Skip to main content

Leave out the 2nd amendment, the NRA, liberal, conservative, whatever. Let me ask you to ask yourself a few questions:

Does a person have a right to defend themselves and their family from an attack?

if "yes", then:

Does a person have a right to do so with a means that can keep a larger or stronger attacker outside of arms reach?

and:

Does a person have a right to defend themselves against multiple attackers?

If you made it past at least the first two questions with a "yes" answer, then you are saying that having an effective, ranged self-defense tool is something that is a right. If you made it past the third question, then you accept that having multiple shots or uses is part of that right. You might miss, there might be multiple attackers, you might want to fire a warning, etc.

Right now, there are three main technologies for ranged self-defense. They are pepper spray, tasers and guns. "Bean bag" guns used to be more common, but seem to have fallen out of favor with the increased popularity of tasers, and rubber bullets are generally only used by police, so I'm leaving those two off the list.

Pepper spray is pretty nasty, but can be dealt with (some of the Occupy web pages give preventative instructions!). It will take down a lot of people, but if you have twenty bucks you can go to a hardware or sporting goods store and pick up something that will protect you enough until you can get into arms reach and hit the SOB who sprayed you with a baseball bat. So, reliability is iffy.

plus: Doesn't take a lot of skill to use, inexpensive, non-lethal, legal to carry
minus: Indiscriminate spray, cheap countermeasures, least likely to stop the people you most want to stop (big, angry, motivated)

Tasers I have no personal experience with, but judging from the YouTube videos, they seem pretty effective. But they are limited in the number of shots (the best available is a three-shot taser that costs $1100), limited durability (manufacturer says "useful life" is 5 years) and they are too expensive to practice with (are you going to spend $30 per shot for a few hundred shots to become proficient with it?). The perceived non-lethality and lack of mess seems to encourage its use, like police tasering elementary school students. Really?

plus: Does a pretty good job, only kills people occasionally
minus: Too expensive to practice with, most are single shot devices, illegal in seven states, plus DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, Chicago (note that some of these cities are extra bans in states where they were already banned)

Guns? They do the job, perhaps too well. Most of us, even RKBA supporters, would like the option of a threat that is sufficiently intimidating but without the risk of killing either the target or anyone downrange.

plus: Inexpensive to become proficient with, extremely effective
minus: Overkill (literally) in many cases, moral hazard. Carry/ownership/transport restrictions in many states, carry bans in a few.

Carrying a tool for self-defense is its own hazard. If you have any of the above items, are in a situation where you need to use it and you do not do so, then you run the very real risk of having it taken away from you and used against you or someone else. On the other hand, if you are defenseless, then you suffer the consequences of being attacked (robbery, rape, injury, etc.). There has to be sufficient willingness to use the tool, as well as competence to use it properly and the common sense to avoid situations that increase your risk of having to defend yourself in the first place.

Personal: I own guns. I own guns suitable for self-defense. I believe it is a fundamental right not because of the 2nd amendment, but because I answered "yes" for the three questions above and believe that guns are the most effective choice for my particular circumstances and my home (I also hunt, but that is a separate topic).

But I do not really desire a self-defense device that can punch through walls. If an attacker is on the other side of a barrier bigger or heavier than they can hold in front of them as a shield, they are probably not a threat to me. I generally do not carry a gun for self-defense because of that liability of firearms. That is a personal choice, because I live in an area where I can legally carry concealed if I so desire. The only reason I want power in a self-defense device is to incapacitate an attacker. When someone comes up with a device as effective as a taser and has the capacity and affordability to practice with as a pistol, I'll buy one and become proficient with it. Set phasers on stun...

Philosophical: Looking at the issue, what I am wondering is...

"How much of the recriminations, insults, demonization, moral inconsistency and lockstep ideology on the issue are between people who answered "yes" for all three questions but simply cannot accept the means by which someone else wants (or insists) it to be done?"

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Escalation of force. (8+ / 0-)

    In the Army, we wuz taught it.

    Firing bullets at a threat without being CERTAIN of it actually being a threat is called breaking the rules of engagement.

    That shit nets you a murder charge.

    "I felt Threatened" is not a goddamn excuse.  Even in an actual war.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:08:13 AM PST

  •  Here's the thing (4+ / 0-)

    how many multiple shots? And frankly a pump action shot gun is a far better home based self defense weapon against a single or multiple targets than an Bush Master style rifle.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:09:07 AM PST

    •  Ashotgun is not better for home self defense (10+ / 0-)

      When you're in a home invasion scenario, getting to that tool could be nearly impossible and then pointing it at the intruders then actually hitting them in close quarters is near impossible.

      If you live in a 4000 square foot home, okay then you've got room.

      If you live in a 400 square foot apartment, nope.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:27:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bullshit (0+ / 0-)

        TIt is no more difficult to get to than a hand gun unless you like leaving the under your pillow where the little kiddies can get them and blow each other away. BTW, every time you shoot a shotgun you are sending multiple projectiles. Hand gun or rifle, one.

        Also, most home invasions happen at night so unless you got night vision equipment you shouldn't be shooting ANYTHING b/c that violates gun safety 101

        When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

        by kaminpdx on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:33:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really, home invasion only happen at night? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, theboz, PavePusher, fuzzyguy

          Explain this then:

          http://fsblog.s3.amazonaws.com/...

          http://on.aol.com/...

          http://www.wpxi.com/...

          Multiple projectiles that will not stop an intruder in their tracks unless your within 15 feet of them.  If I am going to use a weapon, I want it to stop them immediately and know they can't get back up to continue their attack against me.

          I must identify the target first? While I agree it is a very good rule, how does that work when you're being beaten while still laying in bed? I have a weapon but opsy, I can't see who it is that is beating me, so I must wait until they stop beating me so I can see them BEFORE I discharge said tool?

          How does that work for our police again? How many people have they killed while falsely claiming they saw a gun?

          If we grant that exception to police, then I demand the same exception...It's called:

          Equity Under Law.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:00:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Most home invasions occur during business hours (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, PavePusher, fuzzyguy

          Not because criminals clock in like the wolf on the old Warner Bros cartoons, but because they want to break in when nobody is home.  As a result, I think guns should be stored securely and discretely when you aren't home.

        •  My handgun is on a holster on my belt. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          Why would anyone other than an idiot leave it under a pillow, kids or no?

          My shotgun has alternating 00-buck and slug loads.

          00-chambered, 00, slug, 00, 00, slug, 00, 00, slug, and 4 spares in the stock.

          As for "multiple projectiles", at across-the-room, in-home defensive distances, you'll be lucky to se a 6" spread in the shot pattern, so it's best to treat it as a single (large) projectile for aiming and damage purposes.

          Addressing "night", they came up with a nifty new gizmo you might have heard of... called a "flashlight".  Based on technology over 100 years old.  And sometimes you can even turn the lights on, if the invader hasn't already done so.

           

    •  An AR-pattern rifle is lighter, shorter, easier... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      to handle, less recoil, slightly less noise.

      Of course, circumstances vary.

      So will your mileage.

  •  Agree with Diarist: License All Guns and create (4+ / 0-)

    a national registry.

    Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

    by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:13:20 AM PST

    •  testing for competency (5+ / 0-)

      Continuing education proficiency, enough hours of use in dangerous situations that one could actually use it for self defense, etc.

      Self defense has to be one of the most overrated and least useful reasons for owning a gun.

      I have good friends, they have a number of guns, very proficient with them.   They have had two occasions to use their guns in the real world.  Both were defensive, one against a dog that jumped their fence and attacked their dog, a second time against coyotes on the farm.   They could use them now as well, they are having a feral hog problem, but unfortunately, feral hogs are a whole 'nother level of hard to kill and even they are not adequately equipped or trained to handle them.   They will probably hire some professional hog hunters.

      In all the years and all the people I know with guns, I still don't personally know anyone that had to use it in defense of themselves or a family member.  I have known a couple that have shot at each other in fights while drunk. It is Georgia after all.

      But the issue of self defense just keeps getting trotted out as if millions of people need to shoot somebody every other week to defend themselves.  Low probability event, lower probability that the gun will be available and the person actually able to use it effectively.

      But keep pushing it as anyone who supports any kind of gun restrictions is irrational, because that really is convincing.

      •  The great majority (10+ / 0-)

        of defensive uses do not involve shots fired.

        "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

        by happy camper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:55:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  so the real defensive (0+ / 0-)

          use is waiving the gun around to scare somebody, so we should not have any competency testing or training for the use of a dangerous instrument?    And then of course, ammunition is also unnecessary since defensive use doesn't involve actually shooting at anything?  And of course, the whole premise that multiple shoots are necessary as a right kind of flies out the window doesn't it.

          You can't have it all ways,  either guns, because they do shoot and are deadly force are necessary to protection, or they don't even need to shoot.    It isn't that they work some of the time for self defense just because someone knows you have one,   doesn't mean that the person who has one doesn't need to show competency in its use or that is not a perfectly reasonable restriction on ownership.

          Not to mention, there aren't any modern scientifically rigorous studies, in part, that issue may be addressed by the president today.    Old studies,  and pro gun lobby literature, nothing in almost 20 years.  Ignorance isn't bliss, its just a lack of knowledge.  Deliberate on the issue of guns so that the real dangers can't be known.  And who fears this knowledge, not the people who argue for some form of registration and licensing, but those who want to sell the maximum number of guns without meeting any restrictions.

          So keep promoting your old information and ignorance.   It works for Republicans and a few no nothing types.

          •  Your reply is (5+ / 0-)

            full of things I did not say, or even imply. FBI statistics are not old information. But obviously you are less interested in facts and more interested in hyperbole.

            Have a nice day.

            "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

            by happy camper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:34:29 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  no actually (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mskitty

              I  tried to find some current numbers, the FBI tries to keep some statistics, but they are, like many statistics from the FBI, not the best methodology (reported crime is not always a good measure of all crime, so police departments don't respond or fudge their numbers) or not current.   Older studies quoted frequently are 1995 and older.  Notable changes in crime patterns have been recorded, other things have changed.  

              A search for FBI statistics shows lots of stuff from the mid 1990's nothing in the last few years.  Again, a result of deliberate action by Congress to end research.  Nothing may be known in case it is negative.

              And if you have the killer end all of arguments, you could link them.

          •  Non sequiteurs and Strawmen? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea

            Well played... not.

        •  I don't know about you... (0+ / 0-)

          But I was taught "unless you're on a range, never show a gun unless you intend to use it."  Notice that's not "are willing to use it", but "intend to use it" -- the odds are that once you've shown it, you will wind up using it.

    •  Any other rights (16+ / 0-)

      you want to require licensing and registering for?

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:30:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Driver's; Vehicle; Occupational Licences (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dianegsocialist, glorificus

        "Rights" ok we know where you're going with this.

        Is Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Hapiness a Right?

        Why would the GOVERNMENT dare trample my Right to LL&P by requiring licensing of my occupation?

        Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

        by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:43:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Driving (8+ / 0-)

          is a privilege, not a right.

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:52:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there are lots of (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ROGNM, Back In Blue

            rights that are regulated and require a license.

            I want to hold a rally, I have to get a permit, and often even insurance, but your 2nd A out trumps my 1st A.

            Most people have to get a business license and follow various regulations. In fact, many regs are intended to KEEP people out of an occupation, DR, ATTY, CPA.

            So if other rights are not absolute, NEITHER are your gun rights!

            When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

            by kaminpdx on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:50:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  In modern America (0+ / 0-)

            It's a prerequisite for exercising a great many other rights -- like the right to eat.

            That argument is nonsense, and has been so for as long as I've been alive -- and Eisenhower was President when I was born.

            •  well, that makes 2 of us, demimondian (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

              but we don't have to agree on everything just 'cause we're of a particular cohort, temporally, do we?

              Here's the deal:

              The founding fathers -- and contrary to popular diaries here on DK they weren't trying to shore up slavery by writing the BoR -- had firsthand experience with all the ways it can go bloody damned wrong to be the guy stuck with a rock in a gunfight. They wanted to ensure that "the people" suffered no legal barrier to being equally well-armed when asked to turn out in defense of their homes, farms, families, communities, or states. They wanted all the people so charged with responsibility for that defense to have similar equipment and proficiency therewith.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:55:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's not what I'm talking about here (0+ / 0-)

                The issue was "is there a right to drive a car".  I was pointing out that in most of America, not being able to drive is a significant impediment to exercising other things which are unquestionably rights.

                As far as the argument about RKBA itself goes, I don't care one way or another why the Second was passed. I think we should repeal it and move on; it is fatally flawed.

              •  The USSC has ruled that guns can be regulated (0+ / 0-)

                without violating the 2nd.

                End of story.

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:21:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Right to Free Speech: Why should radio (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dianegsocialist

        transmission be licensed?

        Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

        by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:44:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •   avoid (7+ / 0-)

          interference to other channels. Don't equate that with free speech. that's bullshit and you know it.

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:53:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Freedom of speech (7+ / 0-)

          is not the same as freedom to operate a radio station. The latter is not a constitutional right.

          Radio stations are licensed because it's a privilege to use the publicly owned airwaves.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:58:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  1st amendment: (0+ / 0-)
            the right of the people peaceably to assemble
            Why are municipalities allowed to require "parade" permits, etc for the people to assemble?

            Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

            by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:59:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  a parade's not an assembly (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

              http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...

              http://www.thefreedictionary.com/...

              You can assemble without a permit -- people do it all the time at churches, townhalls, pep rallies, schoolboard meetings, the county commissioners' courts' sessions, birthday bashes, the mayor's cornbread-and-beans lunch, the Lions' pancake breakfast, etc.

              Parades, now -- traffic control and crowd protection and so forth, yeah. I can see the need to let the responsible government have notice of the event so they can plan for a proper response.

              LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

              by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:10:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're talkin' like the Man! dKos has been (0+ / 0-)

                infiltrated!!!!!!

                Notice: This Comment © 2013 ROGNM

                by ROGNM on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:47:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Proper response. (0+ / 0-)

                That's a perfect argument for regulating guns.  National registry, no exceptions.  You could take it further with all the regs the president put forth today.  I'd take it further to require knowledge and skill test.  In fact, I'd take it a lot further, but that would just make us tired.  

                Point is, the responsible government would then know how to plan for a proper response if they had the data to know what they were up against.

                As for freedom to assemble. Um, "free speech zones" have become de rigur.  Noise ordinances are enough to have the cops break up your assembly.  Calls to police from neighbors or passersby can get the police to visit you and end your assembly.  

                And, though I've posted this before, the USSC has ruled that the government does have the right to regulate guns.

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 06:01:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right after you apply all those rules... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea

                  to the First Amendment.

                  We'll take this in numerical order, Okay?

                  •  That's my point. We do apply it to the 1st. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ROGNM

                    The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                    by Back In Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 05:38:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Not to mention that fact the USSC ruled that (0+ / 0-)

                    the government can regulate guns.  Funny how you don't hear anyone calling for lifting the ban on machine guns.  I guess fully automatic weaponry is just beyond the pale.

                    The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                    by Back In Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:42:35 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  The second amendment states (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        luckydog, ROGNM

        that the right is extended to a "well regulated militia."  We are discussing how to regulate gun ownership, as called for in the Amendment.

        Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

        by OIL GUY on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:12:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "rights" like the one where a man gained (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        detroitmechworks

        control of a woman's property after marriage? Pretty much gone.

        The "right" to stone a woman for adultery or pre-marital sex? Gone in this country.

        The "right" to own slaves?

        Did you read the piece where someone stated the Second Amendment was included to induce the slave states to sign the Constitution?

        Does it make you feel more righteous knowing your 'right' to a gun was predicated on maintaining slavery?

        Society adapts over time. Maybe it's time the 2nd Am was modified for the 21st Century.

        And I still think the 500 + people killed since Sandy Hook had rights, too, that were stolen from them because of misplaced devotion/interpretation of the Second Amendment.

        **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

        by glorificus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:21:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  None of what you said (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, BlackSheep1, PavePusher

          changes the fact that gun ownership is a Constitutionally-protected right.

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:27:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  None of what you said makes that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ROGNM

            'Constitutionally-protected right' infallibly correct into perpetuity. See the 13th Amendment.

            KV and you keep saying just repeal it, and "Good luck with that."

            Repeal isn't necessary. Modification is, and that can be done legislatively and judicially. Executive orders work, also.

            I know you say you favor expanded background checks at least. However, your continued intransigence on other aspects is disappointing.

            **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

            by glorificus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:40:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  kestrel9000: not to mention this: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy
            Does it make you feel more righteous knowing your 'right' to a gun was predicated on maintaining slavery?
            which is sheer unadulterated inflammatory South-bashing BS, and will therefore become heroic defense of the truth at DK.

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:11:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, BlackSheep1. (0+ / 0-)

              But I doubt anyone else will ever repeat it, since the efforts by the President have been announced.

              Although if I wanted to bash the South, I'd use much more current and pointed arguments.

              However, since Mississippi, Missouri and Florida are all making Texas look almost-kinda-sorta-not-quite-so-regressive I won't.

              This week, anyway.

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:30:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I had to register to vote (0+ / 0-)

        I had to register to vote, and had I not registered, I would not have been allowed to vote.

        In order to represent me in a court of law, my attorney must pass a competency test (for which she must pay a fee) and be certified to practice by the state (requiring a second payment).

        I had to register and pay a fee to receive a document certifying my citizenship (a passport).

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

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:26:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Registering to vote (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annecros, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

          is so you can only vote once.
          The other two examples you give have nothing to do with rights.
          Any more specious comparisons you want to waste time with?

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:28:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have a right to an attorney (0+ / 0-)

            I have a right to an attorney, but only if that attorney registers with the state.

            You have a right to a gun, but you must register with the state.

            My passport documents my right to enjoy those protections of the US constitution.

            And afaik, no one is suggesting that you have to register your gun ownership more than once.

            Yes, we register to enjoy some of our rights, be they right to bear arms, right to an attorney, or citizenship rights.

            And you are the one who brought up the issue of registering, so if the argument is specious, you only have yourself to blame.

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

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:10:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's for your benefit and protection. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, gerrilea, rockhound, fuzzyguy

              You have a right to a lawyer. Implicit in that is that the lawyer BE a lawyer and not some guy who writes "lawyer" on a nametag before chasing ambulances.

              The requirements placed on a lawyer are to make sure YOU receive the benefit of your right to an attorney.

              Much like the requirements placed on a gun manufacturer regarding quality control are for MY benefit in assuring me that my right to a self defense handgun is not stripped from me by some fly-by-night workshop selling poorly made products.

              Get it?

              It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

              by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:32:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So we agree (0+ / 0-)

                So we are in agreement: there are times and circumstances where "registering for your rights" is not only appropriate, but beneficial.

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

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:51:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not the one registering. (0+ / 0-)

                  The person who claims the ability to act in court in my defense registers as an attorney.

                  The person who claims the ability to act in the world in my defense registers as a cop.

                  It's not me being required to register, hughj   imbissel.

                  It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                  by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:17:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So we agree, part II (0+ / 0-)

                    So we agree: in some circumstances, it is necessary and proper to register for a right.

                    Now should there ever be a time when the law requires you to register your gun ownership with authorities, you always have the option of disposing of your gun(s) and walking away.  You will then be spared the odious necessity of registering your gun ownership, and no one will then bother you further about registering your gun ownership.

                    The other guy I know named Hugh is Hugh George Reshon, but everyone calls him Hugh G. Reshon (grin).

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

                    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:28:25 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No agreement with you. (0+ / 0-)

                      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                      by JayFromPA on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:34:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, not true. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, fuzzyguy

              You can be your own council even if not admitted to the bar.

              I thought you could also have any other advisor you wished, but they could not argue in your place unless so qualified.

              But I admit I might be wrong....   8>)

              •  True, I can act as my own counsel (0+ / 0-)

                Yes, the law allows me to act as my own counsel.

                However, my right is that I may have an attorney defend me.  (Remember, for centuries before the constitution, individuals were brought before the king and were forced to defend themselves against any and all accusations, and pretty damn near 100% of those cases were decided against the defendant.  The founding fathers thought this was a raw deal, and thought that all accused persons should have a person defending them.)

                And for me to exercise my right, my atorney must first be registered in a variety of ways with the state.

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

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:59:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Your passport? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, fuzzyguy

              What does that have to do with your Rights?

              Does someone without a passport not have those same Rights?

              •  The right to leave and re-enter the country? n/t (0+ / 0-)

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

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:06:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There is no right to leave and re-enter (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  the country. There is only a right to freedom of movement between the states as implied by the privileges and immunities clause in the constitution.

                  The US may be a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which would guarantee freedom of movement to and from one's home country, however the declaration is nonbinding.

                  While I think such a right does exist, and so did FDR, unfortunately US law currently doesn't prevent the government from infringing upon that right.

      •  The USSC ruled that the government can regulate (0+ / 0-)

        guns.  Can we drop this now?

        The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

        by Back In Blue on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 05:23:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  hayll no (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, PavePusher

      national registry is bullshit.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:17:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What makes you safe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OIL GUY

    We all want to be safe.  Non-gun owners say they want to be safe.  Gun enthusiasts also say they want to be safe.

    Who is it that we fear will harm us?  For both gun enthusiasts and non-gun owners, the answer is the same: gun owners (I use the term loosely to mean anyone in possession of a gun).  Non-gun owenrs worry that a gun owner will come into their school or theatre and shoot them.  Gun enthusiasts worry that a gun owner will come into their homes to shoot them or shoot them on the street.

    Given that everyone wants to be safer from gun owners, it makes sense that we try and reduce the number of gun owners.  

    This could be accomplished in a variety of ways: limiting the availability of guns, taking guns away from owners, restricting ownership of guns, etc.  Suprisingly, some say such efforts to make us safer are unconstitutional, and so we must remain at risk for attack by gun owners.

    It should be pretty clear that having more people carrying more guns will make us all less safe.  Which is indeed what the empiric studies has shown us repeatedly: that owning a gun increases the likelihood of a gunshot injury for everyone in the household, and more guns means more gunshot injuries.

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

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:32:16 AM PST

    •  I do not have their addresses (12+ / 0-)

      but statisically speaking, over 500 women in the United States will be raped or sexually assaulted today. Less than one in six of those attackers will use a weapon. Less than one in thirty of that group will use a gun. And that is just the reported cases (Bureau of Justice figures, weapon by offense type).

      As a public service, perhaps you should find these women and let them know that in your opinion, the only thing they actually needed to fear was gun owners.

      •  Crime is decreasing (0+ / 0-)

        Gun enthusiasts like to remind everyone that crime is decreasing in the US.

        Strangely enough, gunshot injuries are increasing in the US.

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

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:59:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Injuries increasing? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          Got stats?

          •  Yeah, baby: Beaucoup stats! (0+ / 0-)

            I dare ya: acquaint yourself with the facts.

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

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

            by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 07:12:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fail (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              Imagine that, a long diary that demonstrates that injuries from a particular source are proportional to the population over time. C'est incroyable! The US Census says US population went up 9.7% between 2000 and 2010. Your diary shows an increase in gunshot injuries that falls within the statistical noise for that population increase.

              from a low of 28,000 fatal gunshot injuries in 1999 to over 31,000 gunshot fatalities in 2009
              Population shift, 2000-2010 (US census): +9.7%
              Fatal gunshot injury change, 1999-2009 (your diary): +8.6%

              Plus, I could use your figures to show a high Pearson's between cheese consumption and firearm injuries. Think of the children! There is no legitimate purpose for anyone to own an assault wheel of sharp cheddar!

              In addition to being wrong, the diary is also disingenuous in that is totally omits the remarkable decrease in firearm murders over the past 20 years, despite an increase in population and the number of guns in circulation.

              If you are going to troll my diary, at least be competent about it.

              •  You have made a classic error (0+ / 0-)

                You have made a classic error.

                I call your attention to the statistics of bicycle injuries, which show year-to-year variation, but no discernible increasing or decreasing trend over time.

                If you imagine that population growth is the cause of  the increase in a measured phenomenon (like gun injuries), you then have to explain why bicycle injuries are not also subject to the same forces of population growth (i.e. why are gun injuries going up, but bicycle injuries are not?).

                Gun murders and gun injuries are two different things.  They cannot be accurately compared as similar.  While gun murders have declined in recent years, gun injuries have increased in recent years.  Both can be true at the same time.  My article is accurate, even if it has a different focus from what you might want to see.

                If you would like to do your own study of trends in gun murders over time, my article should give you plenty of tools to get you going.  I will be happy to read and critique your study when you are done.

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

                by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 10:54:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Conflating gun owners (6+ / 0-)

      with criminals makes you look like an imbecile.

      Oh, wait...

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:00:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  keep it nice dude. talk issue (0+ / 0-)

        and put away the personal attacks.

        When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

        by kaminpdx on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:58:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a play (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          on his username... And conflating gun owners with criminals is not "talking issues". It's SOP for Hugh, who it seems cannot make a comment on this subject without slipping in a dig of some sort.

          If people act in a dickish manner, I will treat them accordingly. Seems fair, don't you think?

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 06:01:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I consider myself lucky (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theboz

        I consider myself lucky: my sister's name is Ima Em (grin)!

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

        by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:12:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's interesting to find (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    meagert, glorificus, gerrilea

    the middle of the road a provocative position to hold.  I would answer "yes" to the three questions, but I would likely not choose to carry any of your choices more extreme than the pepper spray.  

    I think having a gun makes it more likely that you'll need it.

    •  Good observation (4+ / 0-)

      The diarist is trying to approach from a middle of the road. Your choice of self defense is the one you are comfortable with.

      "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

      by meagert on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:12:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How does that work? (5+ / 0-)

      I pay attention to logistics. Just saying "Having a gun makes it more likely you will need it" sounds like strange magical thinking to me.

      Is a gun like an assault magnet? Do people walk down the street feel a strange urge to assault someone carrying a gun, inspired by the unseen gun?

      I don't get it. I'm taking you at your EXACT wording, but the words you took the time to spell out on the screen seem to imply that guns have some as-yet undiscovered property that physically affects nearby people, provoking thoughts of violence in them.

      Please, explain this assault magnet power to me.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

      by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:38:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll point to this article from (0+ / 0-)

        The New Scientist:

        Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.
        •  HA. Philly. (0+ / 0-)

          The land where the cops threaten the white guy with two in the melon, prone him out on the ground "for officer safety" and get bitchslapped by their sergeant when he arrives and informs them that their actions could bring a heavy suit down on them and him complete with precedents from other PA courts, because they have been informed by the MPOETC about the law. And none of which made it into the event report, making the white guy's recording of the whole thing an embarrassing thing.

          Yeah, like I trust data that comes out of philly regarding guns and crime. That data comes from the cops, who can and do massage the reports to smooth things out.

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

          by JayFromPA on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 03:42:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you sound like a guy (0+ / 0-)

            who has made his mind up already.  Sail on, Sailor.

            •  besides, (0+ / 0-)

              your comment about "the white guy" suggests, well, let us say, a certain ideological bent.

              •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                I do believe that the cops in that incident were less likely to be more forceful because the person they were handling was white. Upon review, it really doesn't add anything to the recounting, it's a side issue to the one I was getting at. Which is that you hear about these events often enough, and the aftermath and the struggle with the philly bureaucracy that lasts for months... and you come to conclusions. It's not like I made up my mind at the end of just one reported incident.

                It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not gun control, it's people care.

                by JayFromPA on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 04:38:54 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Easily explained (0+ / 0-)

          If people who know that are at higher risk of being attacked are more likely to carry guns ...

  •  Insecure people try to dominate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    luckydog, blueness

    What makes them insecure? Lord only knows. It may be endemic in people whose brains aren't wired just right. If their perception of reality is skewed, then their reactions may be constantly mistaken, so they go on the offense to defend themselves.
    Our mistake is in giving in to their impulse to dominate, especially since it solves nothing. Their use of force is no more successful than anything else. Iraq is the best example in macrocosm. Perhaps that's why we don't yet understand it. It was too big.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 07:58:26 AM PST

  •  Doesn't anyone read the Diaries anymore? (9+ / 0-)

    Several comments about the 2nd Amendment, driving comparisons, "assault" weapons, etc.
    I'll try and answer the diaries questions.

    Yes to all three questions.
    I suppose the ambiguities you discuss can only be addressed by someone who disagrees with carry options for outside the home, or even at home defense.
     Personally I don't understand not answering all the questions with a yes, so if the questions are answered honestly, I find opposition to this aspect of owning guns, slightly disingenuous. IMHO, of course.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:28:46 AM PST

  •  If all three answers are "yes," and I'm not (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

    opposed to granting all my fellow Americans the right to answer all three questions with a "yes," as well as not seeing anything overtly unconstitutional in the measures announced today by VP Biden and President Obama, does that make me a "gun nut" just because I'm a firearms owner?

    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 01:16:44 PM PST

  •  Good diary (0+ / 0-)

    I would like to add that some people are really uncomfortable with the idea of using lethal force in self-defense.

    This is not just absolute pacifists, but people who shrink from the idea of deliberately creating a medical emergency, however good the cause, and who want to find any other option.

    To such a person, the idea of defensive use of a firearm may seem unreal.

    Such a person is best described as a "decent human being".

    To all DHBs: if you look at the sane firearms trainers and their students, you'll find they share your attitude. Their advice and practice for road rage situations, for example? "Stay in your car!". Their advice for the first thing to do after an attacker is no longer a threat? Call an ambulance.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site