Stop Lying to yourself About Being That “Good Guy With A Gun” by STEVE MARMEL

[BainsBane]

“It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.”
Yeah, see that’s why my taxes pay for cops. Actual, ideally well-trained individuals that want to shut a bad guy down with as little collateral damage as possible. Or soldiers! Or the national guard.

I mean, there are tons of places you can be what society considers “A good guy with a gun.”

Let me share something that will make you sad if you believe that first sentence: With 99.9% certainty, I can say there is very little chance you will ever, ever save the day drawing your gun on a “bad guy.” (*caveats for the rare moments it happens.)
You will never be the hero in a story like that unless it’s just you day dreaming as you are shooting tin cans off a fence or targets at a range.
You’re never going to get a badge from the NRA that lauds your courage under pressure.

This is why there are so many more stories about mass-shootings and people accidentally getting shot than a person who happened to have a gun and happened to stop a crime. And you know that. So stop boring us with that justification.

You know in your heart you’ll never be that guy who pulls out a gun to save the day.You’re not the Lone Ranger. You’re not Dirty Harry. You’re not John McClane. You’re just a guy who likes guns and that’s more important to you than anything, including the possibility that mentally ill or dangerous people could kill a lot of people with the same gun you love to hold and look at dreamily.

So just own that. You might never be a hero, but at least you won’t be delusional and you won’t be lying to yourself anymore.

http://theeverlastinggopstoppers.com/2013/06/quit-lying-good-guy-gun-steve-marmel/

[BainsBane]

1. This is the best part

You’re not the Lone Ranger. You’re not Dirty Harry. You’re not John McClane. You’re just a guy who likes guns and that’s more important to you than anything, including the possibility that mentally ill or dangerous people could kill a lot of people with the same gun you love to hold and look at dreamily.

[HereSince1628]

5. I don't understand exactly why your selection is the BEST part.

I "get" the color of the reference to heroes, but I think the very unspecific reference to mentally ill quite unfortunate.

If a person wants to say "...the possibility of a suicidal person" I'm actually ok with that. Or if a person wants to identify the most common correlates of mental health symptoms with suicide I'd be ok with that. The truth is gun suicide is the major contributor to gun deaths in the US.

However, the ambiguity created by NOT stating that the strength of the association of gun deaths and mental illness is dominated by suicide and not other social violence leaves way too much room in the discussion for the mistaken belief that mental illness is the great and significant contributor to gun murders/social violence.

That just isn't true. The literature on gun violence shows that persons with diagnosed mental illnesses represent about the same risk of gun violence as the general population. Yes, it's a non-zero risk, but it's not an elevated risk that warrants special fear of every person with any mentally illness.

In a society such as ours repetition leads to acceptance of the misleading and the outright lie. And in a society such as ours where adoption of generalities and stereotypes provide significant guidance to our social interactions, lies about the dangerousness of classes of people lead to not just misunderstanding but to discrimination.

[BainsBane]

23. The unstable person is the gun vigilante

running around looking for an opportunity to kill. It has nothing to do with diagnosed mental illness. It's criminal pathology.

[Bazinga]

37. Is there any correlation between the unstable gun vigilante that you are imagining

and the average CCW holder who carries a weapon with no intention of ever using it except in the gravest extreme.

I can probably count on my fingers and toes the number of people in this world I would ever use a firearm to defend. I'm sorry but you and Joe Public are not among them. You're right, it's the police's job to defend the public, a CCWer's weapon is to defend himself/herself and close family. I'm not saying there aren't bad apples (I even believe that Zimmerman was in the wrong in taking his weapon on a neighborhood watch), but my guess is this is the prevailing mindset of most CCW holders.

I'm sorry this doesn't fit your "running around looking for an opportunity to kill" rhetoric.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Of course not. It's the sort of bigoted stereotype that would get a poster banned...

...were it made about most any other group.

[rdharma]

87. Broken record much?

[Lizzie Poppet]

88. pot.kettle.black

Seriously, you're probably the last poster in this forum with any room to whinge about that...

[rdharma]

95. I'm not whining about you......

.... I just find it amusing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

99. Well golly, I should certainly hope so!

Not much point in trolling a forum if you don't find it amusing...

Oh, and the amusement is mutual...everybody wins!

[rdharma]

100. "Not much point in trolling a forum if you don't find it amusing" You would certainly know!

[BainsBane]

105. Read geckosfeet posts below

That says everything you need to know about the "law abiding gun owner."

[Bazinga]

131. It doesn't say anything about me.

Nor does it say anything about any gun owner I know.

I'll admit that gecko's comments were overstated to say the least, but with your propensity to misrepresent arguments made by those who oppose you, I am inclined to give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps more of the problem is your unyielding perception of what a "law-abiding gun owner" is. As I've pointed out before, you can't seem to think of a gun owner as anything other than a monstrous, future murderer. So even the slightest inclination that your policies will not be well-liked becomes reason enough for you to wrongly label an entire cohort of people who would like work with you to solve a pressing problem.

I understand this is personal to you. You think your safety is at stake, and you are absolutely right. But the inflammatory, injurious, and even sometimes dishonest rhetoric you have used does nothing to promote progress on the issue.

[BainsBane]

139. No, actually I distinguish between gun owner and gun nut

I have gun owners in my family, and there are gun owners involved in efforts to reform gun law in the interest of public safety. It's more a comment on the DU gunner's constant evoking of the "law abiding gun owner" trope while simultaneously threatening to violate the law at every turn.

[Paladin]

153. A crucial distinction which pro-gun militants constantly, deliberately ignore. (nt)

[BainsBane]

140. It also pisses me off

That they dismiss every gun crime as the result of "criminals," while opposing efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Besides, a large number of homicides are not committed by those with former felony convictions. They assume the people that shot up my car didn't have a CC permit. They have no basis for saying that, since the shooters haven't been apprehended as far as I know. If anyone has information to the contrary, I would be very interested.

So yes, I engage in hyperbole. I've been faced with such chilling coldness and indifference to human life and opposition to the most innocuous of reforms, the gunners have radicalized my rhetoric.

[GreenStormCloud]

148. Do you have any evidence that the shooters had CCWs?

You don't, yet you blame CCWers for that crime. Statistically I can say that it is extremely improbable that they did have CCWs. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In most states, to have a CCW requires an FBI background investigation, fingerprinting, picture ID, training classes, and proficiency tests. Anybody who goes throught all of that is extremely unlikely to shoot up a neighborhood. Violent criminal actions are largely commited by a violent criminal underclass.

[geckosfeet]

154. And what evidence do you have to support your slanderous remarks?

What is your issue with my comments?

I mean besides the fact they present a view different than your own.

[duhneece]

32. DIAGNOSED mental illness

I think the original poster may have been correct. I think a high number of those who shoot & kill are suffering from undiagnosed mental illness. I, too, hate the stigma of mental illness, but have to accept that many more Americans suffer from undiagnosed mental illness and that we have far, far too few agencies to deal with our mentally ill, from those suffering from addiction to a whole range of mental illness.

[HereSince1628]

142. It's true that only a fraction of mental illness is diagnosed, usually estimated bbetween 25-35 %

Last edited Tue Jun 18, 2013, 08:10 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm much less sure that's especially relevant to arriving at counts that reliably mean anything.

Among Americans it's certainly popular to believe that a person 'can't be right in the head' if they commit a murder. Sometimes that belief is extended to crime more generally.

When that sort of belief is used to define what should be counted as or to projected as suspected/presumed counts of events of gun violence, I am quite sure that the persons counting will arrive at very high numbers of those that shoot & kill having undiagnosed mental illness.

[rdharma]

86. Excellent thread. But I had to do a google search on "John McClane".......

...... because I didn't know who the heck he is!

[premium]

89. You've never seen Die Hard and all the sequels?

[rdharma]

93. I saw the first "Die Hard" years ago.

That was enough for me to lose interest in any possible sequels. Gun nut fake fantasy films aren't my favorites.

[premium]

94. The sequels really sucked big time.

I'm sorry I watched the second one, didn't bother with the rest.

[Pelican]

101. 2 was by far the worst...

I liked 3... 4 was also good in a mindlessly violent way...

Haven't gotten to 5

[BainsBane]

107. You ain't him

So keep your guns away from the rest of us.

[Pelican]

133. I'll meet you halfway...

... I'll carry in a concealed manner so when you pass me on the street you won't know and so it can't bother you....

[Hoyt]

137. NRA certified gun training film.

[premium]

152. Give it a rest Hoyt. nt.

[BainsBane]

106. Me neither

sounds a lot like McCain.

[napkinz]

2. K & R

[geckosfeet]

3. The classic "I won't pick up that dirty gun, but I'll pay someone else to do it for me" routine.

No one "wants" to be the good guy with a gun. No one "wants" to shoot someone. That of course is part of your motivation for just paying someone to do it for you (not you personally). This is our social bargain with the devil.

But there are a lot of situations where there are no police or response times are very long. Even in suburbia.

I prefer to be armed. I'll own that. You own the other stuff.

[Pale Blue Dot]

4. I'll own that if there's a "bad guy with a gun",

and there's no way to stop him other than violence, I'd rather he be stopped by a trained professional who, yes, I pay (via taxes), than you. You scare me.

[geckosfeet]

8. Fine.

Just don't try to disarm me (or pay your hired thugs to try to disarm me) to take away my right to defend myself because of your preconceived notions and fears.

[Pale Blue Dot]

11. Why? Will you shoot them?

[geckosfeet]

14. What do you care?

[Pale Blue Dot]

20. ... and with that answer I think we have check mate.

I hope you leave that question standing so that everyone can see.

[CTyankee]

31. Wow. That was an incredible response to your question.

If I were the poster of that I'd certainly make it gone (and soon). But I'm here to say I witnessed it.

[geckosfeet]

118. Oh. Ok. I am so, so,,,

flat out laughing at loud!

Cause you don't care. You really don't. All you care about is feeling like you win at your silly mind games.

[cherokeeprogressive]

125. Shows how much you know about Chess. Most would call it Stalemate, mate.

[Hoyt]

13. And what "preconceived notions and fears" spur you to strap on a gun or two before venturing out.

I agree with poster above, we don't want or need your help. Own the fact that you carry a gun for reasons other than the betterment of society.

[geckosfeet]

17. I do own it. I am protecting myself.

I understand the violent nature of the firearms I own, and I have great respect for the harm that they can do.

But I do have to disagree, there are many contributions that firearms have made to the betterment of society.

[Hoyt]

18. Not many "contributions" in recent years. Maybe 200 years ago.

[thesquanderer]

35. Native Americans might disagree with 200 years ago, too (n/t)

[Hoyt]

46. That's true our founding fathers who owned slaves also took land from Native Americans by

killing them. I was trying to give the gun lovers a little credit for something.

[geckosfeet]

119. Well, we will just have to agree to disagree that point.

[Hoyt]

123. Yeah, wouldn't want to face facts of your little hobby.

[geckosfeet]

126. I know my facts just fine. While I appreciate other opinions,

I reserve the right to hold my own.

[Hoyt]

127. See, you don't need a gun to stand your ground, no matter what gun promoters

try to tell us.

[BainsBane]

108. get a grip dude

No one is going to disarm you. Talk about fucking paranoid. I'm staring to see why you're so afraid of background checks.

[geckosfeet]

120. I have probably had mor background checks in the last 10 years than you ever will.

Did you see the op?

[BainsBane]

128. Yes, I posted the OP

[Duckhunter935]

9. those trained professionals

almost never go to the range to practice. Google NYPD for number of rounds fired and missed. I have a CCW but almost never carry. I just use my weapons for target shooting. I have to travel an hour to get to a range. Try to go a couple of times per month. I think I am like a majority of gun owners.

[geckosfeet]

12. Yes. But they are required to qualify according to their agency standards.

Maybe yearly, maybe twice a year. Varies by agency.

But yes. There are a lot of law enforcement people (I would say the majority) who are not well trained with their firearm.

Anyone who carries a firearm for self defense needs to practice. I don't think that is a big mystery.

[Recursion]

77. But the harsh truth is, the police don't have a gun in order to protect *you*

That's worth remembering.

[BainsBane]

163. They protect property

Which is exactly what the folks here claim they are going to do with their guns.

[Hoyt]

16. Some yahoo toter who shoots targets that resemble humans is not a better bet than the police.

If all gun owners were like, you -- supposedly don't carry, don't have a weapons cache, etc. -- we wouldn't have a problem. Unfortunately, to keep you happy, we have to put up with those who carry things too far.

[BainsBane]

24. Especially someone who spends their life fantasizing

about their chance to unload into a crowd of people. God help us with characters like that running around with guns.

[geckosfeet]

121. You don't know me or my training. You speak from ignorance on the topic.

[Hoyt]

122. If you were well trained, you would not even think of toting in public.

[Lizzie Poppet]

132. That's possibly the single funniest thing I've ever read on DU.

[Hoyt]

134. Caption: Girls laughing at yahoos strutting into gun show.

[Lizzie Poppet]

136. Fair enough...because that's pretty damn funny, too.

Done a bit of that very sort of laughing, myself, I have to admit...

[Recursion]

76. A lot of people overestimate how much training police actually have

It's less than you probably think.

[Paladin]

80. Which balances out the constant underestimations the gun militancy movement puts out. (nt)

[reusrename]

7. Social bargain with the devil.

That sounds pretty kooky. There are law enforcement agencies that do not carry firearms. Are they "the devil" too?


>syntax error

[geckosfeet]

10. Kooky? You pay someone else to your dirty work. I call that a bargain with the devil.

Your opinion may differ.

Not saying police are not needed. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the position.

[reusrename]

30. Way to dodge the question.

Figures.

[premium]

40. Not it the U.S.,

other countries, yes, but not here.

[reusrename]

41. There is a federal law that prohibits it in the US.

I still can't get over the notion that this hero does "dirty work" with his gun.

The cognitive discord here is almost deafening.

[premium]

44. What dirty work? nt.

[reusrename]

45. Exactly.

Dunno, but it's done with a gun.

[premium]

56. If you mean carrying a firearm for personal protection,

I have no problem with that as long as it's done in a legal manner.
LE is under no obligation to protect an individual citizen unless said citizen is in the custody of LE, we are all responsible for our own protection.

Disclaimer: Except for my time in the military, including a tour in Vietnam and my 30+ years as an armed USFS Ranger, I don't carry a gun, nor do I see the need to in the future, but I have no truck with those that do.

[reusrename]

68. I don't have a clue of how that person thinks.

That's why I asked the question.

[premium]

71. Ahhh, now I understand your post.

Sorry for the possible misunderstanding.
From the posts of her/his that I've read, it seems to me that they're for believing that personal safety is up to the individual unless there's LE on the scene, no hero syndrome from that one at all.
And I concur, personal safety is up to the individual, as the saying goes,
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or in the case of rural areas, hour(s) away.

[reusrename]

73. Why is personal safety considered "dirty work?"

I can't follow the logic there, unless he's using the "quote marks" to mean that this what other folks think about personal safety.

In either case, I have no clue at all of what he's talking about. I have never heard this theory about personal protection being "dirty work" before, so it's news to me.


edited to add> I sure believe, as do a lot of others, that law enforcement sometimes is used to do "dirty work" for the powerful, but I don't think anyone here reading these posts is hiring them for that purpose.

[premium]

74. I'm not following that either,

unless it's a tongue in cheek comment.

[BainsBane]

166. That's your fellow gunner

Geckosfeet's term and argument. Look what he says above.

[BainsBane]

22. No one wants you playing cop

Vigilantism is illegal. I don't pay anyone to kill. Gun nuts are the ones who fantasizing about killing people. Thanks again for disproving the fiction of the law abiding gun owner. Keep your fucking guns to yourself. I don't want gun lunatics endangering my life with their fucked up fantasies. I can just see some unstable gun nut unloading their guns in a crowd, pretending to be a cowboy and murdering a slew of people. Talk about a hazard to the human race. God help us with gun vigilantes running around jonesing for their opportunity to play hero and take out innocent bystanders. The concealed carry plot gets more dangerous with every post. You are no hero, bud. Civilized people don't want you and your vigilante plots anywhere near us.

[duhneece]

34. We repealed the alcohol prohibition amendment

More & more, I can see the sense in repealing the second amendment.

[CTyankee]

36. My son, who is a prosecutor, is in a trial now prosecuting a vigilante. I won't say where

as it is somewhat in the news, but I wanted you to know that I read the responses of readers to the news stories and was relieved to know the support he is getting by people sick of vigilante-ism. They took the time to express their outrage.

I'd also like to say that we can take heart that there is growing support for an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment. A few years ago you would NEVER read anyone saying that. But years ago, these things hadn't gone so far in the wrong direction. It took the Heller decision (which gunners here love, despite their protestations that they are true progressives). And then, Sandy Hook. Whole classes full of 5 and 6 year olds and their teachers/administrators slaughtered. Then, the cold, inhuman responses to the anguish of the parents.

We are entering a new phase of gun consciousness in this country. It is only a matter of time...

[Eleanors38]

75. "new phase" is hardening resistance to prohibition & the culture war it engenders.

I think you are engaging in wishful thinking.

There is room for workable improvements toward universal b.g. Checks or FOIDs, but as long as controllers & banners utilize spittle-flying culture war hatred and stigmatization, the opposition will double, nay, triple down in resistance.

You know what the biggest street demonstrations have been in this country in the last 2 years concerning 2A? Not capitol ground ralleys or protestors with signs. It was the huge lines outside of gun shows all over this nation. Tens of thousands making statements, un-ashamedly and with their wallets. Incidentally, there is a new gun rights group in town: IFOA. check them out.

New phase indeed: One side is where they were 30+ yrs ago, the other is evolving and strengthening.

You seem within the legal milieu. Does the act of carrying a firearm for self-defense, and on ocassion using it for such, constitute "vigilante-ism?" Have the courts found this to be the case very often?

[Paladin]

82. Gun show attendance and purchases do not equal evolution. To the contrary. (nt)

[CTyankee]

91. I don't know the answer to your question. My son is no doubt very current on the law

in his state (it is not CT).

As for your assertion that we are somehow becoming a nation more of gun owners, the last I saw on this the number of guns sold were increasing but not the number of gun owners, which was actually diminishing. So your "hardening resistance" is with a dwindling group of hard liners, probably whipped up by irrational fears that Obama was going after their guns and they'd better have a virtual arsenal to fight back. I am wondering if there is a connection between that and the pure hatred of the fact that a black man is in the White House. I suspect there is something to it.

I also wonder if the urbanization of this country doesn't tell us that this thing isn't really going your way. Fewer people in remote areas, more people in cities, means less numbers of people who might need to shoot rattlesnakes or feral hogs or actually want/need to hunt for food. So there's that.

I have suggested in other gun related threads that why don't we try for the gun safety laws in other nations where there are sporting/hunting gun enthusiasts, such as Norway. Now THERE is an example of a nation that knew something about tyranny and were truly courageous in their resistance, armed and otherwise, and suffered and died for their resistance. Yet they adopted strict gun laws in their country after the war and so far has had only ONE mass shooting (carried out only with great difficulty by an insane misfit), yet we have mass shootings every month or so. I say if it was good enough for the Norwegians, it is good enough for us.

[Eleanors38]

97. The "assertion" you made was not by me, review as I might.

I leave open the question of numbers and percentages of gun-owners; the data is regularly challenged, as is the data concerning who is hard-line. Exp. Of challenged data: Gallup says the fastest-rising demographics in gun ownership are self-identified Democrats, and women. There has been a significant jump in gun permits in CN, which might reflect New gun-owners as all gun-owners must be licensed there. Other states where permitting is required have had similar jumps. But 80,000,000+ gun owners is still a big number.

Curious, but the recent tsunami in gun-buying is traceable to before the public knew that "Obama" wasn't a brand of peanut butter.

I'd like to see better data on the urban/rural phenomenon; who owns and where and the trends. Gun ownership is high in big sunbelt cities, if a million folks in either Jacksonville or San Antonio are considered "urban."

Always curious about other countries' experiences, but thus country is quite a bit different from Nigeria and Norway.

[CTyankee]

109. I don't understand what CN stands for. And where do you get the 80 million+ figure for

gun owners? As for the tsunami in gun buying, if it started before Obama came in office it would probably be as a result of the Heller decision, which I would agree is a watershed event. But I doubt if the leadership of the NRA has any love for Obama, to say the least. And the Tea Party pretty much detests him. As do other of your allies in the gun issue debate.

I remain skeptical of Gallup's polling since its meltdown of embarrassment over its pro-republican bias in the 2012 presidential polls. If it happened in that polling, why would we not believe it could very well have happened in its other polling of late?

It wouldn't surprise me that red states would have higher gun ownership. I'm a 3rd generation Texan and I couldn't wait to get out of Texas and go live in the Northeast after college, where I have been ever since. People go where they feel more comfortable living. It may be that more urbanization in the sunbelt will result in more liberal policies, if people feel the climate suits them better there.

I mention Norway because its population loves guns and I have read about their gun policies (I cannot comment on Nigeria). It is an advanced nation and also it is a democracy. Its people like to have guns to hunt and target shoot. There are those similarities with the U.S. Also, I am sure its people believe in their right to own guns. And they really HAD experienced takeover by a tyrannical totalitarian regime (and fought back, often on skis in rugged mountainous areas, so they know something about that scenario). Yet they still have strict gun safety laws. Don't you find that at least "interesting"? I sure do. Would you care to comment on why that is?

[Eleanors38]

110. Connecticut. My error.

My computer is crashing off Wifi every 10 minutes and took my essay reply with it. I'll try to keep it short.

All data for gun ownership is in question; it is too politically charged and suspect. There are sites which are filled with disclaimers, but even gun-control groups generally conceded 80 mill.

Heller: I don't think this had much to do with it. This might: The American civilian population is re-arming itself as it is wont to do through history, revolvers to semi-auto pistols; utility shotguns to utility rifles: Most particularly, the AR-15. It can be used for most any shooting sport, save bird-hunting.

Norway: They don't have the federal system we do, where states are empowered to set standards such as "safety" and "training." They have a more central command-decision system. The feds must rely on the over-worked commerce clause. Hence, Texas CC training is stricter than Florida's, Vermont has no standard for CC, other than being a legal gun-owner.

The liberalizing effect of urbanization has been preached in poly sci texts for over 40 years, I'm still waiting.

[CTyankee]

111. well, you can't discount the amount of publicity the NRA has focused on this issue since the

Heller decision, can you? And why wouldn't they? It makes a LOT of sense. Think about it!

As a matter of fact, why discount the NRA publicity machine in ANY of this discussion, right?

Why would anyone interested in just peaceful shooting want to "re-arm" themselves with a more powerful weapon? Or a more accurate weapon that facilitated killing or injuring someone? Are bird hunters alluva sudden becoming buyers of AR-15s?

As for Norway, here is the website on their gun regulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway

It seems that NOrway's system works pretty well. The gun owners have their guns and the people have their safety. What is wrong with that?

As for your last point, we'll see. My bet is that urbanization is the death knell for the gun rights group eventually, unless the goons take over. Hopefully a better educated populace will outdistance the pro gun group eventually.

[Eleanors38]

115. The NRA's blather is a known quantity and has been so for years...

Heller reaffirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms, but in most states and with most people, that right is already understood. While important for constitutional reasons, it was a decision against one of the most clinical attempts at dis-arming the public in a very small area. I just can't see everyone running out to buy a gun because of this decision.

I don't discount the NRA's propaganda, but it's a known quantity; they aren't convincing too many more folks with their line.

The AR-15, AK-47, AKS-type guns & others in that category increased in popularity after the counter-productive "assault weapons ban" of 1994. The numbers in circulation only increased after the ban. Once you have enough interest in the arms type, others start taking note. Exp.: The double-barrel and single-barrel shotgun was dominant for better part of a century. Then along came the pump action, which became dominant after WW II (not influenced by the war, just a marker). Now, semi-autos are supplanting the pump. Same with revolvers.

The "power" of the AR-15, when chambered with its original round, is barely enough for varmint and hog hunting; even with the latter animal, many folks re-chamber with the .308 -- considerably more powerful. But most stick with the .223 because of its cheapness. The gun isn't as powerful as my deer rifle, in other words. The accuracy is more important for sport shooting. If your aim was to kill a lot of people in a confined area, neither the power or the accuracy would matter: The Virginia Tech murderer used a semi-auto pistol with a bunch of loaded standard-size magazines to kill more people in one mass-shooting than anyone else using anything else.

Norway: Again, do they have a federal system which recognizes state powers? If Texas were to improve safety standards for concealed-carry, I would probably support that. I would support state legislation which would require all in-state purchasers to go through a b.g. check. So, I don't see anything "wrong with that." But for now, I'm out-voted.

I feel safer out in the country than in the city, but I keep a self-defense arm in any case. Cities are not particularly safe in many areas, particularly within poor urban areas (though sunbelt cities have increasing problems with the "Interstate" effect where declining motor courts and less-desirable properties draw in more criminals).

[CTyankee]

151. First of all, many people regarded the Heller decision to be shocking and extreme. But

extremists have taken it even further. If the 2nd A was "already understood" so generally, as you assert, why the polls showing 90% support for UBC? What was already understood, IMO, was that of a right for states to organize militias, a collective right. It took an extreme right wing faction of the Republican Party on the SC to interpret it an individual right. There's that pesky qualifying clause in front of the amendment.

Even so, I don't think more people ran out and bought guns. From what I've read, a dwindling number of people are simply buying more guns, ramped up by hysteria that Obama was for "gun confiscation."

As to your observation about the TX law, I see this kind of protest all the time from DU gun enthusiasts: "I would support such and such regulation but..." Shudda, coulda, woulda. Yet I don't see much action on their part to fight for it. I have been waiting to see if a new group of sane gun owners is formed at state levels to advocate for sane gun safety laws. Talk is cheap. Let me see some real action from sane gun owners and I'll believe you mean it. But right now, it sounds like you "doth protest too much," when you may well have genuine concerns. But it comes across, quite frankly, as feeble and/or insincere. I am not trying to insult you personally, just a word to the wise about how it is sounding. As the saying goes, "If you are not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

[Eleanors38]

156. Read some history about 2A and you'll understand that

the individual rights interpretation is so widespread among constitutional scholars as to be conceded (even by some gun control advocates) as the "Standard Model." Further, the rights referenced in the BOR are individual, 2A is no exception. BTW, states have no "rights," only powers. The fed in the militia clause only states its specific interest in the broad individual RKBA, as per the militia powers it has in Article I.

Polls show high numbers favoring universal b.g. Checks (which I favor), about as high as those Americans who see the Second as -- voila! -- an individual right. There is no incompatibility. SEE the dreaded Gallup poll for the last 50+ years.

I gather you concede the federal structure gives states powers regarding gun regs. So you can imagine what anyone faces getting any stuff through a legislature in a Red state; hell, we are having problem enough holding onto repro rights, and trouble fielding Democratic candidates state-wide -- a dilemma facing any progressive on any issue in any red state. So don't single us out. BTW, the IFOA may be us help in red states.

[CTyankee]

159. I realize this is the prevailing interpretation at this time, but it wasn't the case always.

Otherwise, why would there have been a SCOTUS case in the first place? And wasn't it a 5-4 decision? That doesn't sound very "Standard Model" to me. IIRC, it was regarded as a BFD at the time, to put it crudely.

Of course, the state can and does regulate guns, but when state laws can be circumvented by shooters just going to a state w/o regulations for his guns, we have a problem. It doesn't mean the state laws can't be meaningful in other ways, it just makes it more difficult. It took Newtown, but here in CT our state lege stepped up and stopped wringing it's hands saying "Oh dear, we just can't do it" and did it.

BTW, my reference to Norway was intended to point out a citizenry who shares the U.S. love of guns for sport and for hunting. And they are a constitutional democracy (altho retaining the tender anachronism of a monarch with no power). And they know full well what tyranny is -- I am always amused by gun owners in this country who mouth off about "resistance to tyranny" without knowing what the hell they are talking about. Given the history of the Norwegians, the irony of their passing strict gun laws after WW2 cannot be lost on you...I think it pretty much destroys the "resistance to tyranny" argument here...

I am hopeful that Newtown signaled a change in public opinion on gun laws. The status quo clearly isn't working. We simply cannot as great democracy continue to have a citizenry that regularly slaughters each other (and each others children) with guns. Think through the alternatives to simply doing nothing. They are not pretty.

[Eleanors38]

165. Well, we are going over the same territory here.

I have no problem with an armed citizenry, I'm comfortable with it. Most of the homicides committed in this country are carried out by repeat feons, and the incidents of mass muder (as commonly defined) are exceedingly rare. Efforts should address those problems directly, and not through regulatory measures which quite frankly rely on prohibition as a bottom line. I noticed since CT an increasing number of journalists who are seeing the futility of ban efforts, categorizing them as a slap back at a culture they fear and loathe -- an impractical as well as a wholly misdirected approach.

On edit: The June, 2013 issue of Harper's has a cover story by Dan Baum, "Build Your Own AR-15: The Gun Congress Can't Ban." Beyond the tecky aspects of this modular weapon, Baum discusses the points I made about the futility of bans and what those efforts mean. Saw into today on a kiosk changing flights.

[BainsBane]

169. What evidence do you have that most homicides are committed by repeat felons?

On it's face, that's patently false, since over 1/2 of homicides are suicide, so there isn't an opportunity for a repeat, is there?

[Eleanors38]

171. I don't consider "suicides" to be "homicides," hence the distinction.

Last edited Wed Jun 19, 2013, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

With my hand-held, I find it difficult to transfer links. But the percentage of non-suicide homicides committed by repeat felons exceeds 70. I'll try to find the source.

"Is" and "Os" are 1/16" apart on hand-helds, hence spelling probs.

Google GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides and get a deep study, with many exps. of many cities, and BJS data. More than 70% of homicides are committed by felons, and the figure could be higher if juvenile offenders are included (records nit public).

[BainsBane]

174. DOJ considers them homicides

You don't get to invent your own tally of which lives count.

I'd like to see the link to that stat.

[BainsBane]

170. NRA propaganda not convincing anyone?

Why do you repeat it word for word then?

[GreenStormCloud]

144. Perhaps you should review the requirements to amend the constitution.

Bill of Amendment must pass both houses by 2/3. That is extremely difficult to do.

Then 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. That means any 13 states can block the amendment. I can easily think of 13 states that won't even think of letting go of their guns.

2A is in the constitution to stay for a looooooong time.

[CTyankee]

145. I understand the process. It is difficult.

But I was commenting that what is changing is that people are actually talking about getting rid of the 2nd A and I cannot ever recall over my long life hearing that sentiment (and I am old). I find that startling so I have to ask myself (and perhaps you should too) "why?"

[GreenStormCloud]

147. Maybe in CT it is being talked about, not in TX. N/T

[CTyankee]

149. Mostly I see it online and not just on DU. But certainly, we have very liberal, progressive

people in CT. And Newtown certainly shocked us into passing some of the strictest gun safety laws in the country. However, it is not going to be as effective and stronger federal laws. That is not to say that our state's efforts are useless. This is a continuum of change. This is a citizenry saying they've had enough. Newtown has changed a lot of people's outlook on guns in this country.

[rl6214]

138. Quite an imagination you have

You need to invest in Reynolds wrap.

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Your fantasy has not happened in reality.

You were talking about people with CCWs when you said: I can just see some unstable gun nut unloading their guns in a crowd, pretending to be a cowboy and murdering a slew of people. Talk about a hazard to the human race. God help us with gun vigilantes running around jonesing for their opportunity to play hero and take out innocent bystanders. The concealed carry plot gets more dangerous with every post

It hasn't happened in real life. CCWers haven't done that. Your imagination is in overdrive.

By CCWers I mean those who actually got a license. I don't like universal CC with no training or testing.

[BainsBane]

26. If you're talking about what you do in

out in the middle of nowhere in bumfuck Wyoming, no one cares. What we care about is your unloading your weapon in a crowd of people. Most of us live near other human beings. So keep your guns on the farm. We don't want you pretending you're fit to deal with urban crime, because you're not. A guy like you from the countryside is probably afraid just walking down a city street to the store. NO ONE with any intelligence or sense of self preservation starts shooting at a gunman in the city. It helps nothing. That's what criminals do in shootouts with each other. Other people just seek shelter. We don't want someone suddenly deciding we are the threat and aiming at us instead of the guy he's beefing with. Have some fucking sense, for God's sake.

[Progressive dog]

29. The classic "I don't need government to protect me routine"

"No one "wants" to shoot someone. That of course is part of your motivation for just paying someone to do it for you (not you personally). This is our social bargain with the devil."
That used to be called anarchy or law of the jungle. Why have a government?

[Pelican]

50. Some of us don't live within a few minutes of a fully staffed and responsive police department...

The right to personal defense is in addition to the protection provided by law enforcement, courts and laws. It is not in substitute of...

[Lizzie Poppet]

57. Or, for that matter, live in places where the cops are trustworthy.

Ask any Occupier...

[Progressive dog]

63. Oaky, you need defense cause there is no police department within a few minutes

oh, sorry, I meant fully staffed and responsive police department.
I'm guessing that a cop on every corner wouldn't satisfy satisfy your need for your guns. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[premium]

65. You do know that police are not legally bound to protect individual citizens

unless said citizens are in police custody? You could be getting mugged in plain view of a police officer and the cop legally doesn't have to come to your aid.
That said, any cop worth their salt would try to stop the crime in progress, but, legally, they don't have to.

[Pelican]

67. Correct...

Though I don't think it's quite the "Gotcha" moment you think.

The few seconds it takes to retrieve my weapon and respond to an emergency will always be faster than any outside force can respond.

It doesn't mean that this is the choice I will make but I prefer the option. Feel free to not make the same choice but don't try and make others conform to your personal standards of behavior and what level of risk that you personally are willing to assume.

[Progressive dog]

90. You didn't have to answer

I didn't believe it to be a gotcha moment, you only verified what you tried hide. That is only a gotcha if it bothers you.

[Pelican]

98. That makes no logical sense...

What was I trying to hide?

[Eleanors38]

66. In fact, LEOs are not charged with protecting you, and

unless in that rare instance when police are in the scene at the time of a crime, can't protect you. They can help, and are certainly charged with the duty of investigating, apprehending and holding a defendant for possible prosecution, but the vast work of LEOs is AFTER a crime is committed. In fact, LEOs cannot be prosecuted or held liable for not preventing a crime. Plenty of case law on this.

In terms of immediate self-defense in extremis, its on the citizen to do the job, whether you like it or not.

[Progressive dog]

161. So you gamble that a gun will protect you

even though statistics say you and your family are much more endangered by the gun than protected.
So as you explained it, you are allowed to gamble with the lives of others because of your fears.
Thank you for the clarification.

[Eleanors38]

164. Lots of presumption & "creationist theory" on your part...

If there is a cop outside my place 24-7, then I don't have to rely on a gun or any weapon. But you know full well that isn't the case for anyone.

Now that we have that cleared up, I hope the "statistics say" are not the old discredited studies even MSM shy away from.

I don't "fear" thugs anymore than a fire in my house, but I take precautions for both. Why your obsession with fear? Projection?

[Progressive dog]

168. Studies say guns cause gun deaths

and the only way to cut gun deaths is to regulate guns, and gun owners. This means that gun owners don't get to carry wherever they want. It means that they don't get to have certain weapons.
It means gun owners willingness to gamble with the lives of others doesn't trump the others right to life.

[GreenStormCloud]

146. The cops rarely protect anyone.

Cops arrive after the crime has happened and then try to find the criminal. The victim has already been victimized.

Self-protection is an individual responsibility, not a gov't one.

[TlalocW]

55. I've known a lot of people who want to be the good guy

And are waiting, praying, and hoping for the day they can use their gun to be a hero - ranging from just stopping a person with its presence to riddling a person with holes.

TlalocW

[premium]

58. Then they're irresponsible assholes.

Very, very few CHL holders are hoping to get in a gunfight.

My experience with CHL citizens is that they hope to hell they never, ever have to draw their weapon to defend themselves.

[rdharma]

92. "No one "wants" to shoot someone." Are you sure about that?

Maybe you haven't had a chance to come into social contact with genuine gun nutters.

I enjoy shooting sports... but I've encountered WAY too many "crazies" at various firearms oriented events to let that assertion pass unchallenged.

[Lizzie Poppet]

102. I think we agree on that one.

I'd say with confidence that the vast majority of gun owners have no desire to shoot a human being, but there's no denying that there are such fools out there. Like you, my years of competitive shooting have caused me to encounter a few.

FWIW, I consider a genuine desire to shoot someone (even someone committing unprovoked violence) to be good grounds for denying them the possession of deadly weapons. Using lethal force should always be an unwanted last resort, an action undertaken only in grave extreme.

[ileus]

6. gobstopper guy doesn't understand the difference between LEO and CC

He also left out guns kill people...

[Hoyt]

21. If you want to play the correct nomenclature game -- common among gun cultists -- it's GOPstopper.

If you can't see/identify the distinction, should you really be packing a gun whenever you walk among us?

[liberal N proud]

15. +1000

[Zoeisright]

19. Plus one billion.

There are certainly a lot of delusional idiots out there who think they are Clint Eastwood clones. A gun in your house means someone living in your house is going to be hit by a bullet.

[closeupready]

25. Totally off-topic, but I remember when

he wrote a column for the UW-Madison's Daily Cardinal.

Funny what a small world the big wide world can be.

[Paladin]

27. Well said by GOPStoppers. (nt)

[aikoaiko]

28. Marmel, you moron, good guys with guns includes police as well as civilians

But most of all it could include you to help defend yourself if needed.

But then again I know there is a certain type of gun restrictionist who would rather roll over than defend him or herself.

[Hoyt]

49. Who said we won't/can't defend ourselves. Don't need a gun to do that, although

many gun cultists try to spread such crud to rationalize their bad/sick habits and needs.

[premium]

60. Just a can of beans

or a bike tire, right Hoyt?

[Pelican]

33. The author seems to be projecting his own insecurities...

Just because he might not be able to react to a violent situation, there is no reason to put that failing on the rest of the human race.

I wonder what he'd think about me...

I'm active military. I have LE training. I have recent weapons training, basic and advanced, pistol and long rifle among others. I have negotions training. Shoot/don't shoot... Clearing of buildings etc.. etc..

I've been shot at and and I've shot at other people.

I'm curious if the author would approve of me carrying my weapons or even getting my personal weapon from my safe and responding to a crisis if it happened near my home. Is the difference that I don't currently draw a police paycheck?

In the end, all that stuff I listed above doesn't really matter. It is personality driven. You either have the will to react or you don't.

To be cliché "You can either run away from the sound of gunfire and sirens or towards it..."

[Bazinga]

39. I know I would run away,

but I would do so with a 9mm on my hip just in case I can't run far enough or fast enough.

Isn't that the point of CCW? You can still run away from a fight if you're armed, but you can't fight with a weapon you don't have.

[Pelican]

42. One of several...

[hunter]

47. Can't fight with a weapon you don't have...

... I see that as a positive thing.

We had a neighbor who shot her boyfriend in the leg. Most fights are like that. Stupid. Gun owners never think crap like that will happen to them until it does.

I've never been in a fight where a weapon would have improved the situation, and quite a few fights where a weapon would have made the situation much worse.

[Bazinga]

129. Perhaps it is there that we differ.

I've never actually been in a fight. I am non-confrontational by nature and would avoid any sort of altercation that could potentially escalate. I agree that someone who looks for or gets in fights should not be armed, as escalation is inevitable. But if I ever find myself in a fight, it will be because all other options have failed, and I am truly defending myself against an attacker that I cannot avoid. I'm sure you would agree that in a life or death situation, you would prefer to have every possible advantage.

I am truly sorry to hear about your neighbor. It is sad to think that her lapse in judgment has such grave consequences. I don't deny that firearms are dangerous, and they require a great deal of responsibility. Your friend learned the hard way that their use in anything but a life-threatening situation is inappropriate. I only assert that citizens are capable of responsibly bearing arms, including concealed in public, despite tragic anecdotes like this one.

I realize I am displaying the "gun owners never think this will happen to them until it does" mentality that you warned about in your post. But just as I am confident that your neighbor faced charges and was held responsible for her decisions, so too would I take responsibility for the manner in which I bear arms. I prefer individual choice and individual accountability to the pro-control philosophy that would require me to depend on an external force for protection that may not be adequately timely.

[Hoyt]

51. Guess what, this is not a war zone. And, guns are not only way to defend yourself or

prove you are a "man."

[premium]

61. Just use a can of beans or a bike tire,

right Hoyt?

[Hoyt]

70. Better than carrying a gun while riding a bike, premium.

[premium]

72. I gotta hand it to you Hoyt,

while I totally disagree with you on the firearms issue, your posts are entertaining to read, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way.

[Hoyt]

78. Make a "tough guy" laugh -- another gunless self-defense technique.

[premium]

79. Is that a movie?

Is it a comedy? I do love a good comedy.
Favorite comedy of all time.

[Hoyt]

81. I cracked up watching Blazing Saddles too, although some of the language was a little much.

The bean scene seems to fit into our discussion.

[premium]

83. You mean this?

Funniest scene IMO, couldn't stop laughing.

[Hoyt]

84. That's it. One of the funniest comedy scenes I've seen. Of course, I'm much older now.

[premium]

85. Aren't we both.

You have a great day and don't ever stop posting, I do enjoy reading your comments on firearms even though I fundamentally disagree with you.

[Dash87]

64. But isn't having 5 AR-15's a sure fire way to get your man card issued?

That way, everybody will think that you're tough and give you the respect that you demand to receive.

I think there's idiot gun owners for the same reason that there's idiot pitbull owners. They buy guns as a weird machismo status thing, and as a result end up hurting or killing others. Then there's the other idiots that don't care about safety and are totally careless.

[Hoyt]

69. Yep. That's what gun marketeers like Bushmaster think of their "prey."

Their ads -- and products -- are aimed at those with self-esteem and other issues:

[malaise]

38. So true n/t

[cbdo2007]

43. And 99.9% of the time they WILL use a gun, it is to protect themselves from a family member or

friend who has a gun.

I don't know the statistics exactly, but you are probably 100 times more likely to be killed by a friend or family member with a gun than just someone random.

[MillennialDem]

52. There are about 200-250 cases of justified homicide by civilians per year with guns

So about one person per day shoots and kills a "bad guy with a gun" (although said bad guy might be unarmed, or have a knife, or a bat, or whatever).

Of course more bad guys than that are shot at and survive or just surrender or run away when they see a gun, but I don't expect that number to be much more than (if more than at all) 10x the number who get killed. So yeah. About 10 people a day justifiably defend themselves with a firearm. Those are near lottery odds... it won't happen to you.

[BainsBane]

104. 7x more likely

Is that stat I've read.

[GreenStormCloud]

150. More about that stat.

While true, that stat needs to looked at more carefully. It is true that most people who are murdered are killed by someone they know. Guess what? Mafia members, gang members, pimps, prostitutes, johns, drug dealers, drug customers, drug suppliers, loan sharks, etc ALL KNOW EACH OTHER. In fact, Mafia hits are almost always by someone known to the victim. That's how they get close to the guy.

In family violence, normal happy couples don't just suddenly snap and kill in a fit of rage. There is ALWAYS a history of previous violence building up to the murder. Usually the gun is illegally owned. Women who live with violent criminals are in extreme danger and should get out.

When you subtract out the violent criminal crowd you aren't left with very many gun crimes. Some, but as the Texas stats show every year, very, very few previously law-abiding gun owners go bad.

[Just Saying]

155. I'd be curious if you have any actual study to back up your assertion

That "usually the gun is illegally owned."

Some information about domestic violence from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf

This gets into family and intimates-not just people who know each other.

Compared to homes without guns, the presence of guns in the home is associated with a 3-fold increased homicide risk within the home. The risk connected to gun ownership increases to 8-fold when the offender is an intimate partner or relative of the victim and is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists.

[GreenStormCloud]

157. Your own study supports me.

From your post: is 20 times higher when previous domestic violence exists. If domestic violence is involved the offender is usually barred from gun ownership.

Normal happy couples don't suddenly snap and kill. There are always predictors. They may be ignored, or hidden from others, but they are always there.

[Just Saying]

158. No one was disputing that domestic violence increased acts of gun violence in the home.

But you're coming dangerously close to blaming the victims. Do you know the most dangerous time for a domestic violence victim? When she's trying to leave. Like most issues, it's not so simple.

The study also showed a 3 fold increase in homicide risk when there's a gun in the home which increases to 8 fold when offender is intimate partner or relative. Those stats are separate from the 20 fold stat.

I'm sure there is a large lump of people between "normal and happy" and domestic violence. Can you show any study that says there are always predictors to gun violence in the home? How about which states bar domestic violence offenders from gun ownership?

And also I would still like to know how many guns used in domestic violence are illegal.

On a personal note, I don't know the law here in Ohio but, a very good friend's mother was abused for years. They had an altercation and a son called the police who came and did remove guns from their home. The next day, he went out and bought a new gun, went to her job and killed her in the parking lot in broad daylight. Now, you can blame her for staying but I can certainly blame the system for making it way too easy for him to get a dangerous weapon.

[GreenStormCloud]

160. Trying to leave is a highly dangerous time.

A few years ago we tried to help a battered lady leave. We told her that we would help her find a shelter, but she couldn't stay with us. We were afraid of him coming to our house in a violent, hostile state. You are right that it is a very dangerous time. The only time that is more dangerous is if he is served with a restraining order. That seems to set a lot of them off. The Gift of Fear has an excellent chapter on domestic violence. Violent predictors is what the book is entirely about. It is a good book and well worth the read for anyone interested in self-defense with avoidance as the first, and best, step.

In the case you speak of, it takes some time for records to update. Humans still have to enter data. I do support universal background checks by making the NICS available online to ordinary people. Or let the buyer go to the police and get a background check with a paper good for 30 days to buy his gun.

Yes, to some extent I do blame the victim. We are the first ones with responsibility for our own safety. I should be able to leave my doors unlocked when I leave home, as the thief is in the wrong, legally and morally, if he breaks into my home, but I lock my doors. If I go to any ATM, I keep a careful watch around me. If I am at the ATM at night (very rarely) I stand with one hand in my pocket on my gun, and use the ATM one-handed, while looking all around between sets of button pushing & screen tapping.

I do not support unlicensed concealed or open carry in public. A person should have to get a background investigation by the FBI, take a class on self-defense law (It is very simple. Just takes a couple of hours.), conflict avoidance, and show proficiency with the gun, get fingerprinted and photographed. (I scored 250 out of a possible 250. But I also considered the test to be easy.)

[rrneck]

48. Absolutely. It's absurd to think someone would be some sort of hero

by rushing in to tackle a spree shooter while he reloads his weapon.

[Hoyt]

53. Now that is a hero, not someone who pollutes society with their guns in

hopes they can squeeze off a shot, center mass, while a spree shooter changes his hicap mag produced because so many gun lovers want/need a dozen to enjoy life.

[rrneck]

54. Look up occaionally, that one went right over your head. Whooooosh. LOL. nt

[premium]

62. LOL.

Whooosh.

[rdharma]

96. The title of this thread says it ALL!

And you can see that this has REALLY upset some of the residents of the "gungeon"!

[BainsBane]

103. Wow, I guess so

Poor dears.

[CTyankee]

112. I don't know if I'm seen them seem SO shook up!

I think you scared the pants off them...

[BainsBane]

113. I'm happy to make my

contribution to the website. This OP didn't even make any editorial comments.

[CTyankee]

114. Good for you. I appreciate your courage to step forward and make your stand.

[derby378]

116. Yet another screed by someone jealous of those who prevented crime by using a gun?

In other words, more Brainy Smurfing. It's not like we haven't heard this "give up trying to be more than mediocre" programming before.

[BainsBane]

117. LOL

Jealous? Oh, too funny.

Preventing crime? Y'alls fantasies are really in overdrive. I can't even imagine how you think that works. Or do you mean responding to a property crime by killing someone? That's not crime prevention. That's homicide.

[cherokeeprogressive]

124. Hey Steve? Go fuck yourself.

What a fucking joke. One, I don't LOOK at my guns. They're locked away unless I'm using them either at the range or in the field. Two, when I DO look at them I don't do it dreamily.

Lastly, I don't have to justify a fucking thing to you. Not yesterday, not now, not fucking ever.

[badtoworse]

130. What a bullshit piece. I could care less what Marmel thinks.

[BainsBane]

135. Apparently a number of people care quite a bit

and have become quite agitated from reading this.

[badtoworse]

141. Don't mistake ridicule for agitation.

[BainsBane]

167. Moths to a flame

Whatever it is, it sure got them going.

[Orsino]

162. Bullshit. Wolverines!!!!1! n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

172. When there was a shooting in my office building a couple of a months ago, I can honestly say that...

....not once did I find myself wishing that I had a gun. Even though I personally heard the gunshots, not once did that thought even cross my mind.

After hearing the shots, I closed and locked my office door and sat under the desk for a couple of minutes until I felt comfortable getting up and assessing the situation and checking on my co-workers.

When I was under that desk, I just wanted to stay right there until I knew the police had arrived or that I knew the danger had passed. I didn't want to play hero, I just wanted to make sure I got home that afternoon to my family.

[BainsBane]

173. same with the shooting outside my house

Last month. I can think of no conceivable scenario where shooting at the shooters would have done anything but increase the danger of the situation to both myself and everyone else in the area.