocket, in their purse,

      they are so NOT afraid they leave their gun in the bathroom, on the coffee table, under the seat, in the drawer next to their bed, on the bottom shelf of the closet, ... where children and teens easily find them.

      they are so NOT afraid they leave it in their car when they want to attend a large concert or any event in a sports arena, attend a parent/teacher conference in their school, or go take care of business in the court house.

      they are so NOT afraid they don't take it with them into a hospital or into a church...

      ... I understand the argument about being prepared is not the same as being afraid, and I get the analogy to a helmet, a spare tire, and a fire extinguisher.

      There are enormous differences though that need acknowledgment. Helmets don't injure 70,000 people a year, or kill 30,000 people a year. Fire extinguishers can't hurt someone in the next room, or across your property line, when you take it out once in awhile to see if it's still operable. A spare tire has never caused a single fatal accident.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 02:40:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely right about recognizing the (0+ / 0-)

        differences. I don't have a constitutionally enshrined civil right to keep and bear helmets, a spare tire, or a fire extinguisher.  

        •  The word "enshrined" again, KV. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, liberalguy

          I just wish you would apply the "enshrinement" to something holy or sacrosanct.

          This gun shrine is in your mind. But not in the mind of Trayvon's parents, or Jordan's parents.

          _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

          by reasonablegunsplz on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 05:50:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Definition: (0+ / 0-)
            en·shrine transitive verb in-ˈshrīn, en-, especially Southern -ˈsrīn\
            : to remember and protect (someone or something that is valuable, admired, etc.)
            Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't fit.
            •  Okay, if you don't mind being considered... (0+ / 0-)

              ...as a person who puts guns on a shrine. Your reverence is self-evident in your promotion of the gun mentality around here, BTW.

              But I am a person who sees terrible social, ethical, and health costs being paid by a great nation, many of whose citizens don't even want guns around. They have their reasons, KV.

              I was raised with guns. My personal collection at age 12 was three handguns, and a .22 rifle, not bad. In another life in NM I shot two running rabbits, one shot one kill each.

              I still have a $25 pawnshop .22, but it's not kept on any shrine. I am too ashamed of current gunboy behavior to be seen in public with it: I'm a once-proud gunowner, and I speak as such.

              What is your comment on our gun violence rates being 19.5X worse than other high-income nations?  Have a plan, bro?

              _______________________________________________________________________________________ It seems to me that we humans take turns being dummies.

              by reasonablegunsplz on Tue Feb 18, 2014 at 07:08:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  All of our civil rights are enshrined in the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DavidMS

                Constitution, including the right to keep and bear arms.

                But I am a person who sees terrible social, ethical, and health costs being paid by a great nation, many of whose citizens don't even want guns around. They have their reasons, KV.
                Which is why we have a Bill of Rights to begin with. It's meant to protect rights against majority rule infringements at the federal level (though some of it has been incorporated against the states).

                You must be rather old to have 3 handguns at the age of 12. I'm assuming that's pre-GCA?

                What is your comment on our gun violence rates being 19.5X worse than other high-income nations?  Have a plan, bro?
                Yes I do. I've mentioned it before. And guess what? We can reduce firearm related violent crime with firearm specific measures and general measures (that also impact all violent crime) without further restrictive controls.  My suggestions are here.
      •  LilithGardener (0+ / 0-)

        I am sorry I missed your powerful message yesterday. I agree with youon every word.
        Thanks for writing here!
        Mike

        Social activist, nutrition and exercise advice,long distance runner, Writer.

        by Vet63 on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 08:27:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site