A challenge for the anti-gun folks

[BigDaddy44]

Another thread today about concealed carry being law in Georgia, and how you can now bring guns into restaurants and public transport.

Followed by the predictable cries that there will blood in the streets, shootouts, gun fights over people stepping on other people's feet, etc. etc.

Here's the challenge. Please find one article....just one.....about someone with a legal concealed carry permit shooting someone without justification (i.e. self defense). Just one. I'm curious. Has anyone with a legal concealed weapon ever gone postal?

[NightWatcher]

1. off to the Gungeon with you. I carry (responsibly) but...

DU is not the nest place for honest gun debate. I have tried to have sensible debates, but they will not happen here. Any posts that reference gun debates will ultimately end up in the Gun Forum (dungeon) where they drift into oblivion.

Dont waste your breath, time, or effort trying to change minds about gun control and concealed carry laws here.

I'm on your side, but it's not going to happen

[ColbertWatcher]

2. I win!

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2992">Gun Guys: In Virginia, Man With Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun Shoots Wife and Children

[SidDithers]

9. A winner on the second reply!...

nicely done. :applause:

Sid

[ColbertWatcher]

21. Thank you.

One should never give a simple challenge like that to people hooked up to the tubes.

[maxidivine]

15. Except that guy was a drug addict

and so should not have had a concealed carry permit, he appears to have slipped through the cracks. It sucks but it happens sometimes.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. Aww, the goal posts moved! n/t

[zanne]

127. ROFLMAO!

:rofl:

But..but...but...but... Leave it to the gun nuts!

[mike_c]

3. a bit off your intended topic but I challenge the notion of "self defense...."

Guns elevate the level of defensive violence to fatal levels, usually unnecessarily. Is it justifiable to kill someone in self defense if there is little likelihood of being fatally injured yourself? All too often guns are used to defend against petty crime and petty violence. Take guns out of the equation and the victim gets robbed, or a minor beating, or just embarrassed. It's too often the ready availability of concealed carry handguns that actually elevates the level of violence to fatality when there would otherwise be no reason for it.

I absolutely abhor the notion that anyone has the right to kill in defense against petty crime or minor violence.

[BigDaddy44]

7. "is it justifiable to kill someone in self defense...."

"if there is little likelihood of being fatally injured yourself."

yes. absolutely.

A few years ago a kid went on a shooting rampage at a school. An Asst. Principal got away, went to his car (parked off campus because it had a gun in it), got the gun, came back, and took the kid down.

Are you saying thats not justifiable?

[mike_c]

14. no, I'm saying a far more unlikely scenario is unreasonable....

1) You're walking to your car at night, and somebody slams into you from behind, knocks you against a parked car, and demands your wallet. Your nose is bleeding from the impact. You're the victim of a petty crime. It is unreasonable to kill in self defense. Give up your wallet or put up your dukes-- killing is neither necessary nor justified unless your own life is clearly in danger. Your LIFE, not your stuff or your dignity.

2) Someone cuts you off in traffic and you respond with a universal hand gesture. He slams on his brakes, forcing you to stop behind him, and runs back to your car door, which he proceeds to kick viciously until it is thoroughly dented and damaged. It is unreasonable to kill to protect your property. Get his license plate number if you can.

3) You hear a noise at night, and someone is in your living room, shoving your laptop computer into a pillow case. Unless the situation escalates CONSIDERABLY, it is unreasonable to kill to protect your stuff or to save yourself the emotional violation such a burglary often entails. You'll survive, and so will the thief. Get his license plate number and his description if you can. If it's not safe, kiss your laptop goodbye. Killing is simply not justified to prevent petty crime.

4) You are harassed by a gang of teen toughs on a deserted subway platform. They shove you, trip you, and kick you a few times, perhaps even breaking a bone or two. It is unreasonable to kill to protect yourself from petty violence because even with contusions and cracked ribs, you'll live and so will the perpetrators-- there is simply no reason anyone needs to lose their life over it.

I could go on. Does that make my position more clear?

[maxidivine]

16. Being beaten severely is "petty violence" to you?

I agree, it is "petty", but it is a petty situation because of the reasons the teens in question attacked, not because of the level of violence being faced. I can't afford to miss work and be hospitalized, and neither can most of the country right now. I would most certainly draw and if neccessary fire if threatened with violence from a group of unknown people, doesn't matter how old they are.

[mike_c]

19. and that's why I support draconian gun control laws....

Because you would kill to protect yourself from simple violence. You'd take someone's life to avoid the inconvenience-- or other consequences-- of "missing work" if you had to recover. Most people would probably agree with you, and that's one of the reasons we have so much gun violence in this country-- people will do damned nearly anything in their power to protect themselves from petty crime or violence, often killing or maiming someone else to avoid far less consequential victimization, and they feel, like yourself, that it is perfectly justified. Sometimes the only way to circumvent human nature is to take away the means of acting upon it.

[jmg257]

26. Tough call is just when "petty" turns "serious", and if then it is too late for you to stop it.

Simple violence always isn't so simple. How does one know when the teens are going to be done? After they crack a few ribs? Or after they crack your head open? At some point the victim has got to figure just when enough is too much - and hope it is not too late.

That is what justification re: the use of deadly phyiscal force is about - would another reasonable person in your situation have felt the same threat? At what point (if in an escalating scenario)? And clearly there are those who have a higher level of damage they are willing to endure not to take a life. ALOT of variables to consider.


Hmm...I wonder IF more people did do damned nearly anything in their power to protect themselves from petty crime or violence, including killing or maiming the criminal IF JUSTIFIED, whether we would have so much petty crime & violence.(?) I guess exactly what constitutes "justification" is what we are discussing. Hmm...


edit: added "if justified".

[mike_c]

30. well, my feeling is that killing someone to avoid...

...less consequential victimization is NEVER justified. That's really the litmus test for me. Of course, as you suggest, one cannot always predict the likely consequences with certainty, and when there is genuinely a LIKELIHOOD that your life is in jeopardy it's best to err on the side of self protection. But that's still a much stronger test than most folks apply, I think.

That question of the consequences of victimization is key. It automatically rules out killing to avoid crimes against property except in cases where the property loss might reasonably kill the victim, i.e. someone stealing an invalid's life support. The comments from the DUer below who avows the right to shoot ANYONE simply for trespassing uninvited is another case where the most likely consequences of victimization fall far short of justifying killing, IMO.

My last scenario was the last one because it's the closest to that line, I think. When it's just punks engaging in petty violence one is justified in violent defense, certainly, but I don't believe killing is warranted. When there is a REASONABLE expectation that the attackers intend to take a life, or that they might do so out of clumsiness, that's another matter. However, I think that level of predation is far rarer than we usually fear. In the meantime, far more people die from gun violence than is necessary to protect most of us from less consequential victimization.

[SteveM]

53. I am sixty years old. If attacked by someone who is intent on beating me...

I will first try to flee, then try to talk my way out of it, then resist, then shoot the som' bitch. A simple beating to you may be my last.

"Sometimes the only way to circumvent human nature is to take away the means of acting upon it."

Leaving aside the question of what (if anything) constitutes human nature, can you devise a scheme by which you would "take away" guns which would pass constitutional muster, would peacefully confiscate existing (or "grandfathered") firearms, and which (since you are advocating social policy) could be subsequently analyzed to determine if there was a societal good resulting from such a scheme?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

55. Notice Mike's lack of response to your post.

[mike_c]

61. dude, one person's lack of response is another's...

...having some occasional things to do other than converse on DU all day long. Give me a break.

I'm back now for a few minutes and I'll try to respond to the DUer. In the meantime, perhaps you could meditate on the rationale for belittling other DUers rather than contributing to the discussion. Does the expression ad hominem ring a bell?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. Just a little fun.

I would like to hear the response though.

David

[mike_c]

66. I'm almost your age too, so I can certainly relate....

I don't have all the answers. It's clear to me that what we're doing now isn't working well-- some 70% percent of homocides in the U.S. are committed with fire arms.

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

more@link

Frankly, I think this needs to be considered separately from the broader question of violence in America, just like in the rest of the world. Violent crime and violent self defense are not a consequence of gun proliferation. The former is a consequence of a whole host of socio-economic factors combined with human nature, which is itself unremittingly violent. I think we need to face up to that and understand that we cannot stop violent behavior.

It's the expression of that violent nature that concerns me. People will always commit crimes against one another, and they'll always strike out against one another. What we CAN affect is the tools we make available for doing violence. As I've said many times in this forum we have a real disposition to shoot one another instead of punching one another these days. We kill one another to avoid simple violence that need not escalate into something life threatening otherwise. Daily life in America is filled with conflict-- do we really need to add guns to the mix?

I think this is another example of the tragedy of the commons. The basic idea behind the tragedy is that whenever one person accrues all the benefits of an action but the costs are distributed throughout society there is little incentive for individuals to behave responsibly. In the situation you posit individuals like you and I benefit by improving our self defense but society pays the costs, e.g. 80 gun deaths a day. The benefit to individuals is indisputable and clear, but so is the societal cost.

When we try to discuss the matter we bring different focii to the table. You've focused on the individual benefits, which are real, and I've lamented the social cost, which is equally real. As I said, I can't reconcile them. I'm not sure they're reconcilable, frankly-- that is the message of the Tragedy of the Commons (here's a link to Hardin's essay, BTW: http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html ). Hardin makes the point that we cannot appeal to conscience. He's not talking about guns, of course, but the principle still applies.

I know none of this directly answers your questions, but I don't think there are any simple answers, and certainly none that everyone will be happy with. Briefly, I think it's a waste of time to try and "pass constitutional muster" in this regard-- the Constitution has created a trap that we are being harmed by. We need to seriously reexamine the constitutional rationale for the second amendment and change the way we approach it-- I'd suggest specifically amending it to exclude concealable hand guns, but I'm neither a constitutional scholar nor an expert in any of the many other issues involved. I'm a citizen who wants the gun violence pervading my society to stop.

Confiscating firearms-- well, I assume that if handgun possession were outlawed or severely curtailed, law-abiding citizens like yourself would, well, obey the law. Failing that, you'd become armed criminals, right? Determining whether it's effective-- I'd suggest that if the number of gun homocides and injuries declined, the measure would be successful, at least from my perspective. That's what I want to see happen, by whatever means works.

[Howzit]

104. Effectiveness of bans

"Confiscating firearms-- well, I assume that if handgun possession were outlawed or severely curtailed, law-abiding citizens like yourself would, well, obey the law. Failing that, you'd become armed criminals, right? Determining whether it's effective-- I'd suggest that if the number of gun homocides and injuries declined, the measure would be successful, at least from my perspective. That's what I want to see happen, by whatever means works."

Handgun bans in the UK have produced interesting results: There is amassive increase in the number of crimes where handguns are used against the now disarmed populace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that a handgun ban in the US will produce similar results.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec&eurl=http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2008/05/british-called-they-want-their-guns.html

[iverglas]

109. "similar results"

Handgun bans in the UK have produced interesting results: There is amassive increase in the number of crimes where handguns are used against the now disarmed populace. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that a handgun ban in the US will produce similar results.

I assume you would rejoice in a handgun ban, if it could be expected to produce similar results.

The vast, overwhelming majority of "crimes where handguns are used" in the UK involve FAKE handguns.

Wouldn't that be nice for a change??

By the way, if you'd inform yourself a little, you wouldn't sound so foolish. When you refer to the public in the UK as "the now disarmed populace", it sounds like you think that before the recent round of firearms control measures adopted there, people were wandering the streets with pistols in their pants, and sleeping with handguns beside their heads. You do know this was never the case, right?

[Howzit]

118. Some people are robbed in the street, others

have their doors kicked in and are robbed in their homes.

I am suggesting that criminals can now also accost people in the privacy of their homes in the knowledge that the law abiding are disarmed.

Point a fake gun at a cop in the US and see where that gets you.

[iverglas]

122. as I was saying

By the way, if you'd inform yourself a little, you wouldn't sound so foolish.


I am suggesting that criminals can now also accost people in the privacy of their homes in the knowledge that the law abiding are disarmed.

Are ya now. And I am suggesting that if you'd inform yourself a little, you wouldn't sound so foolish.


Point a fake gun at a cop in the US and see where that gets you.

Uh ... about where it would get you most anywhere else, I'd think.

This is one of the major reasons for not permitting the sale and possession of realistic-looking fake guns.

[jmg257]

110. Nice post Mike - excellent points to think about! nt

[SteveM]

115. Thanks for your response...

You may have missed it, but the CDC has done a study of "interventionist" policies vis-a-vis guns and violence and have concluded that there is no evidence showing how various gun control measures have ameliorated social ills attributed to firearms and their availability. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

My take on the "tragedy of the commons" is that when public land or property is designated or held open for common use, then that land deterioates to the detriment of the common good; presumably when one or a few persons or entities over-use and degrade the land or property. Examples of where this has happened are plentiful, but the explanation for it (subsequent funding cut-backs from what is necessary for maintaining the commons, for example) can be varied and not so clearly linked to a human nature. In any case, I can't see the extension of this "commons" annalogy to the individual freedom of self-defense vs. a common good. You are correct that those arming themselves for self-defense accrue considerable benefit, but the common or societal costs cannot be measured so numbly as citing numbers alone.

The vast majority of individuals owning guns for self-defense will rarely see their firearms leave the bedside, except for occasional target shooting. The societal costs are foisted off by a relatively small number of criminals and incompetents. Said another way, "individuals" exercising self-defense number perhaps 70-80 million while those killing others by using firearms are a tiny fraction of gun owners. Ironically, this former group of individuals may constitute a "commons," while the criminals and incompetents stand out as the despoilers of the common good. (It remains to be seen if concealed-carry, only now on the cusp of viable social study, will be an example of how society can be "bettered" by fewer violent deaths. Thus far, the evidence for this "interventionist" gun policy being a social good is also insufficient, though John Lott would disagree.)

As for "traps," if an order was given to surrender firearms, I would not know quite what to do. One thing is certain: if the threat from government confiscation extends to other aspects of my and society's rights, I would re-acquire firearms. To paraphrase a quote attributed to Jefferson: "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that you don't need it, until they come for it." Further, those who sound the alarm of impending fascism (not necessarily you) cannot simultaneously advocate a scheme of gun control when the entity charged with that control is government itself. Post-Katrina New Orleans comes to mind.

Prohibition is a dead-end. Not only is it ineffective, it is counter-productive in that it blinds rational discussion by an over-wrought argument over values and morals. For example, some believe that the rising tide of violence (sometimes with full-auto weapons) in Mexico is the result of easy access by Mexican drug gangs to firearms in the U.S. But the reality may very well be that these full-auto weapons are coming in from other sources where this class of firearm is not nearly so well-regulated as in the U.S. But those wishing to pursue gun prohibition in the U.S. may try to set forth a social policy based on regulation in the U.S. which would not even address the reality of the problem. The troublesome irony is that once a sufficient pool of full-auto weapons develops in Mexico, it may become yet another commodity to be smuggled INTO the U.S., not from. Perhaps this is the fate of trying to impose two forms of prohibition: guns and drugs.

I cannot accept your position of "by what ever means works" in order to achieve a reduction in gun deaths and violence. This goes not only to your "law-abiding citizen" notion, but as well to your policy of waiting to see what happens after the fact.

"...relying on the unity and will of the party is exactly like counting on the fact that the train will arrive on time or that the car won't jump the track. But, given that man is free and that there is no human nature for me to depend on, I cannot count on men whom I do not know by relying on human goodness or man's concern for the good of society." Sarte, Existentialism is a Humanism, 1947.

[iverglas]

116. you may have missed it

but the big lie has been debunked repeatedly hereabouts.


You may have missed it, but the CDC has done a study of "interventionist" policies vis-a-vis guns and violence and have concluded that there is no evidence showing how various gun control measures have ameliorated social ills attributed to firearms and their availability.

Beep. False statement.

[mike_c]

117. extending the Commons analogy....

Forgive me for belaboring this, but I think it's important.

Hardin's essay is specifically about human reproduction and over-population, but the fundamental principle underlying the whole essay is economic. He uses the story of land destruction by herdsmen to illustrate this idea, but overgrazing isn't the main point of the essay at all. I think this is really important because Hardin articulates a fundamental truth about human nature, but that truth is often lost in contexts other than common grazing lands.

From The Tragedy of the Commons: http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision ­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Remember, the common grazing is a metaphor. Stated more generally, when the benefits of any actions accrue to the individuals who perform them, but the costs of those actions are distributed throughout society, there is little incentive for individuals to act responsibly, even when the cost is high. Hardin maintains that there is exactly the opposite incentive-- that only a fool would forgo the benefits if he doesn't have to personally pay all the costs, no matter how disastrous.

Does this make my comments above clearer?

[TPaine7]

119. The CDC is not honest enough to admit the truth. . .

that after reviewing all available data in dozens of studies, any benefits are undetectable--the "benefits" of gun control are accepted by faith alone. "More study is needed," and will always be--until and unless they can pull off a "study" with the right results.

They try to dazzle the "faithful" with BS and convince them not to accept the implications of their own results, and too many of the faithful swallow the prepackaged spin without blinking.

The CDC is not an honest scientific broker--they set out to build an anti-gun case.


Source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html (Search for "A Critique of Overt Mendacity.")

PS. It is remarkable to call out published "scientists" and government officials as liars in a law journal. It seems well nigh impossible if you don't have the goods--with the accused having a chance to rebut the charges.

[iverglas]

123. changed your name, have you?

Apparently now going by the moniker "the CDC".


What's remarkable is little upstarts who are shoving an agenda repeatedly misrepresenting the conclusions stated by skilled and credible academics.

Well, not actually remarkable, I'd have to admit. Not even funny after the first hundred times. "Obvious" might be a good description.

[SteveM]

124. The CDC is in fact very subject to political pressures...

I don't know if that can be avoided, but I think their attempt to force-fit a "public health model" with regards guns and gun violence took metaphor to beyond metaphysics. The recent summary study is probably an attempt to rid themselves of the "stigma" attached to bad scholarship.

[krispos42]

120. Dialogue!

Thank god!

Actual intelligent discussion! In the Gungeon, of all places!

It could only be more surprising if it was happening in GD-P...




Okay, let's talk:

* Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
* The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
* American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)

Point 1: most of those gun deaths are suicides, 18,000 out about 30,000. The assumption that taking away guns means that the overall suicide rate drops is unfounded. This is the impression that quoting such numbers in that fashion gives. "See, see, if the guns weren't there, those people would still be alive today!"

The female suicide rate of the US is 4.4 per 100,000 per year, ranked 39th according to Nationmaster.com, and below such strict-gun-control countries like Australia (35th), Canada (33rd), New Zealand (32nd), Luxembourg (29th), Norway (28th), Netherlands (25th), Germany (24th), Austria (16th), France (15th), Denmark (13th), and Japan (8th).

The male suicide rate of the US is 18.9 per 100,000 per year, ranked 30th according to Nationmaster.com. Countries ahead of us: #28 New Zealand, #27 Australia, #26 Canada, #25 Germany, #23 Denmark, #21 Japan, #16 France, #15 Luxembourg, #14 Austria, and #12 Belgium.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_fem-health-suicide-rate-females
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_mal-health-suicide-rate-males


Point 2 and 3: Of course we have more people (including children under 15) killed with guns. We have more guns. And I bet that there are more kids under 15 drowning in pools in California per capita than in North Dakota. Not because California's pools are deadlier, but because they have more pools! Note, please, that the mortality rate of children under fifteen is not mentioned. How do we compare to these other countries?

According the Bureau of Justice Statistics, our under-14 homicide rate is 1.4 victims per 100,000 per year, the lowest level since 1976. How does this compare to the UK, France, Germany, etc? This is not mentioned. And, again, the assumption is that if guns were gone, pretty much all of those kids would still be alive. That some other method would not have been employed. That the murderers would just go home and play video games.

We kill one another to avoid simple violence that need not escalate into something life threatening otherwise.

The problem here is that you can't know before or during the violence if it is simple or not. "He came towards me so I pointed my gun at him, and he ran away." What violence was avoided? Spittle in the face? A wedgie? Harsh language? A slap? Broken bones? Rape? Death? Paralysis?

Nobody knows anything except that NO VIOLENCE OCCURED AT ALL.

I think this is another example of the tragedy of the commons. The basic idea behind the tragedy is that whenever one person accrues all the benefits of an action but the costs are distributed throughout society there is little incentive for individuals to behave responsibly. In the situation you posit individuals like you and I benefit by improving our self defense but society pays the costs, e.g. 80 gun deaths a day. The benefit to individuals is indisputable and clear, but so is the societal cost.

Except that society does benefit from the action of the individual against a criminal. Even if the criminal runs away and is not caught for the crime, that will affect the crimes he does commit. For example, moving away from violent crime and into property crime. Or breaking into unoccupied homes instead of occupied homes. Or running like hell if surprised in a home instead of hanging around.

And there is very strong incentive for individuals to behave. It's called prison. Otherwise-honest people don't shoot to kill unless they have to. There are less than 200 civilian justifiable homicides a year. That's one every OTHER day!

And gun homicides are at 33 per day, not 80.

I'd suggest that if the number of gun homocides and injuries declined, the measure would be successful, at least from my perspective.

I'd make a counter-suggestion. That a measure be judged a success by the number that TOTAL homicides declinded, not homicices by a specific type of weapon. Dead is dead, and homicide is homicide. Shot to death is not inheirently better or worse than stabbed to death.



It might interest you to know that our non-gun homicide rate is as high as industrialized, Western Europoean nations' TOTAL homicide rate. Since a percentage of gun homicides would be replaced by non-gun homicides if we were to try to restrict guns, our homicide rate would still be much higher than theirs.

The question is "what percentage of gun homicides would be committed instead by non-gun weapons if guns were severely restricted?"

I have no idea. 10%? 90%?

And what would the overall homicide rate do? Would it go up? Down? Stay steady?

:shrug: I also don't know that. I do know that a handgun ban and confiscation in the UK hasn't positively affected homicide rates any, and it's been a decade. I also know that an "assault weapons" ban and confiscation in the UK also hasn't positively affected homicide rates any, and it's been two decades. In fact, their rates are up a rather significant percentage.

Of course, those bans were not pitched as crime-control measures, but as mass-shooting-prevention measures. Yet, according to some anti-gun people, it should have helped a lot. No handguns to be stolen and used in crime, for example. Yet their homicide rate has doubled in the last 40 years, and is up by 25% compared to 20 years ago.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gorfle]

23. My response to your scenarios.

1) You're walking to your car at night, and somebody slams into you from behind, knocks you against a parked car, and demands your wallet. Your nose is bleeding from the impact. You're the victim of a petty crime. It is unreasonable to kill in self defense. Give up your wallet or put up your dukes-- killing is neither necessary nor justified unless your own life is clearly in danger. Your LIFE, not your stuff or your dignity.

Were I carrying, I'd shoot the guy for doing just what you describe. He has already demonstrated his willingness to visit violence against my person. I have no idea what he plans to do to me after I give him my wallet. I'd shoot him dead.

2) Someone cuts you off in traffic and you respond with a universal hand gesture. He slams on his brakes, forcing you to stop behind him, and runs back to your car door, which he proceeds to kick viciously until it is thoroughly dented and damaged. It is unreasonable to kill to protect your property. Get his license plate number if you can.

First of all, I reject the notion that it is unreasonable to kill over property. All of my property represents portions of my life spent to acquire that property that I will never get back. People who would destroy or steel my property are thus destroying or stealing parts of my life. On top of this, anyone who values their life less than my property I am happy to oblige them as I certainly don't, either.

In the scenario you describe, I would attempt to drive away. If I were not able to get away, I'd shoot the guy out of fear for my life. If the guy is deranged enough to begin assaulting my vehicle to the point where he is thoroughly damaging it, I'd be pretty scared that I'm next on his list of things to thoroughly damage. If I were trapped, I'd shoot him.

3) You hear a noise at night, and someone is in your living room, shoving your laptop computer into a pillow case. Unless the situation escalates CONSIDERABLY, it is unreasonable to kill to protect your stuff or to save yourself the emotional violation such a burglary often entails. You'll survive, and so will the thief. Get his license plate number and his description if you can. If it's not safe, kiss your laptop goodbye. Killing is simply not justified to prevent petty crime.

I would absolutely shoot the guy with no hesitation. He has broken into my home. I have no idea what his intentions are, and I'm not going to play 20 questions with the guy to figure out whether he is after my computer or also intent on killing me. On top of this, this guy clearly values his life less than my computer, so who am I to argue?

I'll shoot strangers found in my locked home after dark on sight - regardless of what they are doing there.

4) You are harassed by a gang of teen toughs on a deserted subway platform. They shove you, trip you, and kick you a few times, perhaps even breaking a bone or two. It is unreasonable to kill to protect yourself from petty violence because even with contusions and cracked ribs, you'll live and so will the perpetrators-- there is simply no reason anyone needs to lose their life over it.

This is just insane. I am supposed to take a beating severe enough to break "a bone or two"?!?!? How on earth am I supposed to know they'll stop at that? Of all your scenarios this is the one that most justifiably demonstrates a fear for life and limb. I'd shoot my nearest attacker dead, and if the rest did not back down, keep right on shooting.

[mike_c]

25. and that's why I will gladly support laws seeking to take your guns away....

See my comment #19.

[krispos42]

32. And that is why violence and homicide in the UK is where it is

Criminals do not fear their victims at all.

By trying to reduce violence, you are actually increasing it.

[mike_c]

34. huh? not sure what you're talking about....

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon. The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.<21> New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.

The rise in UK gun crime is a long term trend that is apparently unaffected by the state of UK firearms legislation. Before the 1997 ban, handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population, and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99. Only those "firearms" positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the police or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 firearms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.

Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%, from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06. "Injury" in this context means by the use of the gun as a blunt instrument or as a threat, or by being shot. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as "slight," which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides committed with firearms has remained between a range of 46 and 97 for the past decade, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 75 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.

(citations removed to improve readability-- they're in the original: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom

on edit: I'll leave it to you to compare that last paragraph with the number of Americans injured by firearms since 1998.

[maxidivine]

35. Their assaults have gone through the roof

[mike_c]

37. and do you attribute that to an insufficient number of guns on the street...?

I think the U.K. has plenty of other declining social stability indicators to account for increased violence-- but note that homocides are a fraction of the per capita rate in the U.S., and THAT quite likely CAN be attributed to strict limits on gun availability.

[maxidivine]

39. Yes I do

If the general populace were allowed (I say allowed because they are not citizens whose natural rights are protected, they are subjects whose rights are granted by their government) a fair and objective path to gaining the ability to own and carry their own firearms for personal protection, and were not hung out to dry by their court system in cases where they had to either draw down on or shoot an attacker or group of attackers, then I think that the UK as a whole would see a reduced unjustified homicide rate as well as a reduction in serious assaults.

[mike_c]

44. then how do you explain the utter failure of that proposition in the U.S....?

The per capita homocide rate is considerably HIGHER in the U.S. where citizens have the right to carry and guns account for approx. 70 percent of those homocides. The homocide rate is MUCH lower in the U.K. where the poor subjects are denied their natural right to carry firearms AND the proportion of homocides accounted for by guns is below 10 percent. I mean, THAT is what I'd like to see in this country. You say it like it's a bad thing.

The increasing assault rate in the U.K. only proves my primary point-- when guns aren't easily available, increased violence is more likely to be petty assault than fatal gun violence.

[pipoman]

50. There have always been more

homicide and violent crime in the US.

Can you show any sustained reduction in homicide or violent crime in the UK following their bans? No. Has the homicide rate increased in the UK since their bans? yes

The increasing assault rate in the U.K. only proves my primary point-- when guns aren't easily available, increased violence is more likely to be petty assault than fatal gun violence.

I have been reading your assertions. This is an actual scenario that I was in a few years ago.

My wife and I were confronted by 2 men. One with a aluminum bat the other with a framing hammer. The one with the hammer ran toward my wife with the hammer over his head while the one with the bat was walking briskly toward me. Should I let them do what they will and hope for the best or am I better off doing what I did and point my pistol at the closest danger? Now when the pistol came out the hammer guy dropped his hammer and ran away, the bat guy ran away with his bat. One hammer blow could easily kill (or worse) a person. Now I know me and my wife being beat or killed would be no skin off of your grapes, but if you found yourself in this position what would you do?

[pipoman]

56. Also, are you fully considering the impact

a "petty assault" (this must be a term used in some state?..I have never heard the term before, I have heard "simple assault or simple battery) has on a person? In my state assault is verbal and battery is the unwanted touching of another person. A simple battery only means that there was no deadly weapon present in which case it would be aggravated battery. With this in mind, and knowing that hands/feet kill a lot of people, why do you believe it is better for society to live in fear of the strong denying them (us) the ability to defend themselves with the most effective tools available to equalize? Especially considering the low rate of incidents resulting in charging/convicting the ccw person with a crime?

[pipoman]

47. I don't think it can be demonstrated

that CCW or firearms laws in general have any noticeable effect on violent crime or homicides. I think these things are driven by other things, mostly socio-economic. I do not believe that the sum total of fire insurance premiums paid are statistically smart either. The devil is in the anecdotes. I can't afford to replace my home and belongings in the highly unlikely event of a fire so I pay my premiums and hope to never have to claim on the insurance. I carry a gun because in the highly unlikely event I or my family are threatened with harm and hopefully will never have to use it.

[iverglas]

67. hmmmmmmmm

What happens if someone steals your fire insurance policy? Is it common in the US for liquor stores to be held up by fire insurance policy-wielding bad guys?

What happens if you think your house is on fire but it isn't? Does your fire insurance policy spontaneously combust and set the neighbour's house on fire?

What happens if you have a fire that could easily be put out by stamping on it? Do you decide not to stamp on it because you have a fire insurance policy, and watch while your house and the rest of the houses on the street burn down, and then make a claim?


I do just love a good analogy.

If only someone would come up with one some day ...

[pipoman]

75. ..

Well if I were equivocating in my original post (directed at someone else of coarse) you may have a very weak point barely worthy of such a response except from someone with an incredible imagination and no constructive outlet. Since I wasn't equivocating no matter how hard you close your eyes and tap your heels together your post is completely irrelevant.

[iverglas]

78. equivocating!

What an excellent word!

If only I could figure out how you could conceivably have thought it was useful in a reply to my post ...

??

Seriously. Wtf??

[pipoman]

81. If I were

somehow comparing fire insurance to guns in an attempt to convince somebody that the two are the same in my original post (directed at someone else of coarse) you may have a very weak point barely worthy of such a response except from someone with an incredible imagination and no constructive outlet. Since I wasn't comparing fire insurance to guns in an attempt to convince somebody that the two are the same, no matter how hard you close your eyes and tap your heels together your post is completely irrelevant.

or

If I were continually pointing to UK gun homicide rates screaming.."LOOK, LOOK, UK gun homicide rates are lower than a snakes belly", while avoiding the reality of the UK overall homicide rate, I might be equivocating, no?

[iverglas]

86. uh, no.

If I were continually pointing to UK gun homicide rates screaming.."LOOK, LOOK, UK gun homicide rates are lower than a snakes belly", while avoiding the reality of the UK overall homicide rate, I might be equivocating, no?

Seriously. No. Equivocating is not a good thing, but it isn't every bad thing.

Of course, making statements that imply something to be the case that isn't the case isn't a good thing, either. Like implying that "the reality of the UK overall homicide rate" is somehow something truly horrific, and isn't what it actually is -- what is it this year? 1/3? 1/4? 1/5 the rate in the US?

That's misleading demagoguery. But not equivocating. You can look it up pretty easily.

[pipoman]

95. Exactly, as it has been for the last

100 years or more, even prior to the UK gun bans.

1/3? 1/4? 1/5 the rate in the US?

[iverglas]

65. if the British are subjects

... and you aren't ... does that make you an object?

[krispos42]

41. Yean, their homicide rate has double in the past 40 years

Ours is down 40% from 1990 to 2000.

Look at the ratios on the the graph that I provided further upstream.

We did that without changing in any noticable way the numbers, types, calibers, or capacities of the privately-owned firearms in America.

That "fraction" you are talking about used to be about 11% of our homicice rate. Now it's about 33%.

Progress?

[mike_c]

45. I'm still not sure what role you think gun control has in this....

Homicides have gone up, but are still significantly lower than in the U.S. and GUN homocides are still at about 10 percent the U.S. rate.

Simple assault has risen, but like rising homocide that's easily accounted for by a whole host of social problems-- but while violence is increasing, people are hitting one another much more frequently than they're shooting one another, which is precisely what I'd like to see in the U.S. Further, MOST assaults are indeed simple assaults or just threats.

[krispos42]

105. So you don't think the homicide rate doubling is worth worrying about?

The UK homicide rate doubles in 40 years, but because relatively few of them are gun-related, it's not worth mentioning. The US homicide rate drops by 40% in ten years, but because relatively many of the are gun-related, that's something to harp on.

And why does it only count if they are killed with a gun? Why is that worse, somehow?

It is nice that you mention social problems, though. That is the true problem, as as good, caring "we not me society" progressives we're suppose to be solving those problem.

If we solve those problems, chronic poverty, poor education, lousy jobs, and drug an alcohol abuse, the issues of domestic abuse, robbery, assault, and murder will naturally reduce themselves.


The reason gun control is an issue in this is because many DUers are convinced that strict gun controls with the long-term goal of severe reductions in the numbers and types of civilian-owned firearms will reduce the number of guns in criminal hands, thus leading to a safer society.

However, without addressing the fundamental causes of crime, things like gun-control only result in a demographic shift of weapons used.

If Congress, noting that the majority of car accidents involved 4-door sedans, decided to ban 4-door sedans as an accident-control measure, we'd laugh our asses off. And if some politician stood in front of a big chart showing the decline of 4-door-sedan-related accidents and pontificated about how his accident-control measures were working, we'd probably laugh him off the stage.


The ultimate result seems to be that, in a society with fewer guns like the UK, the number of homicides per million crimes committed goes down, but the total number of crimes committed goes up, with the effective result of little change in the homicide rate but a noticable increase in crime.

[iverglas]

63. yeah ... all the way

to that alternate universe you apparently inhabit.

If you say it, it must be true, eh?

A much wiser rule of thumb would seem to be: if you say it, it must be false.


But hey, you have a sort of a point. There is a high rate of COMMON ASSAULT in the UK, the assaults in question generally involving minor injury, if any, and being associated with overconsumption of alcohol by youth.

(I bet you knew all this, right? I know all the gunhead internet sites explain it for you very carefully. I mean, I'm sure they do ...)

So I guess what you're saying is that teenagers who drink too much and get into fights should all be shot. That would sure solve the problem of aggressive drunken teenagers, anyhow.

[krispos42]

36. Yeah, *gun* crime and homicide in the UK is down or stable

Yet homicide rates are at or near record highs. There is an effort under way to ban the sale of pointy kitchen knifes, and the UK recently banned the sale of most samurai swords. They have 4.4 million police-monitored surveillence cameras, over 400,000 in London alone, and are now using those camers to build a database of all vehicle movement in the downtown areas of London and Manchester.

[mike_c]

38. see #37....

eom

[iverglas]

64. you get funnier by the day

Yet homicide rates are at or near record highs.

Hee hee. Yes, I think we should be saying the rate has skyrocketed, donchoo?

There is an effort under way to ban the sale of pointy kitchen knifes

There is? You sure you haven't been reading the musty archives of the gun dungeon too much?

and the UK recently banned the sale of most samurai swords

Yeah. To hear you, you'd think the things being banned were actually Samurai swords ...


You really are just about the funniest thing on wheels.

[krispos42]

106. Aww, so close to relevence

Missed it by

| |


that much

Yes, I think we should be saying the rate has skyrocketed, donchoo?

If "skyrocketed" was an appropriate adjective, I would have. Since it hasn't skyrocketed, I didn't. In fact, I typically use the term "has steadily increased". You enjoy using the search feature, so do so if you don't believe me.

There is? You sure you haven't been reading the musty archives of the gun dungeon too much?

There isn't?

To hear you, you'd think the things being banned were actually Samurai swords

Perhaps I should take a hint from one of your recent posts? How about this?

...and the UK recently banned the sale of most samurai-ish swords...

Make you feel better now? Of course, we could debate the significance between an upper-case 's' and a lower-case 's', seeing as how you decided to subtly change of meaning of what I typed.

[iverglas]

108. eckchewly ...

If "skyrocketed" was an appropriate adjective, I would have. Since it hasn't skyrocketed, I didn't. In fact, I typically use the term "has steadily increased".

... what you said was:

Yet homicide rates are at or near record highs.

And you can pretend that isn't misleading / intended to mislead if you like.



Killing other birds with this stone:


Your graph notes are still missing:

The figures for 2000/01 <that big blip on your graph> include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK.

Your graph doesn't actually show figures up to 2005, although the heading includes 2005.

Ultimately, the entire graph is simply misleading because of the facts tucked away in the notes:


A. the 172 victims of Dr. Shipman are included in the UK's 2003 numbers

(I think the figures are all actually for England and Wales, not the UK; otherwise, the various calculations I have done may not be complete)

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb0205.pdf

In 2003/04, 858 deaths were initially recorded as homicide, a decrease of 18 per cent on 2002/03. After accounting for Shipman, the fall is 2 per cent and is the first annual fall since 1996. The 2003/04 total is still 15 per cent or 113 offences higher than five years previously.
Of the 2003/04 offences, 25 were no longer recorded as homicides by 22 October 2004.

How honest is it to include 172 victims to make a total of 858, when the 172 homicides did not occur in that year at all? Does a little note that does not provide a total for comparison even begin to provide the information that is needed if we are being honest?

1/5 of homicides recorded in that year were not committed in that year. If, to use hypothetical but roughly accurate figures, the homicide rate with those deaths included were 1.5/100,000, it would be about 1.2 without them. That's a pretty huge difference. By your reckoning, anyhow.

And then, if we allocated those deaths to the years in which they actually occurred, they're going to have an even bigger effect on the question of changes in the homicide rate over time.

Obviously, the most reasonable way of dealing with those 172 deaths would be to omit them from the calculations altogether. They have virtually nothing to say about any of the things that homicide rates are commonly looked at for.


B. The 52 victims of the July 7th terrorist bombings are included in the UK's 2001 numbers

See A, mutatis mutandis. These deaths don't distort the figures to the extent the Shipman homicides do, but they nonetheless distort them significantly.

Obviously, it is appropriate to omit the September 11th deaths from the US figures. Why would you not omit them from the UK figures, rather than include them and add an unhelpful footnote?


Oh, and ditto for the 58 deaths in 2000-2001 -- that impressive little peak in your graph -- that were treated as homicides but, again, simply distort the figures and make them misleading for the purpose you are attempting to use them for.


Sorry. Your pretty pictures are not based on data that is meaningful for the purpose.


There is an effort under way to ban the sale of pointy kitchen knifes
There is? You sure you haven't been reading the musty archives of the gun dungeon too much?
There isn't?

I give up. You're the one who made the claim. Planning to back it up?

Just to forewarn and forearm you: a proposal by a group of physicians made 3 years ago next week, on which no action appears ever to have been taken, is not going to qualify as "an effort under way".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm



Perhaps I should take a hint from one of your recent posts? How about this?
...and the UK recently banned the sale of most samurai-ish swords...

Nah.

We all know that the objects in question were simply cheap objects produced and purchased for the sole purpose of use as weapons, i.e. for intimidating, facilitating crimes, injuring, maiming, and killing. Nothing S/samurai-ish about them.

[krispos42]

112. Still grasping

<krispos42>If "skyrocketed" was an appropriate adjective, I would have. Since it hasn't skyrocketed, I didn't. In fact, I typically use the term "has steadily increased".

<iverglas>... what you said was:

"Yet homicide rates are at or near record highs."

And you can pretend that isn't misleading / intended to mislead if you like.

The chart is on a year-to-year basis. When talking about statistics on a year-to-year basis, the phrase "at or near record highs" must necessarily include a span of several years. Now, do you really expect me to believe that you didn't know that? That any average person that looks at graph spanning some 40 years couldn't figure it out?


You tried to call me on a non-existent point. It didn't work. Let it go and move on.

Killing other birds with this stone:


Your graph notes are still missing:


The figures for 2000/01 <that big blip on your graph> include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK.

THe numbers I plugged in to Excel came from page 14. It wasn't a terrorist attack or a case of delayed discovery of homicide victims like the Shipman case. The UK has decided to include them as homicide statistics as regular homicides. The numbers the US and the UK use include both murder and non-negligent manslaughter, of which the smuggling of people in a truck with insufficient ventilation is part of. The UK, which feels the need to mention the bumps of Shipman and the 7/7/05 attacks, did not feel the need to differentiate this smuggling case.

(I think the figures are all actually for England and Wales, not the UK; otherwise, the various calculations I have done may not be complete)

Yes, the title of the report is Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Homicides, Firearm Offences and Intimate Violence 2005/2006 (Supplementary Volume 1 to Crime in England and Wales 2005/2006).

The numbers I used are on page 14 of the report. More specifically, the column titled: Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population. This is why the chart only goes back to 1967, even though the raw homicide data goes back to 1954. I used per-capita numbers of the best-known homicide data, which goes back to 1967, and charted it with US numbers of the same period after converting the UK measurement (homicides per million per year) to the US metric (homicides per 100,000 per year).

How honest is it to include 172 victims to make a total of 858, when the 172 homicides did not occur in that year at all? Does a little note that does not provide a total for comparison even begin to provide the information that is needed if we are being honest?

1/5 of homicides recorded in that year were not committed in that year. If, to use hypothetical but roughly accurate figures, the homicide rate with those deaths included were 1.5/100,000, it would be about 1.2 without them. That's a pretty huge difference. By your reckoning, anyhow.

The UK found is sufficient to record the deaths in one lump and add a footnote. I don't know why they did that, probably some political or bureaucratic reason. Shipman had been killing people for a couple of decades, on average killing about 8 a year. The police seem to believe that ultimately he killed 215 people. Putting an average of 8 extra murders a year from, say 1975 to 2000 would remove that spike in 2002/2003 and bump up the line segment up by about 2% for the indicated era.

I give up. You're the one who made the claim. Planning to back it up?

You know it exists; else how would you know it's in the dusty dregs of the Gungeon? Since we both know it exists, why are you arguing about it?

We all know that the objects in question were simply cheap objects produced and purchased for the sole purpose of use as weapons, i.e. for intimidating, facilitating crimes, injuring, maiming, and killing. Nothing S/samurai-ish about them.

And yet, they were swords very similar in appearance and design, if not actual construction, to samurai swords. Samurai-style swords?

[iverglas]

113. ick

Yup. If you want to pretend that "record highs" is not intended to inspire shock and awe, when the homicide rate in England/Wales is pretty close to the lowest any human society has ever known, keep doin' it.


The UK, which feels the need to mention the bumps of Shipman and the 7/7/05 attacks, did not feel the need to differentiate this smuggling case.

Er ... what did you think I was quoting (with my interpolated comment) when I put this in my post?

The figures for 2000/01 <that big blip on your graph> include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK

Do you imagine that I spontaneously write prose that includes the word "lorry"? The note came from the UK publication where the rest of it came from.

But again ... if you want to pretend that it is, er, intellectually honest to include 58 deaths in a single year in a single incident that had nothing to do with violent crime when you are making claims about homicide TRENDS, you go ahead. I'll just keep pointing out that it isn't.


The UK found is sufficient to record the deaths in one lump and add a footnote. I don't know why they did that, probably some political or bureaucratic reason.

They did it because they were reporting facts.

You, on the other hand, are making claims. Those facts provide a very poor basis for some of your claims, and your decision to use those facts, rather than more relevant facts, in order to make the claims you want to make rather than state conclusions that are more properly drawn from the relevant facts, is ... well, your decision.


You know it exists; else how would you know it's in the dusty dregs of the Gungeon? Since we both know it exists, why are you arguing about it?

Jeez, disingenuous much? Let's just pretend I said only what you quoted, and nothing else? I didn't provide you with the evidence of WHEN that proposal was made, and what the response to it was?

Yes, I know it exists. It was a proposal made by a small group of people THREE YEARS AGO, and much made of here in days gone by. YOUR claim is that it is "under way". YOUR claim appears to be false. If you don't want to produce support for your claim, that's fine. It's false. Done.


And yet, they were swords very similar in appearance and design, if not actual construction, to samurai swords. Samurai-style swords?

Yes. And I'm a Marilyn Montroe-style woman. I have two eyes and a nose.

[krispos42]

114. Swing and a miss

Yup. If you want to pretend that "record highs" is not intended to inspire shock and awe, when the homicide rate in England/Wales is pretty close to the lowest any human society has ever known, keep doin' it.

Their homicide rate is at or near record highs. "Their" meaning, in this case, within the geographical and recent historical confines of England and Wales, their homicide rate is at or near record highs.

What the residents of England and Wales think about this number I do not know. I do not know if they are worried because it is at or near historic highs, or if they are not worried because it's still pretty low. Since you seem to know so much, maybe you can represent them here.

Er ... what did you think I was quoting (with my interpolated comment) when I put this in my post?


The figures for 2000/01 <that big blip on your graph> include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK
Do you imagine that I spontaneously write prose that includes the word "lorry"? The note came from the UK publication where the rest of it came from.

And that was not on the footnotes on page 14 of the report, the page from where I drew both my data and my footnotes. It was on page 16 and on page 7, neither of which I referenced.

But again ... if you want to pretend that it is, er, intellectually honest to include 58 deaths in a single year in a single incident that had nothing to do with violent crime when you are making claims about homicide TRENDS, you go ahead. I'll just keep pointing out that it isn't.

I would love to see a copy of the email you've sent to the UK Home Office regarding their intellectual, er, dishonestly as well.

Maybe they'll do a special graph, just for you! It can have two lines on it, "violent homicides and nonnegligent manslaughter" and "non-violent homicides and nonnegligent manslaughter"!

The 172 (or 215, or whatever number) that Shipman killed had nothing to do with violent crime either. So I should remove those as well?

Perhaps you can inform me where I can get a comprehensive database listing of all non-violent homicides in the US and the UK for the past 40 years, so I can make the necessary adjustment? Because right now, if all you want to do is compare ONLY violent homicides and non-negligent manslaughters, I have no idea where I can get reliable numbers on that.

Or, here's a shocking idea... MAKE YOUR OWN GRAPH. And you can include as many or as few numbers, line, data sets, and footnotes as you wish. And then you can get your own photo-hosting account and post it all over the Gungeon as often as you want to.

<krispos42> And yet, they were swords very similar in appearance and design, if not actual construction, to samurai swords. Samurai-style swords?

<iverglas> Yes. And I'm a Marilyn Montroe-style woman. I have two eyes and a nose.

Marilyn Monroe:




Marilyn Monroe-style or Marilyn Monroe-ish:




A woman:

[iverglas]

87. when you gonna update that?

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp

There were a total of 765 homicide offences recorded in 2005/06, a decrease of twelve per cent compared to the previous year. The figure of 765 includes 52 homicide victims of the 7 July London bombings.

And when you gonna include the footnotes that any intellectually honest researcher includes (in addition to the one you'll need to include about the London bombings, supra)?

Increases in homicides in recent years, and in particular 2002/03, have been influenced by the victims of Harold Shipman, whose deaths will have occurred some years prior to the period in which they were recorded.

The figures for 2000/01 <that big blip on your graph> include 58 Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in a lorry en route to the UK.

Eh?

You keep being disingenuous, I'll keep asking.

[krispos42]

107. Why the boldface?

The decrease was shown clearly on the graph. You're acting like I'm trying to hide it or something.

You'll keep asking? That implies you've asked me before, yet as far as I can recall, this is the first time you've ever actually addressed this graph of mine directly.

However, you do make an excellent point: graphs should have sources and footnotes and such on them where needed. Try hitting "refresh"; the footnotes and sources should be visible.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

54. Thanks for letting us know who you are.

A person who will support taking away another persons Constitutional Rights so they can feel a little bit better.

David

[mike_c]

71. not at all-- I don't avocate taking way your constitutional rights....

I advocate amending them to better serve everyone's interests. I don't think regulating the kinds of guns we can own or how we can carry them in civil society infringes on our rights-- it clarifies them and makes sure we are all best served by them.

I think I misspoke somewhat in the comments above, but this is a conversation, not a contract, so let's not get all wadded up over it. I've NEVER advocated repealing or eliminating the second amendment. I utterly and unequivocally oppose that suggestion-- and don't know anyone who is making it. More to the point, I strongly favor the second amendment rationale that an armed citizenry should be an effective balance against federal power (but with caveats that are way off topic here).

I do favor very strict regulation of certain types of firearms, especially a ban on most private ownership of concealable handguns except for militia purposes (which do not require they be carried concealed under normal circumstances)-- we've covered this in other threads I believe. There are real problems with the way those weapons are used in America that we citizens need to address, and simply hiding behind the second amendment does nothing to address them. I'm not hearing many ideas for solutions coming from quarters other than gun control advocates, so that's where I stand.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Ok

There are real problems with the way those weapons are used in America that we citizens need to address, and simply hiding behind the second amendment does nothing to address them.


There aren't real problems with citizens legally carrying concealed handguns. That is my problem with your logic. We don't amend innocent peoples rights because criminals behave in criminal ways. I do appreciate the concise clarification of your ideas on the issues though.

David

[M24PS90]

76. I have a better idea.....

Why don't you come over to my house and take my guns yourself? Forget passing arbitrary laws that do nothing. Why don't you be proactive about it and just take them yourself?

If any such law were passed to take away guns of the now law-abiding this country would most likely plunge into another Civil War. I bet you never once stopped to think about that.

Why would people go to such extremes? You ask. For the very reasons our Forefathers battled against the British. I won't go into a full history lesson, as I fear it would be lost on you, but I will state an "oldie but a goody":

Those who forget the past are doomed to relive it. The stupidity of the Human race as a hole never ceases to amaze me.

"Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain."

[TPaine7]

29. Decent folks should never be required to trust in the goodwill of felons.

1) It depends on the viciousness of the attack. If you refuse to surrender your wallet and violence is imminent, it is insane, IMNSHO, to ask a decent person to trust in the goodwill of a criminal. People who resist with a gun are about 1/2 as likely to be injured of killed. Those are the people who society should prioritize.

2) Agreed.

3) Agreed, but you can order him to stop or even block his exit with a gun and hold him for the police.

4) Strongly disagree. It is insane, IMNSHO, to ask a decent person to trust in the goodwill of a group of thugs by needlessly surrendering to whatever they want to dish out. A person being kicked by a gang of teen toughs has every reason to believe that his or her life is in danger. "You'll live and so will the perpetrators" is a fantasy projection of desire and hope onto reality. No one knows, including the punks, what will happen. Cutting your chances of being killed or seriously injured in half is imminently reasonable and defensible.

[krispos42]

33. Your scenarios lack decision-making

1) You're walking to your car at night, and somebody slams into you from behind, knocks you against a parked car, and demands your wallet. Your nose is bleeding from the impact. You're the victim of a petty crime. It is unreasonable to kill in self defense. Give up your wallet or put up your dukes-- killing is neither necessary nor justified unless your own life is clearly in danger. Your LIFE, not your stuff or your dignity.

In this case, most people carrying a concealed pistol would draw it and kindly advice the perpetrator to get on the ground. The perp sould either get on the ground or turn and run, at which point the victim calls the cops.

If the perp instead tried to attack, THEN you shoot until he stops moving or is running away.

2) Someone cuts you off in traffic and you respond with a universal hand gesture. He slams on his brakes, forcing you to stop behind him, and runs back to your car door, which he proceeds to kick viciously until it is thoroughly dented and damaged. It is unreasonable to kill to protect your property. Get his license plate number if you can.

Again, after the first kick, introduce the bad driver your friend Concealed Handgun and suggest strongly he back off. Because, you know, if you try to drive away and accidently injure him, you might go to jail or something.

3) You hear a noise at night, and someone is in your living room, shoving your laptop computer into a pillow case. Unless the situation escalates CONSIDERABLY, it is unreasonable to kill to protect your stuff or to save yourself the emotional violation such a burglary often entails. You'll survive, and so will the thief. Get his license plate number and his description if you can. If it's not safe, kiss your laptop goodbye. Killing is simply not justified to prevent petty crime.

Invite the perp to lower the laptop to the ground and then kiss the carpet. If he or she does anything else, like running towards or away from you, you can probably legitimately shoot them. After all, your home is full of potential weapons that can be used against you in close-quarters combat. And that's not even counting the possiblity of him or her rounding a corner and producing his or her own weapon while behind cover.

There may also be other family members the person can involve in this little scenario. Risking a child or spouse in a hostage situation is not acceptable.

4) You are harassed by a gang of teen toughs on a deserted subway platform. They shove you, trip you, and kick you a few times, perhaps even breaking a bone or two. It is unreasonable to kill to protect yourself from petty violence because even with contusions and cracked ribs, you'll live and so will the perpetrators-- there is simply no reason anyone needs to lose their life over it.

As soon as there is physical contact (shoving, in this case), you draw the gun and politely invite them to kiss the cement.

If it gets to the point that they've knocked you to the ground and broken your ribs, and are still around you (at this point they're probably laughing at you while circling around for some more "fun") then drawing and shooting is absolutely justified.



Remember, these kind of people are perfectly willing to risk their lives for illegal material gain. They know it, understand it, and accept it.

[WWFZD]

52. You're an anti,

but I've seen enough of your posts to know you're neither irrational nor combative. I'll bite.
1) deadly force is justified. "Duking it out" may be very unwise. You could very well be beaten to death and you do not know the psychological or pharmacological state of your antagonist. People have handed over the wallet and received a blade in the gut, or a bullet in the face, for their troubles.
2) deadly force is not justifiable, although brandishing a firearm would not be inadvisable. If for nothing more than to prevent further damage to your vehicle, possibly you, and probably your assailant.
3) I believe you are correct in that you simply kiss your laptop goodbye assuming that the burglar does just take it and hit the road.
4) I believe deadly force is justified, although it's not as cut and dried as example #1. By all means draw your weapon and give everybody a second or two to split.

The up close and personal assaults on you merit deadly force. You do not know what the attacker has in mind and it's not your responsibility to guess with your life. Property crimes do not justify deadly force.

Reason, common sense and a clearheaded approach under duress is always advisable, qualities that the vast majority of CC holders possess in abundance.

[mike_c]

69. oh I assure you...

...I can be plenty combative, and my rationality is REGULARLY questioned around here! :rofl:

The thing is, this is an issue that will only be solved by some consensus approach, even if one that doesn't really satisfy anyone. Solutions won't be possible without compromise, and compromise isn't possible unless we discuss the issues reasonably. I don't have any interest in name calling or scoring debate points. I see a real social problem that needs work-- we might start out in disagreement about whether there even is a problem, but that just makes both our tasks even more pressing.

[jmg257]

12. Most "justification" laws include 'use of deadly force is imminent against you or a 3rd person'.

There is some lattitude in some 'violent felony" instances such as robbery (forcibly stealing), kidnapping, rape, arson, etc. And for good reason.

[krispos42]

31. Except there is no way to know if the impending violence is minor or not

And if the person attacking you sees your gun and does not back down, how dangerous and angry is that person to begin with?

Any sane attacker, seeing their intended victim armed with a gun, would back off and flee or surrender.

If the attacker does not do so, there are extraordinary circumstances driving that person, such as mood-altering drugs or some kind of irrational rage.

Remember, less than two hundred people a year a killed in legitimate self-defense. It works out to about one justifiable homicide per 6,000 defensive gun uses.



We get maybe a dozen or two stories a year about inappropriate and unneccessary defensive gun uses a year here in the Gungeon. This in a country of over 300,000,000 people.



I don't think that a person being attacked has to play "fair". This isn't a game. If the victim is a woman, her attacker very likely is a stronger, bigger, more aggressive male. If the attacker is a career criminal, his is very likely a violent and cruel person, accustomed to fighting and violence. A human predator, in other words, with street-fighting experience.


Obviously there are limits, though. Shooting your spouse after she/he slaps you during a domestic dispute is not self-defense. It's a cause for the police to deal with.

[SteveM]

51. Do you have any data which support this contention?...

"It's too often the ready availability of concealed carry handguns that actually elevates the level of violence to fatality when there would otherwise be no reason for it."

[mike_c]

70. not directly-- this sort of thing isn't my field of expertise....

I'm speaking as a citizen who perceives that to be the case, not as an expert by any means.

However, it stands to reason that, given the statistics that HAVE been cited in this thread or which are otherwise easily available online, the per capita rate of gun violence and gun homocide is considerably higher in the U.S. than in most other comparable industrial nations. Much higher. If that's NOT because Americans are too readily elevating petty violence and crime to deadly force levels then the implication is that Americans are MUCH more likely to need justifiable deadly self defense against their fellow citizens than the citizens of most other industrialized countries. I certainly don't think there's any data to support THAT, however.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

57. Minor beatings?

You mean like a single punch. Like when Rudy Tomjanovich got punched by another NBA player. All it did was fracture his skull. Do you have a evidence of most fights ending in shootings? I had a gun accessible when my wife was assaulted at a sporting event. Amazingly I showed restraint and just beat the hell out of someone instead of shooting them. Do you have evidence of concealed permit holders being involved in large amounts of criminal incidences of any type? If you do then you have evidence that is contrary to all public record of any kind.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Should women be allowed to use a gun to prevent a rape?

In keeping with your argument. Most rape victims are seriously physically injured. So if they just had to endure a rape and a minor beating. That's not justification for killing someone is it? I'll just go ahead and say that I believe women should have the option of using a firearm to defend themselves from rapists.

David

[iverglas]

60. utter fucking bullshit ... RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!

Most rape victims are seriously physically injured.

Completely, totally, entirely false statement.

So now that your moronic premise has been exposed for what it is, what happens next?

You repeat it next week, I imagine.

[M24PS90]

73. Well if you say it is a

"Completely, totally, entirely false statement." Then that is all I need to know! If iverglas says it is false then there is no disputing it. Her word is cold hard fact!

Good job exposing that "moronic premise". I idolize you.


Oh wait........

[iverglas]

74. another fan

for the club.

Always room for one more!

[M24PS90]

77. I must admit that

there are time when you have me rolling in laughter. But other than you knack for humor, we agree on little.;-)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. I'm a fan.

You are one of the few here who are willing to stand and fight. I admire that. I disagree with you on almost everything about gun control. But except for the occasional outburst you are a positive force and a worthy adversary.

David

[iverglas]

89. actually

the person who made the statement has said it is. False. He misspoke himself.

Happy? I thought you would be.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

100. oh dear

such a shame we won't have enough time to truly enjoy your venom cloaked as amateur psychoanalyzing, isn't it?

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

111. oh dear!

and I was so enjoying our little chats about moi.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. Back to anger management iverglas.

I'm not sure what you consider serious physical injury. I consider it an injury requiring hospitalization more than 1 day or injuries requiring surgery to repair. I probably should have made that clear, I assumed most people have a pretty good grasp on what a serious injury is but that isn't always the case. Please keep in mind I mentioned only physical injury because clearly the mental injury can be extensive and sometimes fatal. Hope this clarifies things.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Sorry Iverglas I meant aren't seriously physically injured.

So you are correct. Obviously if they were seriously injured deadly force in response would be justified.

David

[iverglas]

88. phew

That's a relief. I'm not sure where you're going with it, but at least we're not living in different universes.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

91. Sorry again.

I was just trying to figure out where mike stood on the subject. I meant no offense.

David

[mike_c]

68. you just answered the question, sort of...

"Most rape victims are seriously physically injured."

If you've read my comments above you'll know that my position is that deadly force is not justified when the likely outcome for the victim is significantly less consequential. Conversely, when someone faces "serious physical injury" I'd say they're getting pretty close to that standard.

But let's step back and look at the circumstances in which serious physical injury might occur. How many rapes or other physical assaults derive their primary danger of serious physical injury from the assailant's possession of a gun (or the threat of a gun), especially when there's only a single assailant? Many, if not most, I suspect (but I don't really know-- it's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one). Take away the gun and the victim has many more options than killing the assailant. Further, inflicting serious physical injury is much more difficult without a gun-- I know, we can postulate endless ways in which it can still happen, but there is an effective counter for many of them.

Under those circumstances many assaults, including sexual assault, become less physically dangerous, and less likely to justify killing someone over, IMO.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

82. My fault I meant aren't seriously injured.

Hope that clarifies things.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. I appreciate your honesty.

I disagree. I believe armed trained women are rarely the victims of rape and even more rarely seriously or injured because they were armed. That is possibly because the training makes them less likely to be targeted or because they use a firearm in defense. Having seen the emotional injury of rape victims firsthand, I believe that deadly force is an appropriate response. Reasonable people can disagree though.

David

[iverglas]

90. without a clue, without a care ...

 
http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/GenderIssues/Violence+Women/child-rape

VICTIM-OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP

Two sources provided information on rapists: interviews with
rape victims reported to law enforcement agencies in 1991 in
three States (Alabama, North Dakota, and South Carolina ) and
1991 interviews with rapists confined in the Nation's State
prisons. ...


Victim-offender relationship

                    
____________________________________________________

Age of                 Family   Acquaintance
victim        Total    member   or friend-a  Stranger

Source: Victims in 3 States

Under 12       100%     46%        50%         4%
12-17          100      20         65         15
18 or older    100      12         55         33

Source: Imprisoned rapists

Under 12 -b    100%     70%        24%         6%
12-17          100      36         45         19
18 or older    100       8         45         47

a.  Includes other nonfamily relationships.
b.  May include some 12-year-olds.


Sources: Tabulated from data described in Using NIBRS Data to
Analyze Violent Crime, BJS technical report, NCJ- 144785,
October 1993; BJS, Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991,
NCJ-136949, March 1993.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------

96% of under-12-yr-olds reporting rape were assaulted 
by a family member, friend or acquaintance.

85% of 12-17-yr-olds reporting rape were assaulted 
by a family member, friend or acquaintance.

67% of over-18-yr-olds reporting rape were assaulted 
by a family member, friend or acquaintance.


Anyone who proposes women carrying firearms as a solution to
the widespread problem of sexual violence against women either
hasn't got a clue or doesn't give a shit. 

 

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

92. I'd never propose children carrying handguns.

Not sure where you are going with this. I don't propose women carrying firearms as a solution. I propose it as an option.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

94. Your link is concerning child rape.

I don't know of anyone advocating children carrying concealed weapons much less firearms.

David

[iverglas]

96. and now you can try reading the post, if you like

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

97. Read and responded

It's dishonest to post a link about child rape when no one has ever advocated children carrying firearms.

David

[iverglas]

99. I would say it's dishonest to say I did something I didn't do

but we'll recall I've reached my conclusion.

I'm always willing to try to help, though.


67% of over-18-yr-olds reporting rape were assaulted
by a family member, friend or acquaintance.

Over 18 means OVER 18.

OVER 18 means NOT A CHILD.

TWO THIRDS of adult women in this study who were raped were assaulted by a family member, friend or acquaintance.


THE FACT REMAINS:

http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/press/crv92.pr

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Half of the women who reported they had been raped during 1992 were juveniles under 18 years old, and 16 percent were younger than 12, according to a Department of Justice study released today of 11 states and Washington, D.C.

A separate study in 1991 in three states found that 96 percent of the female rape victims younger than 12 years old knew their attackers. Twenty percent were victimized by their fathers.

HALF OF RAPE VICTIMS were under the age of 18.

ALMOST ALL RAPE VICTIMS under the age of 12 were assaulted by family members or friends/acquaintances.

TWO THIRDS OF ADULT RAPE VICTIMS were assaulted by family members or friends/acquaintances.


THE VAST MAJORITY OF WOMEN AND GIRLS WHO ARE SEXUALLY ASSAULTED ARE ASSAULTED BY MEN WHO ARE KNOWN TO THEM, MOST COMMONLY BY MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILY/SOCIAL CIRCLE.


Firearms are IRRELEVANT for the vast majority of female victims of sexual assault.

Firearms are not used to COMMIT those assaults, and firearms are not A RESPONSE that is reasonable to propose to, or would be accepted by, the victims.

The vast majority of women ARE NOT GOING TO KILL their fathers, family members, friends, dates or even casual acquaintances. No matter how excellent an idea YOU may think that is.


The exploitation of the sexual victimization of women and girls in the service of the poisonous gunhead agenda is as vile each time it occurs as it was the previous time.


NO ONE WHO GIVES A SHIT would even think of proposing unrestricted access to and carrying of firearms as a reasonable approach to the problem of sexual violence against women.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. Then you do exactly that.

NO ONE WHO GIVES A SHIT would even think of proposing unrestricted access to and carrying of firearms as a reasonable approach to the problem of sexual violence against women.


Care to show me where I proposed that or where anyone has? Can you even provide an example of someone seriously proposing unrestricted access to firearms? Regardless of your opinion I believe that women who aren't legally barred from owning firearms should have the option if they so choose to use a firearm to defend themselves against a rapist regardless of their relation to the victim. Reasonable people can disagree though.

David

[Howzit]

103. "I absolutely abhor the notion that anyone has the right to kill in defense against petty crime"

There is no legal or moral justification for shooting someone when there is no obvious threat of death or severe bodily injury to yourself or your family. I don't think anyone here is advocating otherwise. However, you should consider how often there is no violence because the aggressor backs down in the face of an armed victim. The idea that the "good guy" always mows down the "bad guy" regardless of the threat is false.

How does one know if the criminal that broke into your dwelling is only going to rough you up a little or kill you? Do you determine his intent by where and how deep he stabs you or do you wait until you have been knocked unconscious before you are allowed to invoke the right to self defense? Is this when you start wishing you had a suitable weapon?

Why not keep handy the best weapon at your disposal to negotiate with such a criminal before he has a chance to cause any real harm? If your best weapon is a pencil or your gun is disassembled, unloaded and locked in safe storage you may be out of luck. If the intruder continues pressing his attack, shoot until he stops. If the he backs down, you have the option of holding him until the cops get there, or letting him leave the same way he came in. Nobody has to die; least of all the victim of an illegal attack.


When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

[Wickerman]

4. Not really that hard

but it doesn't mean much. One in 10's of thousands of others who do carry responsibly.

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/14304079/detail.html
Suspect In Dilworth Shooting Got Gun Permit Months Before Slayings

POSTED: 5:41 pm EDT October 9, 2007

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- The man accused of killing two workers at a Dilworth restaurant bought his gun months before he was fired, according to sheriff’s department records.

Derrick Gregory is charged with murder in the deaths of two managers at the Moe's Southwest Grill. They were gunned down at the East Boulevard restaurant last week.

Eyewitness News obtained a copy of Gregory's application for a gun permit from back in March. He indicated he wanted it to protect himself, but we've learned he may have a history of mental illness.

[BigDaddy44]

8. He had a gun permit

Not a concealed carry permit. There's a difference.

[Wickerman]

11. Show me the difference

I didn't see it at the NC DoJ page. Ya throw that kind of declaration out you have to back it up.

[BigDaddy44]

13. Show you the difference?

It means he wasn't allowed to go around carrying a concealed gun. This argument is about concealed carry laws, not about the right to own a gun in general.

[Wickerman]

17. Tell me where you get a permit to own a gun in NC law

and then show me that the media simply didn't mis-label this as a gun permit.

I don't know of any state that you have to get a gun permit to simply own a gun for "protection".

If I'm wrong, great, but since you tell me it can't be so, it's your job to demonstrate that a). this wasn't a concealed carry permit, and that b). NC issues a "gun permit", whatever the hell that is.

edit, changed title as I substituted own for carry... hmmm, funny how that happens.

[iverglas]

40. hope you get an answer

'Cause I surely was curious about that myself.

If North Carolina has started requiring permits in order to possess firearms, I want to be the first to congratulate it!

[maxidivine]

43. NC information. Read if you dare.

"Effective December 1, 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)
decided that the handgun permitting scheme established in North Carolina complies with
the exceptions provided in the Brady Law. Therefore, North Carolina's handgun purchase
permits will suffice as a suitable alternative method for the purchase of a firearm in North
Carolina from a federally licensed firearms dealer under Brady."

http://www.ncdoj.com/DocumentStreamerClient?directory=Publications/&file=NORTHCAROLINA0FIREARMSLAWS.pdf

"B. NORTH CAROLINA REQUIREMENTS
As previously stated, effective December 1, 1995, North Carolina's pistol permitting
laws qualify as an alternative to the requirements of the Brady law. Therefore, when a
person desires to purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer the person need
comply solely with North Carolina's pistol permit laws and present a valid permit to
purchase a handgun. (Please note: Even if a NICS inquiry by a federally licensed dealer
was done in this circumstance, it does not do away with the necessity for a pistol purchase
permit.) As always, any other transfer between private individuals is also governed by
North Carolina's Pistol permit laws.
Under North Carolina law, it is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to sell,
give away, transfer, purchase, or receive, at any place in the State any pistol unless the
purchaser or receiver has first obtained a license or permit to receive such a pistol by the
Sheriff of the county where the purchaser or receiver resides. This requirement to obtain
a permit prior to the transfer of a pistol applies not only to a commercial transaction,
typically at a sporting goods store, but also between private individuals or companies
throughout North Carolina.
4
In addition, this State law has been interpreted to require that a pistol permit be
obtained by the receiver of a handgun when such person inherits a pistol as a result of the
death of another person. The permit should be given to and retained by the seller or donor
of the handgun. In such a case, the permit should be given to the executor or receiver of
the estate of the deceased person.
Further, it is unlawful for any person to receive from any postmaster, postal clerk,
employee in the parcel post department, rural mail carrier, express agent or employee, or
railroad agent or employee, within the State of North Carolina, any pistol without having
in his or her possession such a pistol permit.
A violation of this pistol permit law is a Class 2 misdemeanor under North Carolina
law. Specifically exempted from the provisions of this permit requirement are the transfer
of antique firearms or historic edged weapons. An "antique firearm" is one that was
manufactured on or before 1898, or a replica thereof. It also includes any firearm using
fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1898, for which ammunition is no longer
manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of
commercial trade. A "historic edged weapon" is defined to be a bayonet, trench knife,
sword, or dagger manufactured during or prior to World War II but no later than January
1, 1946. The requirement of obtaining a permit prior to the receipt of a handgun, does not
apply to the purchase and receipt of "long guns", such as shotguns and rifles. The fee for
pistol permits is set by statute and is $5.00 per permit.
The permit requirements set out for the purchase or receipt of handguns in North
Carolina, also applies to the purchase, receipt, selling, giving away, or transfer of any
crossbow. Therefore, prior to a person receiving a crossbow, the Sheriff must issue a permit
in the same manner as if the individual was receiving a pistol. A crossbow is defined as a
mechanical device consisting of, but not limited to, strings, cables, and prods transversely
mounted on either a shoulder or hand-held stock. This device is mechanically held at full
or partial draw and released by a trigger or similar mechanism which is incorporated into
a stock or handle. When operated, the crossbow discharges a projectile known as a bolt.
A bolt is defined as a projectile made to be discharged from a crossbow and differs from an
arrow in that the bolt is heavier and shorter."


Oh look it also has all the information that the NICS is *supposed* to have. Usually it does.

The NICS databases will include:
(1) Illegal/Unlawful Aliens File
(2) Controlled Substance Abuse File
(3) Dishonorable Discharge File
(4) Citizenship Renunciants File
(5) Mental Commitments File
(6) Wanted Persons File
(7) Domestic Violence Protection Order File
(8) Criminal History File

[Wickerman]

46. Fair enough. Odd enough. How about for this individual?

Any confirmation on which type of permit he had?

[iverglas]

49. and I'll be the first

Congratulations, North Carolina!

Not up to my own taste, but pretty good for the circumstances, I'd have to say.

[DemOkie]

42. Geez..do I hate to differ with the Mods..

Wickerman

In NC there is a vast difference between a "permit to purchase" and a "permit to carry".

To acquire a permit to purchase, one must apply to the county sheriff's office, and fill out a form fairly close to a 4473. IF the sheriff is so inclined, they will issue a permit, up to 4 permits per application, @ $5/per.

To acquire a "permit to carry", one must complete a firearms qualification/knowledge class, which costs between $50-100, and, upon completion submit appropriate paperwork to the state. Upon approval, one then acquires a permit to carry that costs $90 and is renewable every 5 yrs.

As one that has lived in Mecklenburg county, the approval process for purchase permits runs about 1 week. I like it much better now that I live in Andy Griffith's county. Andy usually approves my permits while I jabber with Otis.

[Wickerman]

48. thanks, glad to know about it

sounds like a nice way to gather some tax money. Surprised I've never heard the good folk of the gungeon complain about it.

[DemOkie]

121. Well put..

That's exactly what it is. I think the only reason it is suffered is that it applies only to handguns, and it is abused pretty much on a county-by-county basis.

The lack of complaints might be due to a shortage of NC Democratic gun owners, the brilliant "Ben Ezra" excepted of course.

[Cant trust em]

5. Here's why Guns should not be on the dems platform

watch the pushback you'll get from democrats when anti-gun legislation comes up. Let alone republicans in red leaning swing states. It's a losing combination.

[SteveM]

62. True 'nuff said. (nt)

[old mark]

6. Daddy, where I live,

in Berks County Pennsylvania there are over 25 thousand citizens with a License to Carry a Firearm. Last I read, less than .1 of 1% of these people get involved in some illegal gun-related activity.

The "blood in the streets" just is not happening, although I'm sure some of the anti's would be delighted to see it.

Most of the Anti-gun organizations are all about making money, and spread their own visions of doom to gain contributors.
Kind of like the NRA in reverse.

mark

[SidDithers]

10. Here's another...

http://www.projo.com/news/content/gianquitti_05-20-08_4TA6R93_v24.373055b.html

About the same time, he applied for and was granted a permit to carry a concealed weapon –– a privilege allowed by state law to retired law enforcement officers who pass criminal and psychological background checks.

It was a privilege he kept for the next 15 years, even while living with his family on quiet streets in well-kept neighborhoods, where the lawns were as lush as green carpets and hedges were perfectly trimmed.

It was a privilege he had until Sunday, when he was arrested for allegedly shooting and killing his neighbor, James Pagano, a Cranston Fire Department lieutenant.

Sid

[SidDithers]

18. And another...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/04/25/victims_kin_say_spouse_was_controlling/

Plymouth County prosecutors said John Tassinari, 29, used two .45-caliber handguns from his collection to repeatedly shoot his wife, who fell in the driveway of their Pilgrim Street home Tuesday night, suffering multiple gunshot wounds.

Authorities said Tassinari called Abington police on the 911 line around 10:10 p.m., declaring, "My wife has been cheating on me, and I just shot her dead. Please come arrest me. . . . I'm sorry." Their son, Francis, was home, but a 10-year-old son Barbara Tassinari had from an earlier relationship was with his father at the time, relatives said.

<snip>

He said John Tassinari was issued a permit to own weapons several years ago and was given a license to carry a concealed weapon in 2004. The chief said that Tassinari wanted the concealed permit for target shooting.

"He had nothing in his record that would statutorily disqualify him" from being issued the license to carry a concealed weapon, the chief said.

Sid

[Dr. Strange]

22. Yeah, but can you find an example...

of a left-handed citizen who was Caesarian-born using a gun in self-defense while singing a Romanian folk-song? Just one example? Admit it, you can't!

Just figured I'd help move the goalposts. :)

[zanne]

126. HAH!

Isn't that always the way? Either that or an abrupt change of subject.

[SidDithers]

24. And another...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS01/304040082/-1/back01

Geraldine Beasley told a judge today she had no choice when she pulled out a gun and killed a 44-year-old homeless man because he threatened to kill her first.

“I was afraid to die,” said Beasley, 63, who had a concealed carry permit for the weapon. “I didn’t mean to kill him, I didn’t want to kill him, I just wanted to stop him from killing me.

<snip>

But prosecutors say a video surveillance tape doesn’t support Beasley’s story.

Hamilton County Assistant Prosecutor Rick Gibson said Francis can be seen was walking away from Beasley when she fired.

“Her dogged persistence that she did it in self defense when he was clearly walking away causes me to believe she’s a danger to the community,” Gibson said.

Sid

[beevul]

27. There are 4 or 5 examples...

There are 4 or 5 examples.


The questions then becomes this:


Are they representative of the millions with concealed carry permits nationwide?


Are those 4 or 5 examples justification to scrap concealed carry on a statewide or nationwide basis?

[pipoman]

28. There have been incidents as has been illustrated here

a better question might be how do the numbers compare to 1. the public in general and 2. Law enforcement officers. The first would undoubtedly indicate that ccw holders have a much lower crime rate than the public because the ccw process disqualifies the usual suspects..previous offenders, people with domestic violence issues, and the mentally unstable. The second would be very interesting because presumably LEOs would, like ccw holders, be disqualified from service if they had issues. I have heard that ccw holders are less likely to commit crimes than LEOs but have never seen a study which illustrates it.

As for the blood in the streets, old west, road rage turned deadly, etc., that is still bandied about by opponents to ccw even though there isn't a single shred of evidence to support it. Considering that there are literally millions of Americans who legally carry concealed every day I am curios when the massive blood shed at the hands of ccw holders will begin?

[iverglas]

59. a challenge for whoever you are

Use language honestly.

I know; it seems to be an almost impossible undertaking for some hereabouts, but it can be done.

If you're meaning to address people who suffer from some sort of psychosis that causes them to be opposed to certain varieties of objects, then by all means address your posts to "anti-gun folks".

If you're meaning to solicit responses from people who support firearms control measures that you oppose -- many of whom very certainly own and use firearms -- then come up with some meaningful and rational way of attracting their attention.


Oh, and of course you could always try coming up with some meaningful question / topic of discussion ...

[zanne]

125. HERE YOU GO...

Concealed Carry responsible citizen shoots and kills family.
In Virginia, Man With Permit to Carry a Concealed Handgun Shoots Wife and Children

If we had a nickel for every time a self-described "law-abiding" gun owner shoots someone, we'd be vying with Donald Trump for who has the larger bank account.

Today we report on a man who had a CCW permit in Virginia - you know one of those "good" gun owners - who shot his wife to death, shot his children to death, and then committed suicide.

A May 6th Fredericksburg, VA, "Freelance-Star," article described the carnage:

A man accused of killing his two small children, their mother and himself Monday night in southern Stafford was heavily armed, police said.

Aaron Poseidon Jackson, 24, was wearing a bulletproof vest and was surrounded by guns and scads of ammunition when police found him dead from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound Monday night in the Walt Lou Trailer Park off U.S. 1.

Before ending his own life, police said, Jackson took the lives of 23-year-old Lastasha Nicole Thomas and their two children-1½-year-old Aaron Neptune Jackson and 2½-year-old Nicole Aaron Jackson.

All four victims were shot in the head.

Thomas was shot with an AK-47 assault rifle, Sheriff Charles Jett said, while the others were shot with a .38-caliber handgun. (Read more).


http://www.gunguys.com


---You should really check the threads before you post a new one. This is a copy of a thread I posted that appeared seven threads down.