Family calls shooting of car thief ‘senseless’

[spoonitnow]

(Some laws are bad.)

As for the Burger King cowboy, how don't you see why a mass murderer or armed robbers would want to get him first? How don't you see how this guy with his gun could make things infinitely worse for himself and the general public in case of an armed robbery in the Burger King where the robbers were hoping to get in and out with the money without firing a shot?

Yes, how silly of us to have rights. Owning guns is really up there with slavery. Your argument is solid.

Of course we should take away peoples rights to make it easier to commit crimes. Why would anyone think otherwise?

And God knows the world needs more feminism.

[daviddem]

Yes, how silly of us to have rights. Owning guns is really up there with slavery. Your argument is solid.

Of course we should take away peoples rights to make it easier to commit crimes. Why would anyone think otherwise?

And God knows the world needs more feminism.

Yeah, yeah all these gun owners prevent crime and make everyone safer, for sure.

And abolishing slavery totally ruined the US/Euro economies, right?

[spoonitnow]

Yeah, yeah all these gun owners prevent crime and make everyone safer, for sure.

And abolishing slavery totally ruined the US/Euro economies, right?

Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.

Also, women should not be allowed to vote, but that's a topic for another time.

[daviddem]

Their purpose is not to prevent crime or make people safer. People have a fundamental right to protect themselves and an obligation to resist the government when necessary.

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.

[Lukie]

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.

Some of these are good points. Some of it is speculative and may not actually be the case.

I made the point earlier in the thread that some concealed carry folks take things too far, meaning that they want to be armed as well as a uniformed police officer (perhaps not completely unreasonable), or (much worse) have an itchy trigger finger and seem to be waiting for someone to cross the line on what would allow deadly force. These attitudes are common on gun boards, and frankly, rather scary.

The actual statistics on CCW states and permit holders is much more friendly. States than enact CCW licenses usually see a decrease in violent crime, and CCW holders as a whole are much less likely to committ any crime than non-holders. So the idea that society turns into the wild west with the allowance of CCW isn't reality.

I personally have a CCW license. I don't often carry a gun, despite the urging of some people that I should. If I ever have to go into very bad neighborhoods like East Cleveland (and I do have a close family member who works in the area), the question isn't whether I am bringing a concealed gun, it's whether or not I am also going to bring a backup gun. Actually that's not really true; I have never carried 2 guns and unless my career path takes an unexpected turn into military or law enforcement, I likely never will. But I'm also not going to rely on pepper spray lol.

Which brings me to another point. Most women are bigger targets than men and inherently have less of an ability to defend themselves if for no other reason than physical size and strength. Many women recognize this and do carry something, but it's often some 5 year old dinky mace on a keychain buried in a purse. It is interesting that arguably the demograph who would benefit more from carrying a gun is actually far less likely to have one in practice.

There have been accidents, road rage incidents etc. that have been needlessly escalated due to presence of firearms, but that is a tiny percentage of overall violence. Also I will say that I am not a vigilante hero, I'm not a police officer, and I'm not going to run to try to save the day. If somebody were to stick a gun in my face or there was another similarly hopeless situation or one that technically I could draw and it just wouldn't be smart, of course I wouldn't. I would much, much rather de-escalate the situation than the reverse.

I agree that the notion that someone's cache of small arms has even the slightest hope or prayer against a well-equipped, modern army is ridiculous. At that point we are getting into the fringes of fantasy and I can't help but question the logical decision making ability of people who think that.

[daviddem]

There have been accidents, road rage incidents etc. that have been needlessly escalated due to presence of firearms, but that is a tiny percentage of overall violence.

Are you so sure it's such a tiny percentage? I know we can't rely 100% on the numbers that can be found online because they are often skewed by one party or the other, but the numbers I've seen for accidental discharge related injuries or fatalities and for suicides alone were quite frightening.

It would also be interesting to see what proportion of crimes using guns were committed by first and single offenders (previously law abiding citizens who turned into felons for a reason or another).

Note sure how reliable or partisan these numbers are (the sources are at the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

[Lukie]

Are you so sure it's such a tiny percentage? I know we can't rely 100% on the numbers that can be found online because they are often skewed by one party or the other, but the numbers I've seen for accidental discharge related injuries or fatalities and for suicides alone were quite frightening.

It would also be interesting to see what proportion of crimes using guns were committed by first and single offenders (previously law abiding citizens who turned into felons for a reason or another).

Note sure how reliable or partisan these numbers are (the sources are at the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

I meant that comment to be in the context of legal CCW permit holders. I would actually be curious to see reliable numbers in that regard. That is how many CCW holders 'went off the deep end' so to speak, how many CCW holders were killed while carrying a gun, ostensibly because they drew their weapon at an inopportune time, and that sort of thing.

Given that there are an estimated 8,000,000 permit holders in the country, that seems like it would be enough to establish some reliable trends. I could certainly be convinced that it is a bad idea if someone could put forth a strong enough case. I just haven't seen it yet. On the other hand, if someone could conclusively show that CCW holders are in fact much less likely to commit crimes AND much less likely to be killed, raped etc., that would be a pretty good thing to know as well. And I haven't really seen the latter part of that either.

edit: this is a little different topic than the overall gun climate and violence stats in the country. I guess what I'm asking, is CCW the best solution or at least a reasonable solution to a flawed culture? What about if having a license is in one person's best interest to have? Those are honest questions and I haven't completely made up my mind on it.

[spoonitnow]

protect themselves = make themselves safer or am I missing something?

In a way, whether it's a right or not is a moot point. If I thought my LE (life expectancy) was higher with a gun, I would have one, legal or not. The real reason I don't want one is because it is a -LE move. If I had a contract on my head or in a world were most thieves kill you first and rob you after, it'd be a +LE move so I would have one, regardless of what the law says.

The problem I have though is that the people who fool themselves thinking otherwise or just owe/carry guns "because it's their right" also decrease my LE and the one of others. Think accident, road rage, domestic dispute, bar fight, civilians in shootouts with robbers who would not otherwise have fired a shot, people killed because they are wrongly thought of trying to break in, loonies or unstables who can just walk into a shop, buy a gun and shoot whoever, etc

So the question becomes whether people should have a right to do something that endangers other people's life without actually protecting theirs, and I think the answer is no. As was said above though, the most important thing is not to remove their right but show them how to calculate their LE equation, and the rest will follow suit.

Far less people would get unduly shot (and, more importantly, my family and I would have less chance to get unduly shot) if only some hardcore criminals and the cops had firearms, as opposed to everyone including me having one.

As for the argument about resisting the government, it is downright ridiculous in today's America. There is zero reason to think that it will ever come to that, and if it did the citizens wouldn't stand a damn chance anyway, unless the army sided with them, in which case civilians still wouldn't need weapons.

Far fewer people would get AIDS if nobody had sex. Same pointless logic that you're using.

[daviddem]

Far fewer people would get AIDS if nobody had sex. Same pointless logic that you're using.

Yeah but putting a condom on your gun barrel won't make it less dangerous.

And then sex is nice and useful, worth taking a chance for.