Why I support gun control

|
(51)

I admit I don't know the details, but it hardly matters: An Oakland kid just died because he was playing with a handgun.

My nephew, who has a couple of rifles and loves to go the the range and shoot at targets, calls me every now and then to tell me that "my president" -- you know, Obama -- wants to take away his guns. I tell him Obama doesn't want his guns, and I don't, either. And I'm a carnivore, so I can't even say I'm against hunting.

But I am against easy access to handguns, which really have no purpose except to kill other people. And since all the angry libertarians are going to slam me and talk about self-defense, let me remind you: The odds that your gun will kill you or someone you love are much greater than the odds that you'll ever actually use it for effective self-defense. One less handgun in Oakland might mean one more kid alive today.

 

Comments

So by that logic, since more people die each day in car accidents, all car licenses should be suspended. Everyone is to use public mass transit because it will be "safer" because no cars = no deaths, right?

Though tragic that a chinld was again killed by a firearm, who do you blame? Everyone, or the OWNER of the firearm? Because of someone else not locking their firearms up, I should be punished, even though I have a safe and associated safety equipment? So a drunk driver kills someone on the road, well you shouldn't be driving either, because your car "can" kill someone too... This is the tunnel vision of gun control supporters.

Overall statistics show that gun accidents resulting in a death are less than a percent, compared against the TOTAL number of firearm owners in America. And on the same foot, the percentage of vehicular deaths are miniscual compared to the TOTAL automobile ownership of America.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 11:03 am

In a real way, statistics don't matter even if they tell the truth. If we have a God given right to defend our lives by the most efficient means available, the freedom to defend ourselves should not be infringed regardless of how many Oakland kids are accidently shooting themselves. Your anecdote is nothing but sensationalism and your statistic is poorly interpreted and mostly misunderstood. Oh, and details almost always matter. The devil is in them. To ignore them in cases like this is to wallow in your own emotionally driven agenda.

You can be against hunting and for self-defense. The constitution doesn't guarantee your right to hunt.

By the way, I AM against ignorant uninformed children having any easy access to handguns.

Posted by Wiglaf on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 12:25 pm

"But I am against easy access to handguns, which really have no purpose except to kill other people."

Two things about this statement:

First, lots of people hunt with handguns. The fact that you do not know this pretty much disqualifies you from commenting on this subject. I hate it when people say, "I dont have any clue about this subject, but I'd just like to take a few minutes to advocate taking away your rights."

Second, lets not pretend that killing other people is always a bad thing. Many times, the right person is killed. Many times the victim is the one that survives, and the asailant is the one with the bullet hole. This is a very good thing. Even the department of justice will tell you that firearms are used defensively more than 800,000 times a year. Easy access = effective self defense. A locked gun cannot save anyone.

"The odds that your gun will kill you or someone you love are much greater than the odds that you'll ever actually use it for effective self-defense."

Here's a statistic for you: 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.[1]

[1] Suter E. "Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer
Review." Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83:
133-48.

Posted by Flyer on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 1:02 pm

'I admit I don't know the details, but it hardly matters.'

That is a statement admitting a textbook example of ingorance. Yet you have an opinion. Any political ideas you have on this matter will cause more damage than good to society. No good can come from ingorance.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 1:33 pm

Mr. Redmond has a flashback to 1974, the year the National Council to Control Handguns and the National Coalition to Ban Handguns were formed.

You see, 1974 through the early 1980s were the height of the "collective rights" farce, and these groups really thought they could indeed ban handguns in America.

Flash forward to 2008 and 2010, when the Supreme Court killed the collective rights fabrication and extended the right to arms protections against state and local governments.

The right to own and carry handguns is now considered "fundamental" in a legal sense, as fundamental as speech, assembly, etc..

Mr. Redmond ... do you get out much these days?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

I am against the 4th amendment. A guy in my city just got off a major drug charge because the police bungled the search. Sure, I believe in privacy in theory, but the price is too high.

Posted by Beatbox on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

I am against the 4th amendment. A guy in my city just got off a major drug charge because the police bungled the search. Sure, I believe in privacy in theory, but the price is too high.

Posted by Beatbox on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 3:10 pm

I take issue with the logic of this statement:

"The odds that your gun will kill you or someone you love are much greater than the odds that you'll ever actually use it for effective self-defense."

The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides (roughly 4 in 5), meaning 4 in 5 gun deaths are voluntary. So the fact that a gun is more likely to kill you than be used in self-defense can be stated another way; you are more likely to kill yourself than use a gun in self-defense. But the fact that some people kill themselves is irrelevant to gun policy.

Posted by Colin on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

I'll bet that the gun was an illegal hand gun., so guess WHAT T(W)IM(T), it wil NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

Google the words "Brittany Zimmerman".

Hint: 48 minutes for police to arrive. Dead.

48 minutes may be okay for you, but it isn't for me.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

If guns do not deter crime, why aren't there any mass shootings at gun ranges or at gun shows?

And.....

If gun control really worked, "gun free zones" such as schools would be bastions of safety. Instead, the opposite is true.

And....

Experts agree that everyone needs a 401k to prepare for retiremment. And experts also agree that everyone should have a fire extinguisher.....and smoke detectors, and 6 months savings in case of emergency. Why do experts have you prepare for every possible contingency except for the most precious of them all- your life? Makes. Absolutely. No. Sense.

And....

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

.......

There is no logic to disarming people, unless you want to guarantee tyranny at some point down the line.

Oh, and I own many handguns, and none of them have ever killed or injured anyone, so there goes your argument.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Tim

Love to see you talk your way out of an attack, LOVE to see it!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 8:30 pm

The purpose of owning a handgun is not to kill anyone. It is to be able to control, in an extreme situation, the behavior of another person.

If something potentially threatening is happening or clearly about to happen, then pointing a gun at someone will get their attention like nothing else. And if you then tell them to back off, desist or otherwise refrain from what they were doing, they will generally obey.

You own a gun to better control a situation at the margin. The idea is that the threat is much more powerful than the execution

Posted by Folly on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

There are an estimated 200 to 300 million firearms in private hands in the United States. Nothing anyone can do is going to make them all go away, just can't be done, law or no law. So the anti gun crowd continues to pursue a failed strategy of making it harder for the law abiding citizens to possess guns knowing full well that to the criminal a weapon is simply part of the cost of doing business so they will obtain one by any means necessary.
But the true tragedy in the case that inspired the original opinion is that we really could do something proactive to make such sad events less likely. There is no reason not to teach age appropriate firearms safety and handling in every school system at every grade level. Instead of the vain attempt to insulate a child from every one of those millions of guns in their environment, when you teach them safety they are protected from any encounter. The anti gun proponents would argue that exposure to guns encourages their use which is the same logic that narrow minded people have used to deny their children sex education on the theory that if you don't talk about something it won't happen.
Denying our school children knowledge and training is the problem here. What's that saying again? If it saves even one child's life.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 4:03 am

I agree that people should be allowed to own guns and I do believe in age appropriate education. How do you define "age appropriate"? If you live if San Francisco, when would it be acceptable / appropriate to teach your child how to shoot a gun? I am honestly curious to know what everyone here think.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

Apparently the author is referring to Arthur Kellermann's flawed research, which even Kellermann has recanted on. Five minutes of research would find Department of Justice statistics showing that fewer than one percent of privately-owned guns are ever used in crime or involved in accidents. Name another consumer product with a record like that.
Handguns give the elderly and handicapped the POTENTIAL to resist aggression by the young, strong and conscience-free. We could trade analogies of instances in which the LACK of a firearm resulted in FOUR deaths, and the death weapon was a plain old claw hammer that the family owned. Children died, two girls, one 6, the other 4. And they did not die quickly.
It's a personal choice, armed or not armed. Treating guns like pornography, a dirty secret that needs to be hidden from children, is what kills them. They are curious. Education is the key, not arbitrarily doing away with the natural, civil, constitutional right of armed self-defense.
Ban away. send your armed proxy goons with THEIR guns. Tell them to bring a lunch. 120 million people were killed BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century, often in the name of "crime control." Not here. Never here.

Posted by Jack Harbinger on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 7:25 am

Well, too bad.

Because the right to own a handgun is "fundamental" (the Supreme Court's words, not mine), like the right not to be searched without cause and the right to choose your own religion.

So while this may be your opinion, it's never going to be the law.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 8:08 am

It's true that more people die in car accidents than handgun accidents. It's also true that the purpose of a car is to get you from place to place, and the purpose of a handgun is to kill people. I know quite a few hunters, and none of them use handguns to hunt; they use rifles. I'm sure there are some handgun hunters, just as there are some seriously deranged people who use cars as weapons, but they're the small minority. Be honest, folks: Handguns are designed and exist to shoot other human beings.

How many of you gun-rights supporters would actually fire a pistol and take someone's life? And for what crime? I don't believe in the death penalty, but even if you do, it's reserved for the most serious types of premeditated murder.

Posted by Tim Redmond on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 8:56 am

Well then where are all the police as you seem to infer they are responsible to protect the individual citizen right? Oh wait, hasn't the US Supreme Court ruled ten separate times the government is not legally liable to protect the individual citizen? Oh yeah thats right, they have.

Lets see, best police response times 4 minutes, avg. 15-20 minutes. So Tim, where is your Judge Dredd and why isn't he available to rule instantly what is justifiable at the spur of the moment eh? See no Judge Dredd, no law revoking an inherent right to self defense, so again what is your point?

Based on FBI UCR data in 2008 the police recorded 371 justifiable homicides and the armed citizens 245 justifiable homicides. Now take away the "suicides by cops and you have pretty close to the same number. Why is it that the larger group of armed citizens shoot less or equal number of attackers in justifiable self defense than the police eh?

You infer that the law abiding gun owners is a problem, yet when we review the USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment annual report 2009 we see they list 80% of all violent crimes committed by careercriminals/gang members. Multiple police studies spport this as well. So rather than talk to 20% of us, why are you not addressing your concerns to those 80% responsible for the majority of crimes?

As to could I kill if I deemed it necessary? You must first answer this question, can and or has an injured attacker ever sued their intended victim for hurting their attacker?

Why then would anyone who felt they had to shoot in defense of themselves ever subject themselves to how many months of court, lawyer, and fee's if they only shot to wound their attacker?

Besides, if the attacker hadn't attacked, would the shooting have taken place? No it wouldn't so again why are you addressing these questions to the law abiding citizens rather than addressing the criminals eh?

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 11:24 am

I am not one to immediately trust studies always and it's due to who does that study actually serve.Corporations do it all the time to deceive the public. Government is not immune to sexing up or down numbers in order to have a desired outcome as a result of the language and or numbers in that study.
I am not a fan of just grouping the gang stats with other career criminals because I think it is too general and kind of a meaning less at a level. They have different agendas and different patterns. Mind You I am not blaming you or your use of it. I am not trying to be nit picky the fourth paragraph needs some tuning up grammar wise. I am just trying to be helpful. in case you need to write up reports for work or anything.
Not to mention I told Tim if he actually felt passionate about it he should really do something to actually make a difference in peoples lives directly.Rather than sit back on the couch sipping his latte and typing on his 2,000 laptop. Not the stupid holly wood celebrity band aid answer either. Get your hands dirty go to the other side of the tracks.Teach illiterate kids how to read and write.Somethin!!!!!! CMON TOM quit whining!!!

Posted by Harold z on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 7:28 am

Let me add to the point above with today's news story:

"(08-19) 09:04 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- A 26-year-old man was killed early today when a man he had punched in the face on a Tenderloin street pulled a semiautomatic handgun and shot him, San Francisco police said.

The shooter was one of three men who were engaged in a dispute with the victim on the 400 block of Jones Street at about 12:15 a.m., said Officer Albie Esparza, a police spokesman.

The victim, whose name has not been released, died on the spot after being shot several times."

Punching someone in the face is a crime. It doesn't carry the death penalty. 

Posted by tim on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 9:01 am

Hey man this was a shooting in response to a alleged assault. I have a more elaborate article below.I will handle the "Mr. No sympathy" after I am done replying to you. It was the top report on the SF Television stations that three people where gunned down within 24 hours of one another in SF. The one you are referring two was one man talking to three and then....
Language is a powerful thing when used in certain ways. i know you were trying to make the point that a punch doesn't garner being shot to death several times. I also want to point out this is just the way people get down these days. It ain't pretty in the least.These are complex issues to address and solve. The use of the phrase "Death Penalty" could have been framed differently. Example so Judge 9mm whats the punishment for one punch to the face.Oh sorry sir this is your unlucky day BLam Blam Blam Blam. Four Bullets at point blank range.I like sarcasm in cases like this.People also like to place this high and mighty game of the 20/20,arm chair, cigar and bourbon he was a criminal he had it coming. I wouldn't have been on that street. Shouldn't have been doing that. They are going to burn in hell for that one.
No this was plain in simple the court of the 9mm posse. Not the issuance of the State. Yes it was violent and people in close proximity could have been hurt and killed as well.
People kill people all kinds of ways. The use of Hand Guns is just one way.If you really want tighter restrictions on this go out and fight for this to be law.Seriously maybe you could make a difference in that manner. Not just writing about it.In the case of a kid getting access to a handgun in the home. whoever who owns that gun is responsible for it. Period end.If they can't bother to double check it to see if it is double locked every day in it's place then they don't deserve to have a gun. I am very sorry that happened to that kid. kids do dumb things and some grown ups do really stupid negligent things!!!
Having a a certain degree of knowledge about history I really don't trust a lot of people on this planet with weapons. religious fanatics,warmongers and the like. I don't want The governor of Ohio to celebrate the anniversary of the Kent State shooting by having the same kill count or average it out to population growth.

peace-

Harold Z

Here is the article
Posted: 7:38 am PDT August 19, 2010Updated: 2:03 pm PDT August 19, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO -- An automatic weapon found dumped into corner U.S. Postal mailbox may be a clue to who gunned down a man early Thursday on a street in San Francisco’s Tenderloin District, authorities said.

The 26-year-old male victim, whose name has not yet been released, was found shot multiple times in the 400 block of Jones Street, near Ellis Street, at about 12:20 a.m.

Police spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said the victim had gotten into a verbal dispute with the three men and then punched one of them in the face.

The man who was punched then pulled out a gun and shot the victim multiple times, Esparza said. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The three suspects -- described only as black men about 20 years old, one reportedly with dreadlocks -- ran north on Jones Street and then west on O'Farrell Street, police said.

Police found a semiautomatic handgun believed to have been used in the shooting stashed in a mailbox in the 500 block of O'Farrell Street, Esparza said.

No arrests have been made in the case.

Police have been canvassing the neighborhood for witnesses. Anyone with information about the shooting is asked to call the Police Department's anonymous tip line at (415) 575-4444 or text TIP411.

The shooting is San Francisco's 31st homicide this year.

Posted by Harold z on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 2:27 am

It seems silly to me that you chose this article to further your advocation of "Gun Control".

First of all, this was a crime, not a justifiable case of self-defense, so this story holds no water in trying to undermine my right to defend myself.

The shooter excercised what obviously amounts to excessive force and was aware that he had done wrong. He ran away and dumped the gun because he knew he screwed the pooch. He didn't stick around and cry to the police that he didn't have a choice. He BOLTED.

And the fact that the police had recovered the weapon yet still no clue who the suspect must be makes it kind of obvious that it was more than likely an illegal weapon. Nobody throws away a perfectly legal one and if they did, ironically the police could use it to have them in custody in no time.

So now we've more or less established that this guy was a criminal. He chose to ignore the laws against illegal possession of his gun. He chose to ignore the laws against unjustified use of deadly force. Honestly, what laws do you think we could pass that guys like this one would honor? As someone else once said, that kind of thinking is pure, utopian-fantasy.

And secondly, thank you for pointing out to me that there are people in our society who would shoot someone repeatedly without any justifiable cause, thus reminding me exactly how much I NEED the guns I have, and inspiring me to fight that much harder for my individual rights against people just like you who would see them taken away.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2010 @ 6:33 am

The guy didn't get the death penalty for simple assault. He was shot and killed because he put another persons life in danger. You have the right tor protect your self. If you feel your life or another's life is in danger you may use deadly force.

I've owned all kinds of firearms for the vast majority of my 48 years on this planet. Not a single one of them, including handguns, have killed another person. I have hunted with handguns and guns but I mostly shoot for pleasure.

Firearms are used 1.5 to 2.5 million times each year to prevent crime. Most times the firearm just needs to be brandished to stop the crime. If these people didn't have firearms, there is no telling what the outcome of the crime would be but there would be a crime.

I have no sympathy for a person who commits a crime and gets themselves killed in the process.

Accidental deaths by firearm are way down on the list of accidental deaths in this country. More people die accidentally by automobiles, swimming pools and doctors, just to name a few.

Many courts, including the SCOTUS, has ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens unless they have entered into an agreement for that protection, such as witness protection. There aren't enough police to be everywhere and therefore they usually show up after the crime to draw the chalk outline. This isn't their fault, most of them do a wonderful job, there can never be enough of them. For these reasons, I will have arms, including handguns and nobody will take them away from me.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 10:58 am

( I am only going to make comments to what you wrote in the post)

There was one man talking to a group of three men. It got heated and the one man punched the other in the face.(One time) The guy wasn't on top of this guy trying to beat him to death then shot him in self defense. Not according to the story released by police. He got punched and then responded with a weapon and fired multiple shots. killing the guy who punched him at the scene.He and his two buddies ran away into the night. ( I realize weapons have different settings. I laughed at the article I will attach to this how the weapon found in the mail box was automatic at the beginning of the small article and then semi automatic at the end. hurray for editors!!!)

In your statement you say this person felt his life was in danger so he shot the man who punched him. You continued and qualified you have a right to defend yourself and use deadly force.
There is no mention of the victim having a a knife,chain,baton or gun.The young men ran away from the scene.Why they don't want to go to prison that's why.the victim was 26 and these men are said to be 20. So there goes their self defense argument.
My next question is simple and a yes and no question and if so why. Do you agree with what these young men did(the party of three)?

Their could have been many out comes of this situation.A "crime" doesn't have to always be there.( I was trained in martial arts that fighting is the last choice.Always walk away if you can make it happen).Yes their could have been a lot of possible outcomes.

As far having no sympathy for a person who commits a crime and gets killed in the process.

Does this include everyone and every crime no matter what??

The courts may have taken the protection clause out due to population and police can't be everywhere at once.Then they should take the word Protect off their squad cars, mission statements and any other publications period. Or have (we protect the people who can pay for it *the rich*.) Isn't protection payments graft or racketeering??? Yes witness protection is necessary.Lots of nasty people on all sides of the legal spectrum.

Police=do there job as best as they can;Cops= showing up to work and doing what is necessary to stay employed;Pigs= do anything they want as long as the thin blue line is there to protect them!( i.e. officers pimping out teenage girls)

all the very best-

Harold Z

Posted by Harold z on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 6:20 am

"How many of you gun-rights supporters would actually fire a pistol and take someone's life? And for what crime? I don't believe in the death penalty, but even if you do, it's reserved for the most serious types of premeditated murder."

I will.
I have carried firearms ranging from a single shot .22 rifle to a true machine gun (keeps firing as long as the trigger is down, ammunition is present, and it does not jam).

For more than 30 years I have been armed.
I have faced a crowd, armed with clubs, with one of the thugs stating "let's kill 'em".

I got a trip to the emergency room, but was still on my feet when it was all over.

I was armed.

When will I defend myself with the most effective weapon I can get my hands on?
Any time I, a member of my family, or anyone I feel obligated to protect is in danger.

I hope and pray that I will never need to harm another human, but I AM armed, just in case the other guy doesn't fee that way.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 11:02 am

World English Dictionary

fetish
— n
1. something, esp an inanimate object, that is believed in certain cultures to be the embodiment or habitation of a spirit or magical powers

Unless you believe in fetishism, "the gun" never does anything unless you force it to. Yet here you are, blaming "the gun," when clearly the owner of that gun is at fault. The boy is dead because the gun owner was negligent, and because his parent(s) never explained to him the dangers of firearms and taught him proper firearm safety. He then grew up thinking they were toys to be played with, not tools to be respected, so he and his 13-yo brother found one and were playing with it in the bathroom. Due to his lack of training and firearm education, he killed himself. It sucks, but it can be avoided pretty easily.

Gun safety is the simplest thing you can ever learn or teach:
1) Treat EVERY weapon as if it were loaded.
2) NEVER point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3) Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until you are ready to fire.

You want to save lives? Make sure kids know this stuff. Also teach them that if they find a gun, DON'T TOUCH IT. But the will touch it, anyway, if you don't first teach them it's not a toy. If you simple hide under the covers, pretending that guns don't exist, then your children will grow up never knowing the danger they can pose in the wrong hands.

In the military, if a gun is fired for any reason it's classified as either intentional or negligent. There is no such thing as an "accident," as that implies it wasn't the person's fault.

Posted by Guest... or am I? on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 11:15 am

World English Dictionary

fetish
— n
1. something, esp an inanimate object, that is believed in certain cultures to be the embodiment or habitation of a spirit or magical powers

Unless you believe in fetishism, "the gun" never does anything unless you force it to. Yet here you are, blaming "the gun," when clearly the owner of that gun is at fault. The boy is dead because the gun owner was negligent, and because his parent(s) never explained to him the dangers of firearms and taught him proper firearm safety. He then grew up thinking they were toys to be played with, not tools to be respected, so he and his 13-yo brother found one and were playing with it in the bathroom. Due to his lack of training and firearm education, he killed himself. It sucks, but it can be avoided pretty easily.

Gun safety is the simplest thing you can ever learn or teach:
1) Treat EVERY weapon as if it were loaded.
2) NEVER point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3) Keep your finger OFF THE TRIGGER until you are ready to fire.

You want to save lives? Make sure kids know this stuff. Also teach them that if they find a gun, DON'T TOUCH IT. But the will touch it, anyway, if you don't first teach them it's not a toy. If you simple hide under the covers, pretending that guns don't exist, then your children will grow up never knowing the danger they can pose in the wrong hands.

In the military, if a gun is fired for any reason it's classified as either intentional or negligent. There is no such thing as an "accident," as that implies it wasn't the person's fault.

Posted by Guest... or am I? on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 11:18 am

"How many of you gun-rights supporters would actually fire a pistol and take someone's life? And for what crime? I don't believe in the death penalty, but even if you do, it's reserved for the most serious types of premeditated murder."

The purpose of carrying a handgun is not to kill someone, it is to stop them from killing or seriously injuring you or someone else. Many times that involves the death of the assailant. Your logic is flawed, because the use of the handgun is not a punishment. The handgun is an immediately available life saving tool. You might as well ask, "would you really use a defibrilator, even though the electric chair is reserved for the most serious crimes?"

"I know quite a few hunters, and none of them use handguns to hunt; they use rifles."

Well, if you, a non-hunter, and non-firearms enthusiast dont konw any handgun hunters, then there clearly can't be very many of them.

http://www.handgunhunt.com/

Follow the link, read, and feel less ignorant. You're welcome.

Posted by Flyer on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 12:09 pm

I have taken wild boar with a handgun. Handgun hunting is becoming more popular with long-time rifle and shotgun hunters looking for new challenges. So is bowhunting.
That is irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is NOT about hunting but about the ability to respond to aggression. The handgun is the perfect weapon for the urban dweller, in that it can be carried discretely and deployed instantly. It is the weapon to carry when one is NOT expecting trouble. That's why the police are rarely without theirs.
Let us consider the standards of behavior Mr. Redmond favors, and that of the rest of us. If someone is willing to break the law against physical assault, they are probably willing to break most others. The social contract has been nullified. It is not always necessary to shoot to stop dangerous aggression, but the statistics worldwide for homicide using fists and feet only are impressive. If the sight of a gun does NOT discourage an attacker, then you're dealing with someone intoxicated out of his mind or sociopathic. I would rather suffer in court than have my family grieve over my senseless death.
To be clear: I catch spiders and release them outdoors. I hope to never harm a human being in my life. But the reason there's so much violence is it's SAFE. Meaningful resistance is discouraged, and therefore rare.
I am also prepared to defend other innocent people as well. By virtue of being armed, I do not have to stand by as atrocities are carried out. Mr. Redmond may not know about a murder on the campus of Virginia Tech years after Seung-hui Cho used a gun-free zone to systematically execute 30 helpless fellow students. A student spurned by the object of his obsession stole a kitchen knife from a campus restaurant and sawed her head off in front of horrified, unarmed witnesses. One handgun and one bullet could have stopped him.
Appalachian School of Law in Virginia suffered mass murders by a disgruntled failing student, until two other students got their handguns from their cars and aimed them at Peter Odighizuwa, who promptly surrendered. If the students had not placed their guns out of reach, more lives could have been saved.
Nature has given almost every creature defensive weapons, even single-cell organisms. Human beings don't have claws or fangs, so we had to invent artificial ones. Without them, each of us is an easy meal for any predator. I grieve for victims of negligence with weapons, but I know the alternative to having them is unthinkable.

Posted by Jack Harbinger on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 11:07 pm

Quote: "The odds that your gun will kill you or someone you love are much greater than the odds that you'll ever actually use it for effective self-defense."

Very well, since you (the author) are so well informed, just what are the odds? I mean specifically what are the statistical odds that you are referring to? I presume you are pulling this statement out of your backside (especially if quoting for discredited statements from the "Violence Prevention Center" aka Brady Campaign). So please, enlighten us mere mortals with "the odds". Enquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

Homicides per 100,000 people:

United States - 6.0
Australia - 1.3
United Kingdom - 1.2

Australia and the United Kingdom both have strict laws controlling hand guns.
Smart people.

Posted by Guest Dave on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 12:28 am

Actually the US rate is down to 5.2 per 100k people in 2008 and Australia and the UK which banned guns in 1997 has stayed the same.

In fact if you reviewed their actual government databases AIC.gov, Statcan, Hoem Office, FBI UCR you would see that since their gun bans, violent crime rate and totals involving firearms haven't reduced, and overall violent crime totals and rate have stayed the same at twice that of current US totals or as in Englands case 5 times the US rate.

Petty little children forget to count such variables as culture and understand that deaths by firearms has always been lower. Instead they stupidly try to link causality to their lies.

Try again rookie!

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 11:30 am

Of course, we are supposed to see those numbers and draw the conclusion that the difference between the high and low murder rates must therefore be caused by guns. Or we would, if we were totally ignorant of statistical fallacies.

But wait. Now take the murder rates for "personal weapons" (which is legal speak for "fists and feet") in those same countries and compare them. Oh my, the ratios are virtually the same.

Do Americans have more fists and feet per person than residents of Australia or the UK? Gee, no. Too bad, we could blame the crime on fists and feet, instead of the people using them.

Now here's a valid interpretation of both sets of data: Americans experience more violence (particularly gang violence) per capita than people of those other countries, and the presence or absence of guns is not a causative element.

Posted by Henry Bowman on Sep. 09, 2010 @ 3:48 pm

Somehow, the notion that we'll all be safer if we're all armed -- maybe like the old West, right? -- doesn't work for me. I don't think the average armed citizen has the training or inclination to establish when lethal force is truly justified. Even most cops can't get that right, and they spend an awful lot of time training on the subject.

Posted by Tim Redmond on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 9:22 am

W Eugene Hollon, Historian who has actually researched such data, look him up, his book on "Frontier Violence" then read and then tell everyone here how many deaths due to shootings and the rate per 100k people were in the wildest of towns in the west (hint 1 per 100k). Now go and compare those rates to today, like Chicago at 10 per 100k. Funny how the wild west, wasn't so wild.

Your wild west fantasies are just that, fiction and bs derived from too much holywood, grow up.

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 11:37 am

Risk, uh lets see, VPC Violence Policy Center (e.g. red headed step child) posted a report in 2009 that claimed 137 deaths by those licensed to carry concealed over a 3 yr time span. As normal, they supplied no details or context (justifiable homicide etc, etc) as are the character flaws of anti gun extemeists.

ATF 8 million CPLlicenses in US

Review of Florida & Texas CCW databases shows average number of people shot per license holder at .0000046. This trend is consistent throughout US, prove otherwise.

JAMA Journal of American Medical Association 2001 report showed 700k doctors in US killed 44k-98k per year due to medical malpractice.

So .065 to .14 average deaths per doctor /.0000046 per licensed gun owner equals 14k-31k times more likely a doctor will kill you then a person licensed to carry concealed. Wish to continue playing the more likely game?

Still waiting to see that outstanding medical review on how removing an inanimate object from the vicinty of a person will automatically change their brain waves thereby preventing that person from their desire to commit suicide. Oh wait, such a study or medical evidence don't exist.

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 20, 2010 @ 11:46 am

I see the tough questions and facts on reality had their desired effect, silence as Tim and his few co-horts in violence entitlement enabled have no answers.

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 21, 2010 @ 7:09 am

I have an answer: You go to the doctor when you're sick. Sometimes they make mistakes and you die. But the goal of the medical profession, flawed as it is, is to help people.

The goal of a handgun (unless you're one of those people who really, truly uses it for hunting) is to kill people.

Posted by tim on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 12:08 pm

I was not aware that handguns had goals. If they do, then my handgun's goal is to keep me, my wife, daughter, and innocent bystanders alive. Handuns actually achieve thier goals a lot more often than you would think, between 800,000 to 2.5 million times annually [1]. The handgun may make a mistake, but I think the point Jarhead1982 was trying to make is that handguns make a lot fewer mistakes than doctors, but you value doctors and not guns.

[1] How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

Posted by Flyer on Aug. 23, 2010 @ 12:37 pm

Well stated Flyer, but handguns don't make mistakes, that infers sentience and inanimate objects are not sentient.

As for poor Tim, then why is it that police aren't killing thousands every month eh Tim? Why is it that the 8 million citizens with concealed carry licenses and the 50 million plus people who are law abiding citizens shoot less people than the police in the US every year? (FBI UCR Justifiable Homicides).

You continue to not acknowledge that 80% of violent crime is committed by career criminals/gangs but instead infer that all gun owners are automatically violent.

There is a mental health issue that resembles your fanatic belief's. It starts with "projection" an inherent mental defense where one in irrational, demonizing and unsubstantiated fears projects those fears unto others and demands they be afraid also. The next level of this mental defense turns to illness and is called "fetishism" where one believes an inanimate object has supernatural powers to load, aim, target, and pull the trigger by itself. The most serious stage of this mental illness is where one believes just by being in close proximity to said inanimate object, it will use telepathy or it's voice to command and control a person to commit violence. This sickness is well documented, it's "schizophrenia" and by your responses, you really should go admit yourself.

You refuse to acknowledge all the times a handgun has prevented violence by pretending those events don't happen, yet the data, statistics, and the laws of probability show emphatically that they do.

You claim a handguns only function is to kill, yet why is it that out of almost 3 million incidents involving a firearm each year, over 80% which involve a handgun per FBI records, why weren't there 2.4 million plus injuries or deaths?

Wow you mean a handgun was used to deter an attack and performed a task other than automatically killing? How is that possible? If you are not mentally ill or brainwashed, bet you can answer that question.

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 6:18 am

Tim, time to get over the gun fixation. The law is settled on this and there is nothing to see here. Time to direct progressive attention elsewhere than down this rat hole.

Libertarians and progressives agree that it is wrong for the US to conduct wars of empire abroad, because that piles up the corpses beyond six figures.

But since it does not involve our own safety and comfort and hand gun fixation does, we're not working ourselves into a lather over Iraq or Afghanistan.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 10:41 am

Jarhead1982,

I know handguns don't make mistakes. I was being sarcastic because Tim was telling us what the mitivation(goal) of a handgun was.

I suppose, if a handgun's goal is to shoot people, and considering 80% of defensive handgun uses do not result in a shooting, handguns are largely ineffective at achieving their goals.

Perhaps I can convince my handgun to set more realistic goals.

Posted by Flyer on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 2:00 pm

A Pump Shotgun is MUCH better for home defense. The sound of the slide coming down and up.. ratheting a round will stop anyone in their tracks... (I've got two friends who say prowlers by their windows ran off when hearing that sound)
The spread of the shot will help ensure you don't miss. Even in low-light conditions you are unlikely to miss.
The shot, unlike a bullet is not likely to go through walls injuring your family or neighbors on the other side.

There are also .45 rounds with shot in them... so you can have the reliability of a 1911 style handgun, and still have the benefits of shot... just a tinier impact. But you have a more useable weapon in close quarters than a long shotgun.

Posted by John on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
lol

Haven't seen many blogs from you and wasn't sure it was sarcasm :P, lol, kinda hard to tell in text sometimes.

As to home defense, 2 choices I have.

1) 870 pump 20 ga 18.5" barrel open choke loaded with #6 shot in a low based shell (one area of the house)
2) my personal favorite in the bed stand, a Taurus judge revolver 3" barrel, 3" chamber first 3 rounds .410 with #4 shot and backed up by 2 rounds of 45 colt hand loaded down in power to a .45 acp w 240 gr wadcutters in case the perp didn't understand the first 3 messages. If that happened, encounter will probably be well within 21 ft of each other so big thumper needed.

You should see the pattern spread with the judge, will ruin ANY bad guys day.

Very controllable, compact and allows you to hold flash light in other hand and fire around corners and such without exposing yourself.

My old 20 ga is old trusty (deer, rabbit, skeet, pheasant.....), had that gun almost 40 yrs.

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 24, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

I belive in gun control because it is required by the second amendment that says, as I have read it,

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECUITY OF A FREE STATE, the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED.

So, the right to keep and bear arms is inextricably associated with the existence of a well regulated militia. To me that says, "keep and bear all the arms that you want as long as you are a member of the well regulated militia (ie the National Guard).

If you are not a member of the well regulated militia (NOT PRIVATE MILITIA) then your freedom to keep and bear arms does not fall under the category of RIGHTS.

Posted by GuestTorpedo on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 1:12 pm

Oh too bad limpy, what you believe and what you can prove are two entirely different things. You see in 2008 the US Supreme Court ruled in Heller, and all 9 justices agreed that it is and always has been an individual right so your opinion doesn't mean didley squat on the issue as it is settled law no matter how pathetically you try to spin it. But one would actually have to be able to read to know that as the 5-4 vote in the Heller ruling was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, prove otherwise.

Then as normal anti's love to do, you forget that the second amendment is a complex sentence. A complex sentence is made up of a dependent and independent clause. The independent clause is a complete thought and sentence and can stand on it's own.

"the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED."

The dependent clause does not convey a complete thought or sentences and is only able to convey it's meaning when the independent clause exists first.

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE,

That being said, you are also going to have to show everyone else how english language and sentence structure is bass akwards and show where else in the US Constitution or BOR that a dependent clause of a complex sentences is the determining FACTOR FOR ITS DESCRIPTIVE meaning.

We will wait for your response but figure hell will freeze over before you can prove that, ROTFLMFAO, you anti's are so freaking brainwashed!

Posted by Jarhead1982 on Aug. 26, 2010 @ 6:42 pm

Suppose the 2nd Ammendment said, "The ability to get to and from work, being necessary to the prosperity of the people, the right of the people to own a vehicle shall not be infringed."

Would you interpret that to mean that anyone who is retired, or does not have a job, has no right to own a car? Or according to this sentence, does everyone have the right to own a car, and "To get to and from work" is an example of why.

Amazing how you read something entirely different when it affects you personally. People who do not own a gun think that nobody else should, and they will creatively read that sentence to justify their position. However, if it is something that they feel they need, they will read it differently.

I think it is hilarious how one can say, "Well regulated" = "not private".

Anyway, thank god I am a Floridian, where every able bodied inhabitant is a member of the militia per the state constitution. So interpret it any way you want, I still have a right to my guns.

Posted by Flyer on Aug. 27, 2010 @ 11:04 am

"let me remind you: The odds that your gun will kill you or someone you love are much greater than the odds that you'll ever actually use it for effective self-defense."

Congratulations, you've been suckered by the gun-grabbers.

That isn't what the statistic says AT ALL. But it's what they want you to believe you heard.

The actual statistic talks about "KILLING a criminal assailant." That's right — if you shoot and wound, or miss, or just scare the perp away once he realizes you're armed, THAT DOESN'T COUNT as a "with-gun self-defense." The Brady Bunch awards a point to the gun owners only if they can show a cold corpse as a trophy.

Wow, those bloodthirsty gun-grabbers sure are hard to satisfy.

In actual life, something like 98% of gun self-defenses DON'T result in a DEAD criminal. So the gun-grabbers get to just ignore those, even though they tilt the actual cost-benefit equation FAR to the opposite direction of what they claim.

Aren't propaganda statistics fun?

Posted by Henry Bowman on Sep. 09, 2010 @ 3:41 pm

An accident with a child and an accessible firearm, while a tragedy, is by no means justification for our rights to be stripped of us. Its simply disproportionate. NOW, that said, I AM in favor of firearms education, especially for children in the home. If the child had been educated on the dangers and peculiarities of firearms, there would be one more child alive today. If there was no handgun in that home, and the home were ransacked and the child killed in the robbery, then it would be one child dead today because there WASN'T a gun. At least, not in the right hands. You can assume criminals are going to carry- they don't obey the law. Nor do they get the guns from licensed dealers as often, at least not directly.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 11:29 pm