A Case for More Guns

[mikeb302000]

The Atlantic

There are ways, of course, to make it at least marginally more difficult for the criminally minded, for the dangerously mentally ill, and for the suicidal to buy guns and ammunition. The gun-show loophole could be closed. Longer waiting periods might stop some suicides. Mental-health professionals could be encouraged—or mandated—to report patients they suspect shouldn’t own guns to the FBI-supervised National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although this would generate fierce opposition from doctors and patients. Background checks, which are conducted by licensed gun shops, have stopped almost 1 million people from buying guns at these stores since 1998. (No one knows, of course, how many of these people gave up their search for a gun, and how many simply went to a gun show or found another way to acquire a weapon.)

Other measures could be taken as well. Drum-style magazines like the kind James Holmes had that night in Aurora, which can hold up to 100 rounds of ammunition and which make continuous firing easy, have no reasonable civilian purpose, and their sale could be restricted without violating the Second Amendment rights of individual gun owners.

But these gun-control efforts, while noble, would only have a modest impact on the rate of gun violence in America.

Why?

Because it’s too late.

There are an estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands in America—many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4 million new guns enter the market. This level of gun saturation has occurred not because the anti-gun lobby has been consistently outflanked by its adversaries in the National Rifle Association, though it has been. The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message.

I'd like to thank Frail Liberty who suggested the article. Apparently he doesn't know about my short attention span. I did invest the time to read it all, though.

It certainly covered some of our favorite themes.

The one which I quoted, that says it's too late because there are already 300 million guns "out there" is misleading. It makes it sound like the 300 million guns are sitting at supermarket check-out, free for the taking. The fact is, obviously, every one of those guns is in the possession of someone who has no intention of making it available. It's his.

The side effect of so many guns in society is twofold. Many are passed into the criminal world in various ways and too few of them are available when and where they're needed to stop crime. Increasing the numbers further will increase the bad part of that equation and not affect the other.

The other major argument of the article is "wouldn't increasing the number of concealed carry citizens help."

This is based on the mistaken idea, which we've already discussed at length, that concealed carry permit holders are safer than other people. I just can't accept that.

Today, more than 8 million vetted and (depending on the state) trained law-abiding citizens possess state-issued “concealed carry” handgun permits, which allow them to carry a concealed handgun or other weapon in public.

This is a loaded statement. The word "vetted" is totally misleading. In states where they require training and testing prior to issuing the license, the requirements are minimal. Almost every applicant already does far more than what's required. What kind of vetting is that? In other states, as the parenthetical disclaimer alludes to, there are actually no requirements whatever.

How could people like that be better able to handle firearms than gun owners at large? Not only is this the contention of the pro-gun folks, regardless of the absence of logic, some of them claim extraordinary and unbelievable factors of improvement. Frail Liberty recently quoted a study which says CCW permit holders are 13 times safer than other gun owners.

Sorry, when something is so outlandish, I cannot accept it.

No, I remain strongly convinced that more guns equals more gun violence, not less. The hypothetical question of "in a bad situation wouldn't you want to have a gun handy," in foolish. The answer is obviously yes, but so what? My belief is guns do more harm than good. For every incident in which a gun saves the day, you've got hundreds in which one is misused.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000

[AtheistCrusader]

1. Just renewed my permit.

35$ and I'm good to go for a few years.

[rl6214]

2. Just renewed my Texas permit as well

Scored a perfect 100 on my written test and shot a 250/250 on the range.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I scored a perfect whatever on my fingerprint check, and that's all we have.

[TPaine7]

4. We get your beliefs.

Sorry, when something is so outlandish, I cannot accept it.

No, I remain strongly convinced that more guns equals more gun violence, not less.... My belief is guns do more harm than good....

I admit that you "cannot accept" contrary points of view, that you "remain strongly convinced that more guns equal more gun violence" and that your belief is that "guns do more harm than good."

What I'm missing is why I, or anyone else, should care what you think. Maybe the "why" is behind the blind links to your blog, but, having visited once, I doubt it.

[Eyes of the World]

5. Concealed carry might carry some vague intimidation

But a concealed weapon is hard to guickly reach, aim and fire accurately under pressure.

The Russians have developed a school of martial arts that recognizes that it is VERY difficult to pull out a weapon and get a clean shot while under attack.

Bruce Lee said that the man with weapon is at a disadvantage, because he will soon lose the weapon and his crutch will be gone.

The person who does not train in weaponless combat should not use a gun.

The person who does train in martial arts is wise enough to know that a gun isn't necessary.

I think that all guns do, is give false-confidence to people who shouldn't have it, or firepower to people who shouldn't have it.

But I agree with you in that it is too late. America is a country that is irrevocably armed to the teeth.

[TPaine7]

6. Situations vary. The best person to make the assessment is the person under attack.

...{A} concealed weapon is hard to guickly reach, aim and fire accurately under pressure.

Here are a few stories of people who were able to use weapons effectively. ( http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x195218 ) The last story is of a concealed carrier who was able to draw a weapon from concealment and use it effectively. The best person to make the assessment is the person under attack.

Edited to add link for last story: http://www.al.com/birminghamnews/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/122838211821690.xml&coll=2

Bruce Lee said that the man with weapon is at a disadvantage, because he will soon lose the weapon and his crutch will be gone.

Bruce Lee should have tried telling that to the many people who have used weapons to defend themselves, some of them old, infirm, outnumbered, outweighed or otherwise at a disadvantage.

In some cases and situations, that statement makes sense, in others it is clearly false.

The person who does not train in weaponless combat should not use a gun.

Again, cases vary. Many people without training in weaponless combat have been saved from murder, rape, kidnapping or other serious felonies by their use of a gun. I don't see why they should have died or been raped or seriously injured because they lack training in weaponless combat.

I think that all guns do, is give false-confidence to people who shouldn't have it, or firepower to people who shouldn't have it.

So the little woman holding the would-be rapist at gunpoint is falsely confident that she can defend herself? And no one should have the firepower of a gun?! Is that really what you think?

[GreenStormCloud]

10. Bruce Lee was full of bullshit.

But a concealed weapon is hard to quickly reach, aim and fire accurately under pressure. That is why a person should practice drawing their gun. Further, if a person keeps aware of the situation around them they will spot trouble in time to put their hand on their gun (don't draw it yet) and be ready. I carry my gun in my pocket. If a situation looks bad I just put my hand in my pocket and on the gun. If needed it can out in less than a second, yet to others I just look like an old guy with his hand in his pocket. It isn't that hard to spot when a criminal has targeted you. There are things that they have to do that give them away. Learn what to look for and you won't be surprised.

The Russians have developed a school of martial arts that recognizes that it is VERY difficult to pull out a weapon and get a clean shot while under attack. Americans have developed various schools of gunfighting that show you how to do it. I can recommend some excellent books and videos.

Bruce Lee said that the man with weapon is at a disadvantage, because he will soon lose the weapon and his crutch will be gone. Only if I am afraid to pull the trigger. Gun trumps karate. For Bruce Lee type arts you have to be close enough to make contact. With a gun I have a standoff capability. Also there are gun retention techniques that would make it deadly for your black belt to try to take my gun away.

The person who does not train in weaponless combat should not use a gun. What about senior citizens with disabilities. Do you really expect us to fight with young thugs, especially if there are more than one of them?

I think that all guns do, is give false-confidence to people who shouldn't have it, or firepower to people who shouldn't have it.
Tell that to my wife. She is a tiny woman, 4' 10", is a senior citizen, and has an injured knee. Yet she has twice used her gun to put a would be mugger to flight.

But I agree with you in that it is too late. America is a country that is irrevocably armed to the teeth.
And that is a good thing.

[Eyes of the World]

13. Please recommend some books

I can't understand how your wife pulled out a gun if someone was mugging her.

Are you sure she didn't invent this story? I mean, a little old lady getting beaten would have a tough time finding that gun, drawing that gun, aiming that gun. Maybe she just THOUGHT someone was threatening so she used her false courage to scare them away. Some poor black kid walking down the street got a gun pulled on him by a little old lady.

Thats not the point.

The point is that a gun is just a big penis substitute.
Make sure yours is well polished.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Welcome

Really? That's just ridiculous.

[TPaine7]

15. Sigh

You are in need of education, but unfortunately your needs include a lesson in how to ask for help. I'll take a stab at assisting you.

Please recommend some books

A perfectly acceptable request. Too bad you didn't stop there.

I can't understand how your wife pulled out a gun if someone was mugging her.

There is a lot you don't understand, hence the need for education. Unfortunately, this question comes with an implied insult.

Read what he said carefully. He didn't say someone was mugging her; he said she put a would be mugger to flight:

...she has twice used her gun to put a would be mugger to flight.

Being an intelligent, well trained woman, she didn't wait until it was a physical contest.

Are you sure she didn't invent this story? I mean, a little old lady getting beaten would have a tough time finding that gun, drawing that gun, aiming that gun. Maybe she just THOUGHT someone was threatening so she used her false courage to scare them away. Some poor black kid walking down the street got a gun pulled on him by a little old lady. 

Ah, the implication made explicit. Maybe his wife is a liar. Or delusional.

How charming.

The point is that a gun is just a big penis substitute. 
Make sure yours is well polished.

Ah, there's the intellectual core of your argument, and it's as impressive and original as the first million times it was used.

You've come into this group and asked a respected and long-standing member to consider that his wife may be a liar or delusional, all based on your lack of reading comprehension, understanding and imagination.

Next you've implied that his wife needs to lug around an artificial penis, and that taking care of that "big penis substitute" is a type of "polishing."

Were I GreenStormCloud, I would conclude that you didn't deserve a response; I wouldn't lower myself to cast pearls before you by recommending anything. But I'm not GreenStormCloud and I'm feeling nice and generous. So I'll take the time to tell you that there are certain behaviors that clearly show intent to commit crimes--behaviors that stand up in court. A well trained civilian can establish to a legally valid, objective standard that she had reason to suspect targeting, can prepare herself to resist attack and can tell the targeter to stop. No shot will be taken until he has continued his approach and shooting is her only safe option.

GreenStormCloud has told this story in detail several times:

GreenStormCloud   (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #41
51. Personally, I haven't had to defend myself. My wife has twice defended herself.

My wife worked at a warehouse in a high-crime area about five years ago. The warehouse had been burglarized several times. She was always the first to arrive at work and had the combination for the door. The warehouse was on one block dead-end street, 100 feet wide so trucks could back into the dock doors. We talked about how sooner or later a street criminal would notice that an older woman alway arrived alone and had the combination. Why waste effort breaking in when you could make the small older woman open the door. Of course she would have to be silenced once the door was opened. Twice she was accosted. The details, which would take several paragraphs were such that no one doubts that she was about to be attacked. Luckily due the the extreme width of the street the bad guy had to start his approach from across the street. Both times they ran away when they discovered that she was armed.

Aside from that I know a woman who used her gun to prevent herself from being carjacked. But I know that about her because I knew her at the time it happened.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x387029#387184

GreenStormCloud   (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-29-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #17

18. She came home that evening saying, "He was afraid of ME!"
She had a feeling of incredible empowerment. She is a small woman, 4'10", and was accustomed having to fear strange men. To have seen one flee in total terror of her was a new experience. She instantly became a firm believer that women should take classes, get licensed, and carry guns. From kitten to lioness in one day.

I am sure that the street criminal had expected her to freeze in terror, scream and cry, and was totally surprised when she instead became commanding and aggressive and most of all - confident, as she pointed a .38 at him. The sudden realization that his youth and muscles against a tiny, grandmotherly, woman counted for zero against her revolver must have been a shock to his system.

We have talked about it a few times and she has said that she had already made the decision to shoot when he reached 21 feet and there was no doubt in her mind that she would do so. She wasn't bluffing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=271889&mesg_id=271924

I would be surprised if you accepted these stories at face value; you will probably conclude that he just wanted to ask the time or pat her on the back or the like.

Disagreeing is one thing, but blind prejudice and sexual insults will only establish you as a fool unworthy of serious attention.

A wise course of action would be to apologize and adopt a new attitude. GreenStormCloud might even point you toward the educational materials you seek.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. Thanks for the support. N/T

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Oh boy the gun=penis canard!

1. I point my penis at things I do not wish to destroy.
2. I do not point my gun at anything I do not wish to destroy.

It's just a stupid nonsensical analogy. You might consider dropping it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Gun control advocacy is the last refuge of Freudianism...

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Don't you dare call my wife a liar.

She worked in a high crime area of Dallas, close to the intersection of Corinth and Lamar. She worked for her son-in-law in a family business. She worked in the office section of his warehouse. The business was struggling and did go bankrupt a few years later. The warehouse had been burglarized several times. To get her work done she began to arrive before everyone else, at 6AM. The street was a one-block dead end that never had any passers-by. If you were on that street it was because it was your destination. She had the combination to the door, and since she arrived at a time the street was deserted, we judged that she was in danger. After all, why would a thug do the work of breaking in when all he had to do was make the little old lady open the door? Of course, once inside he would have to silence her so she wouldn't call the cops. Doubtful that she would survive being silenced.

We got her Concealed Handgun License because of the danger.

On the day it happened she arrived at the street. She drove past her door and did a U-turn so that her headlights swept the street and sidewalks. The she went past her door and again did a U-turn so that her lights swept the other side. She was looking to see if anybody was hanging out. There were only two places where someone could hide from that headlight sweep. If she had seen anybody she would have driven away and returned when others were at work. That was the routine that she followed every morning.

Then she parked the car, looked around again, opened the door with her hand inside her fanny-pack (Despite the name it was worn on her stomach.) holding the gun in her hand, finger off the trigger. She walked that way towards her door (about 50 feet. Parking in front of the door was reserved for customers.) being careful to keep a watch in all directions. She saw a man emerge from behind some trees, about 100 feet away and began to fast walk towards her. He was showing classic pre-assault body language. (There are numerous web pages and books that teach how to recognize that kind of body language.)

Now you tell me:
Why was he hiding behind the trees?
What was he doing on a one-block dead end street before dawn? (No homes on the street. Just warehouses.)
Why did he start fast walking to her?

I am sure that you will invent some contrived explanation for the obvious - he was going to force her to open the door. He ran away when he discovered that she was armed and had no intention of being a crime victim.

The second case, a few weeks later was exactly the same. After those two incidents, nothing for years happened while the business was there. Criminals share information and word got out on the street that she was armed.

In both cases they weren't "kids" but were adults who appeared to be in their 30s.

BTW - At that same warehouse office, I once pulled my .45 on a burglar. He set down the stuff he was stealing, turned his back, and walked away. Since he wasn't a threat I didn't shoot. (I worked there for a few years too - family business.) We had arrived while a burglary was in progress.



I have to get ready for work now. I will recommend some books and videos tomorrow.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. Again, I'm glad no one was hurt.

As you can see the "eyes" don't have it.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Recommendations:

Criminology is a well studied field. You appear to know very little about it. Here are some recommendations.

DVD: Safe in the Streets Concentrates on spotting the criminal before he attacks and avoiding him.

Web sites:
http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com
http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/pre-assaultive-indicators.htm
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/articles/1660205-Pre-attack-indicators-Conscious-recognition-of-telegraphed-cues/

The web sites have links to youtube videos the demonstrate pre-assault indicators. Some are actual videos of real attacks. You can see the body language of the attacker telegraphing that he is about to attack. But you have to know what to look for.

Books:
In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob
Stressfire by Massad Ayoob
Hardcore Self-Defense by C.R. Jahn
The Gift of Fear by Gavin De Becker
Strong on Defense by Sanford Strong
Meditations on Violence by Sgt. Roy Miller
Defensive Shooting for Real Life Encounters by Ralph Mroz

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Your penis insult was LAME, REALLY LAME.

We frequently see anti-gun folks come in here and make gun/penis insults. It didn't effect me. Usually I ignore them, but in your case I will tell you why it missed.

I am an old fart and don't have to prove my manhood to anybody. My wife is happy with my penis and her vote is the ONLY one that counts.

Decades ago, when I was 22 I was trying to prove my masculinity. At that time I was already a Vietnam Veteran and you would think that was enough proof for anybody, but I was still trying to prove it. Guns were absolutely useless for that purpose. Dad had given me a shotgun at age 11. All my friends had guns. So how could a tool that kids were able to use mean anything for a display of masculinity? Guns were not suitable for that purpose. So to prove myself I took up skydiving for one summer.

Later I learned that nobody gave a shit about my proofs. The secret was to accept myself as who I was, to be comfortable in my own skin. It has been many decades since I learned that lesson, and by now I am extremely comfortable with who I am.

So your insult had no effect, except to make me write this post.

[Victor_c3]

7. The gun control issue is the only issue of the democrats that I have a hard time agreeing with 100%

Pistols and carry conceal permits are something I believe we should be allowed to have. However assault rifles and high capacity magazines, no.

The thing you have to note is the lethality and penetrating power of certain rounds and weapons. An M4/M16 or AK-74 shooting it's .223 ammunition will penetrate up 18" of hardwood. If you were to shoot it at the front of a house, it would most likely make it through every wall of your house and keep going right out of the back wall. I don't know the number off the top of my head, but a 9mm or .45 ACP pistol doesn't have nearly the same penetrating power.

Also, the high capacity magazines are another problem. As much as I find hunting distasteful, there is no reason a hunter would need a 100 round drum on an M4 or even a 30 round magazine. Those sorts of weapons are designed for warfare, not recreation.

The hardcore gun nuts like to point out that when our constitution was written that it was intended for our citizens to form an armed militia to defend our country. Well, times have changed. Washington and his generals were hardly more than armed hillbillies with an occasional cannon. Military grade weapons were easily affordable by your average person. However, today's military weapons are vastly out of reach of your average citizen. A tank will run you $16 million and a Bradley Fighting Vehicle isn't too much below that. Anti-tank missiles like a Javelin will run you about $750,000 a pop. Then you have the level of training of today's military to contend with. Your average hillbilly militia armed with small arms (i.e. M4/M16s) wouldn't stand a chance against your typical Army Infantry unit. The US Army hasn't lost a battle since Korea.

I basically fought against hillbilly militias armed with AK-47s and the occasional RPG and I can tell you how those confrontations ended every time when they tried to attack one of my Bradley Fighting Vehicles or a M1 tank. The idea of an armed citizenry defending our country is completely laughable. If our military was to be defeated, we wouldn't stand a chance. If our military was to be used against us by the government we wouldn't stand a chance either.

That being said, I still believe that I should have the right to own a pistol to defend myself and my family and, if I was into it, a rifle to go huntin'.

Pretend for a second that you were a criminal looking to conduct a home invasion. Which house would you choose? The house of a person who could be armed or the house of a person who probably isn't armed?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Welcome :)

and thanks for your service.

For more info on terminal ballistics, one of the current acknowledged experts is Dr. Gary Roberts, LCDR, USNR. Here is a link to some good data on self-defense ammo selection: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

IMHO, while the Russian rounds (5.45x39 and 7.62x39 for the AK-74 and -47, respectively) look to have over-penetration issues, some of the US 5.56 rounds in 62 gr appear ideal.

Some states have laws against semi-auto use for hunting.

[PavePusher]

23. The ballistics of "assault rifles" (and what you really mean, "assault weapons")....

put them at the lower end of the rifle power scale. Most common hunting rifles are far more powerful. The AK-pattern rifle fires a round almost identical in power to the venerable .30-30 lever-action rifle, commonly used for deer hunting. The AR-pattern rifle uses a less powerful round, one often not legal for hunting deer (varies by state) due to it's lack of power.

Very few states allow hunting with more than a 4 or 5-round magazine. So that has nothing to do with hunting.

The U.S. Army hasn't had to fight a Civil War, without damaging the sources of their own materials, for a very long time. Nor have they had to do so against an armed population of approx 80 million people, many of whom are recent combat vets with graduate-level practical knowledge of insurgency....

Lastly, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting...

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Several times in the 20th century citizens fought armed conflict as civilians.

There have been several actions in which civilians took up arms and fought.

March 2, 1916 Pancho Villa and hundred of his soldiers raided the town Columbus, NM. Local residents and the U.S. Army combined to shoot back, killing about 80 Mexicans with loss of about a dozen Americans.

August 25 to September 2, 1921 Battle of Blair Mountain, 10,000 coal miners rebelled against about 3,000 corrupt sheriff deputies and coal mine operators. Over a million rounds were fired.

August 1 - 2, 1946, Battle of Athens, TN. Local people, including WWII vets, rebelled against a badly corrupt county government.

1960s, exact dates uncertain. Deacons for Defense and Justice. In the face of government inaction about violence against blacks by KKK and some law enforcement officers, this organization formed to provide armed security. In some cases shots were exchanged with the KKK.

There have been times in the century just finished when citizens had to reach for their guns to correct injustice and/or defend the nation. It is good that they had their guns to be able to do it.

If there were ever a widespread rebellion against the Federal government, the U.S. military would become ineffective. Too many servicemen would be sympathetic to the rebels. Soldiers just won't fire on their own people. Read Machiavelli on that item.

Hi-capacity magazines have been used in only two mass shooting rampages and both time they jammed, bringing the killing to a stop. When the killer has used standard magazines and had a bunch of them, reloading as needed, he has managed to kill many.

The 5.56 will indeed penetrate much if you limit the ammo to military ball. (Pointed nose, full metal jacket) There is civilian ammo that doesn't penetrate so much but instead dumps all the energy on the first thing it hits. As already noted, common deer rifles are more powerful.

To try to slug it out toe-to-toe with the U.S. Military would be silly. We would fight an asymetrical war.

[Clames]

8. Another duplicate thread by Mikey.

Even had the same title...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117289043

[Tuesday Afternoon]

9. your math skills are comparable to your reading and writing skills.

[ileus]

11. The case is I want and have cash, the dealers have what I need.

More guns it is.

[Jenoch]

16. "...which make continuous firing easy..."

Jason, Jason, Jason...maybe you haven't learned this yet. But in the rare instances the large capacity magazines and/or drums have been used in crimes, they always jam. Hiw are things in Oregon, anyway?

[hack89]

17. So make your case with some actual facts

the FBI has detailed crime reports going back decades. Correlate that data with gun ownership data and tell us what you get.

[Straw Man]

20. You don't know what "vetted" means.

That's what I think.