patrick.net

When seconds count, call 911, they'll be there in just a few minutes, or hours, the next day, or not at all. Good luck!

Libs can't stand personal responsibility...even if that responsibility is to protect themselves or their families. "The State" will protect me.

So you are saying that law abiding conservative citizens should have protected themselves by breaking the law against concealed weapons in Aurora? Isn't the definition of anarchy when the citizens hold the state to be immoral and oppose the authority of the state. That makes sense, advocate anarchy to bring order. Sort of like 1984 "obedience is freedom", that kind of thing? I always have to admire your logic Abe.

33 lenar 2012 Jul 23, 5:36am

Not a lawyer. I would've known the answer if I were.

They chose to implement gun-free policy - fine. But it should come with door checks and/or security; otherwise it's just selective disarmament of the law abiding.

34

freak80 2012 Jul 23, 5:52am

Isn't the definition of anarchy when the citizens hold the state to be immoral and oppose the authority of the state.

Not necessarily. I believe the US government is corrupt and immoral, but I do not want to overthrow it. I just want some of the corruption cleaned up.

35 Honest Abe 2012 Jul 23, 6:52am

Bob2356 - I must have hit a nerve! In case you didn't know, response times HAVE been hours, that same day, the next day, and some NEVER showed up. Thats got to give you a lot of comfort, right? In fact the police have NO legal obligation to "protect" you at all. [Warren v. District of Columbia]

I don't know what your rant about anarchy was about. Did you forget your medication today?

36 StillLooking 2012 Jul 23, 7:30am

What about my right not to own a gun?

If there were no guns, we would all be much safer. Guns shoot 100,000 a year in the USA. So what would happen to those hundred thousand if there were no guns?

The only logical argument for legal guns is population control but if population is the problem there must be a better solution.

And people are basically animals and if one watches nature shows, it is pretty obvious that animals can be pretty darn brutal against their own kind, especially the male. It makes no sense to arm already brutal men with more means to maim and kill.

37 Honest Abe 2012 Jul 23, 7:59am

What about your right not to own a gun? There are about 1,100 accidental deaths per year and about 17,000 murders involving guns. However DEFENSIVE use of guns occur about 3 million times per year, of which 92% of the time, no shot was fired.

When a crazed, brutal man is breaking into your house RIGHT NOW, do you reach for your gun to protect yourself and your family, or do you frantiaclly dial 911 and pray the authority's get to your house in the next five to ten minutes?

Again, the police have NO legal obligation to protect you or your family.

Al Capone said "You can get a lot further with a smile and a gun then you can with just a smile".

38 lenar 2012 Jul 23, 8:20am

What about my right not to own a gun?

You confuse gun ownership with Obamacare.

39

bdrasin 2012 Jul 23, 8:52am

What about your right not to own a gun? There are about 1,100 accidental deaths per year and about 17,000 murders involving guns. However DEFENSIVE use of guns occur about 3 million times per year, of which 92% of the time, no shot was fired.

Yeah, sure...I'll believe it when I read it from a source that doesn't use self-reporting from gun owners for its data. And...that's why the United States, with its uniquely high level of gun ownership compared to other developed countries, also has a uniquely low level of violent crime (not). All those guns sure are making us safe. As Dr. Phil would ask, "How's that workin' for you"?

40 bob2356 2012 Jul 23, 9:29am

I don't know what your rant about anarchy was about. Did you forget your medication today?

Pretty simple reading, I thought you could handle it. Sorry I overestimated.

So your solution is that every person have a weapon at all times? A gun at home maybe, I am a good shot, but I think I would just shag out rather than shoot someone in my house. I had a carry permit once for a job and had to take a course that included a lot on the Castle Doctrine to get it. Pretty eye opening. You have a duty to retreat in most states or you can end up sued or charged. Even stand your ground states you can get into trouble if you don't get everything right. Better course of action is to simply get out of harms way. The idea that common burglars are going to chase you down is just fiction. I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger. The rest were relatives and friends. I had never heard that before then, disturbing.

However DEFENSIVE use of guns occur about 3 million times per year, of which 92% of the time, no shot was fired.

That's odd. The FBI only reports 200 defensive gun uses that resulted in death per year. So 8% of 3 million is 24000 where a shot was fired. That means 23,800 people only got wounded? Pretty piss poor shooting. Once you wound someone they are highly motivated to kill you quickly as possible. I never did believe the defensive use of guns numbers.

41

justme 2012 Jul 23, 9:47am

Vicente says

Target doesn't go down because he's got body armor. Next I'm probably getting a shotgun blast in return in the second I've hesitated to assess the situation and decide next action.

I'm totally with you, but I can see now what some of the gun nuts would say (NB NB sarcasm alert NB NB)

The problem is that you were UNDERPOWERED, and if only you had brought your CONCEALED BAZOOKA, you would have gotten your man. Everyone should at least have an RPG launcher in the trunk of their car, so that one would not get caught in a situation like this without some serious FIREPOWER. There might be some "collateral damage", but hey, that is the price of freedom.

42 lenar 2012 Jul 23, 10:02am

I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger.

Without even going into accuracy of this statement, two observations.
1. Suicides lead homicides in US, and for suicides firearm is an obvious tool of choice. A suicide can't be prevented by denying access to a tool; yet they are counted. Want to make that stat work in your favor, not against? Just don't commit suicide.
2. I couldn't help but notice word "stranger". What about defense against those you know? In most violent crimes, victim knew the attacker. Guess what? Those are counted out.

Statistics don't lie. Interpretations do.

43

bdrasin 2012 Jul 23, 10:05am

I never did believe the defensive use of guns numbers.

Bob, its simple.
1) The NRA (or some other advocacy group) cold-calls a bunch of gun owners and asks them for stories where they used their guns in self defense
2) The get a bunch of stores like "a black guy looked at me funny, so I pulled back my shirt so he could see my gun and he left" (they count this as a assault/mugging deterred by the gun)
3) At least some of the people called make up some yarn about their own self-defense awesomeness (which of course they never have to verify)
4) The NRA extrapolates this data to some ridiculous figure

Rinse, lather, repeat. It doesn't matter; too many people are crazy about their guns and will do or say anything to protect their beloved hobby.

44

leo707 2012 Jul 23, 10:14am

I do remember my instructor, a moonlighting cop, pointed out that homes with guns are 3 times a likely to have someone shot and killed than homes without and only 3% of those were self defense against a stranger.

Those numbers (X times more likely to have a gun in a home hurt/kill a homeowner...) come from an old CDC study on gun violence. Years back I looked into the study and while the CDC never -- to my knowledge -- released all their data there are a couple of things that I remember from what I could find.

- A vast majority of the deaths were suicides
- A lot of the deaths were from homes where the police had previously been called to for domestic disturbances
- People in the homes had criminal records
- etc.

Anyway, when you filter down the demographics to account for only people who are "normal" households that practice responsible gun ownership the probability of a gun accident is very very low.

45

leo707 2012 Jul 23, 10:22am

You have a duty to retreat in most states or you can end up sued or charged. Even stand your ground states you can get into trouble if you don't get everything right. Better course of action is to simply get out of harms way.

Yes, the idea is to survive the situation. A gun is a tool that can help you survive but avoiding the confrontation all together is the best route.

I remember from my CCW class (ran by the NRA) they made if very clear that it was not our responsibility to clear our house and getting out was the best option.

46 foxmannumber1 2012 Jul 23, 10:57am

Call it Crazy says

I think we will need to also outlaw red lights and cars, they have killed and injured many more...

This is a fatal flaw in the MADD argument against DUI. Many more people die due to speeding than alcohol. They do not call for increased penalties against speeders.

The super majority of MADD members have family members who were/are victims of DUI. They only call for more penalties against those who committed the same crime as those who affected their lives personally.

47

Shaman 2012 Jul 23, 12:33pm

The right to self defense is such a fundamental right, that any animal denied this right is nothing more than livestock. If we deny people, even citizens this right, we have taken away the most elemental right of them all. Guns exist in all their various forms. We may wish that they didn't, or that we could remove them all from the country but that is NEVER going to happen. What will happen is that we will see more and more dangerous weapons come into being as history goes on. Given that criminals with guns are out there, the only measured defense against them are other guns, held by people. Take then away and you only make law abiding citizens into sheep.
Personally, I believe the sheepification of the citizenry is the Liberal agenda anyway. Because if none can object, then the power of the politicians and their handlers reigns supreme.

48

freak80 2012 Jul 23, 1:31pm

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

And people are basically animals and if one watches nature shows, it is pretty obvious that animals can be pretty darn brutal against their own kind, especially the male. It makes no sense to arm already brutal men with more means to maim and kill.

You hang around with "Greatest I Am" much?

49

freak80 2012 Jul 23, 1:36pm

Quigley says

Personally, I believe the sheepification of the citizenry is the Liberal agenda anyway. Because if none can object, then the power of the politicians and their handlers reigns supreme.

I think that's true for the far-left. But right now it seems the far-right is succeeding the most with propaganda/sheepification.

50

TMAC54 2012 Jul 23, 2:57pm

Everyone in the theater should have been armed.

51 drew_eckhardt 2012 Jul 23, 3:22pm

Concealed carry does nothing to deter crime.

Sure it does.

Criminals aren't as stupid as we'd like to believe they are and act in their own self interest. When they think they're likely to get shot by some one carrying concealed they switch from confrontational crimes (muggings, home invasions) to simple property crimes like theft (which is a lot better - a law suit can't undo personal injury, although insurance with replacement value coverage can come close to making you whole) or crimes against people they suspect won't be carrying (criminals in Florida directed their interest towards rental cars presumably driven by non-carrying non-residents after that shall-issue law passed).

52 bob2356 2012 Jul 23, 11:09pm

leoj707 says

Those numbers (X times more likely to have a gun in a home hurt/kill a homeowner...) come from an old CDC study on gun violence. Years back I looked into the study and while the CDC never -- to my knowledge -- released all their data there are a couple of things that I remember from what I could find.

- A vast majority of the deaths were suicides
- A lot of the deaths were from homes where the police had previously been called to for domestic disturbances
- People in the homes had criminal records
- etc.

Anyway, when you filter down the demographics to account for only people who are "normal" households that practice responsible gun ownership the probability of a gun accident is very very low.

Ok, as an on again off again gun owner I was curious enough to actually look this up. The data was from someone named Kellerman and was published in it's entirety in the NEJM, not from the CDC. Suicides weren't included. The study specifically looks at homicides, not accidents. He did extensive culling of the data to allow for factors like criminal records and drug use. The rates for these factors are broken out. A reasonable thinking person would have to give some serious thought to this study. Good thing there are very few reasonable thinking people involved in the gun debate.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

So how do you propose to allow guns in only "normal" households that practice "responsible gun ownership"? I would say most of these are in area's where the need for a gun for household protection is very low to non existent. Just curious.

53 bob2356 2012 Jul 23, 11:11pm

drew_eckhardt says

Criminals aren't as stupid as we'd like to believe they are and act in their own self interest. When they think they're likely to get shot by some one carrying concealed they switch from confrontational crimes (muggings, home invasions) to simple property crimes like theft (which is a lot better - a law suit can't undo personal injury, although insurance with replacement value coverage can come close to making you whole) or crimes against people they suspect won't be carrying (criminals in Florida directed their interest towards rental cars presumably driven by non-carrying non-residents after that shall-issue law pass

Do you want to provide some kind of statistics to back this up? Most criminals I've come in contract with have been very stupid for the most part.

54

freak80 2012 Jul 23, 11:14pm

Do you want to provide some kind of statistics to back this up? Most criminals I've come in contract with have been very stupid for the most part.

Especially the ones on World's Dumbest Criminals. Ever see the one where a guy tries to rob a glassware store in Paris with a moped? Really...a moped. How much stuff are you going to carry away in a moped? Sheesh.

55 StillLooking 2012 Jul 24, 1:43am

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.

56

bdrasin 2012 Jul 24, 2:30am

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

The argument that guns reduce crime is a logic fail because it is pretty stinking obvious that guns add 100,000 crimes and the most horrific crimes at that.

Waste of time talking about it, I'm afraid. Too many Americans love their guns and won't even listen to you if you tell them it represents (MUCH!) more danger to them than safety. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias

You present evidence, they hear insults. Sorry, we rational people lost this issue and its time to move on.

57 lenar 2012 Jul 24, 2:32am

100,000 people are shot each year in the United States. Almost everyone of these shootings is a crime. This means guns add 100,000 crimes

Incorrect. Earlier, both leoj707 and I explained why this is incorrect. Search for "suicide" (a tragedy but not a crime).

58

leo707 2012 Jul 24, 2:36am

The data was from someone named Kellerman and was published in it's entirety in the NEJM, not from the CDC.

Kellerman's study(s) were almost entirely funded by the CDC.

Suicides weren't included. The study specifically looks at homicides, not accidents.

From what I remember the original paper (this is the source of the 43 times more likely to die by own gun quotes came from) published in The New England Journal of Medicine-October 7, 1993 did include these things.

He did extensive culling of the data to allow for factors like criminal records and drug use. The rates for these factors are broken out.

Yes, and based on his original study in the NEJM warning that people are 43 times more likely to die from a gun in their home I am extremely skeptical of the way Kellermann culls his data. He seems to have an agenda that he is trying to push with his studies.

From what I could learn from a quick search he wrote a few papers from the same data set then released the data in 1997 (after I did my original research into the topic).

I think that this may be his original data, but I don't have time to sift through it right now:
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/6898?q=kellermann&searchIn=ALL

A reasonable thinking person would have to give some serious thought to this study.

Yes, and that is why I originally looked into his research back in the early 90s. If I have time I will see if I can look at his original data.

Good thing there are very few reasonable thinking people involved in the gun debate.

Unfortunately Kellermann does not seem like one of those reasonable people.

And speaking of reasonable...

So how do you propose to allow guns in only "normal" households that practice "responsible gun ownership"?

Yeah, this is the million or perhaps trillion dollar question.

Reasonable people believe that some people should not have guns, and even people on both sides of the debate can sometimes agree who should not have access to guns. The problem is how do we limit gun access to these people.

Unfortunately the solutions provided by either side are very unreasonable and most likely entirely noneffective at preventing gun deaths: banning X gun de jour because it was used in a high profile crime; letting everyone carry so that anyone getting out of line could be simply shot; etc.

Also, a big wrinkle is that with any gun control system -- assuming that you are not going house-to-house confiscating guns -- is that so may people would have their current guns grandfathered in that it could take generations for the system to "work".

Also, any system to assure that guns only end up in "responsible" and "normal" homes would be very unpalatable to the American public, because it would require things like extensive databases with access to medical and criminal records so that background checks would be more effective.

We would also have to have stricter testing before someone is "cleared" to own a gun. My last gun purchase was about a decade ago, but the test was a joke. I would advocate that for any gun ownership people should need to pass a test similar to the NRA test/class to obtain a CCW.

Anyway, I guess the short answer is that I don't really know and I don't think that any "workable" solutions will ever get any traction.

I would say most of these are in area's where the need for a gun for household protection is very low to non existent.

Yeah, I agree that the need is very low, but I don't think there is any place where I would say it is non-existent. Maybe places where the chance of needing a gun for home protection is so low that it is effectively non-existent.

59

leo707 2012 Jul 24, 2:51am

bdrasin says

You present evidence, they hear insults.

Unfortunately both sides of the issue are deeply affected by Confirmation Bias. It is difficult to find any evidence that has not been tainted by bias.