It is equally true of restraining orders. All they do is, if your assailant lives, he can be faced with additional charges.
(H/T)
Any type of defensive weapon is not a magic talisman. Unless you can carry around a 105mm howitzer or a 5" naval rifle in your pocket, there is nothing that you can use that will guarantee stopping a determined attacker. But not having any ability to fight off an attacker pretty much guarantees that he's going to have a wide-open road to do you harm.
This, to my mind, is my major objection to the gun-banners. To make this personal, I am well into AARP range. I had a really good health scare recently, of the "you will take a dirt nap soon if this isn't fixed" kind.[1] I also do the kind of work that, from time to time, has the capacity to generate enemies.[2]
So you tell me: How am I to defend myself against a critter[3] who is stronger and much younger than I? Please also keep in mind that I have lived in places where a reasonable response time for a full-out distress 911 call was a minimum of fifteen minutes or longer. Even in a town or city with its own police force, a response time of over five minutes is not unreasonable. Five minutes when somebody is trying to do you harm is an eternity. Those response times, by the way, assume that nothing else is going on.[4]
Less likely is a whole-scale breakdown of civil order, but we have seen that happen at least twice in the last few decades, where the police in major American cities ceded the field to the forces of chaos (and in one instance, were instrumental in spreading chaos). Only an utter fool would believe that will never happen again.
But to return to the issue of personal defense: One doesn't have to dig too deeply into reports to find incidents in which two or three critters broke into homes occupied by elderly or infirm residents.[5] Oh, sure, there are people who believe this:
But they are delusional. That pretty young girl is likely not going to fend off a 6'4", 250lb man who is motivated to do her harm. An elderly or infirm individual isn't, either. I, for sure, am not able to do that. I would need a weapon. My weapon of choice throws heavy enough chunks of copper and lead at velocities that have the probability of giving a critter cause to regret his course of action. I see no reason why I should be required to give that up in order to appease the injured sensibilities of a bunch of people who have neither experienced the joys of being personally assaulted, nor have had anyone attempt to break into their homes. Nor have they engaged in a serious thought-exercise to contemplate what their response would be if they are assaulted.
Marko Kloos wrote, eleven years ago:
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.A 19th Century poem about the Colt revolver said:
Be not afraid of any man,That remains true to this day.
No matter what his size.
If danger threatens, call on me,
And I will equalize.
____________________________________________
[1] It was fixed, but with some ramifications. More on that to come.
[2] Thanks to The Dear and Fluffy Lord of Your Choice, they have, so far, been all hat and no cattle. But there is always a first time. My preference is that I will be around to see if there is a second time.
[3] Lawdog uses the term "critter" as a general description of criminals and miscreants. It's a useful term.
[4] There are cases, up to the level of the Supremes, which hold that the fuzz have no duty to defend you. They might be fired for cowardice, but you cannot sue if two cops are across the street, munching on crullers while watching you being tuned up.
[5] Deb's blog covers that fairly diligently.
29 comments:
Extremely well-stated, and I agree that if you choose to own and carry a weapon to protect yourself (short of an AR-15 assault-style weapon), I recognize that you have the right to do so. However, if you decide you must exercise that right, our modern society must also exercise it's duty to make sure you aren't a threat to everyone else, all the time. That means no ownership if you are mentally unstable or already proven to be a danger to others, with confiscation mandatory. That means you must be tested, licensed and insured to own the weapon on a bi-annual basis, and the weapon must be registered and insured against improper use on the same time frame. That means if your weapon is stolen, you must report the theft under penalty of law yourself. We do this for cars, so we must for guns if they are to be part of ALL our lives, not just yours. If your argument is that the Second Amendment says (though it doesn't) that anyone can own a gun, then fine... as long as it's a muzzle-loading musket, the weapon of choice at the end of the 18th Century when the Constitution and amendments were written. You're either a responsible member of society or you're not. That doesn't seem to be too much to ask for your right to own a deadly weapon. Having said all that, THANK YOU for being a reasonable advocate for responsible gun ownership... your own postings show that you actually give a fck, and that mean a whole lot! I read you every single day and absolutely grin like a maniac at your surgical humor. Please... keep it up!!!!!
Gun advocates need to learn the difference between an AR-15 and a shotgun and a 9mm pistol. As currently applied, gun advocates do NOT understand those items: Specifically, the REGULATION of those items.
When you keep lumping together those weapons out of ignorance, you'll eventually force our democracy to make a decision that will affect ALL guns.
Gun advocates: Learn the differences between firearms, for your own good.
Our gracious host: Thank you for the kind link.
Oblio: That's quite a word salad. Is your speech not protected by the First Amendment from government sanction since you are using a computer and you are not using a quill and parchment as used in the 18th century?
An AR15 is an excellent home defense firearm with less recoil than a shotgun, and with the proper choice of ammunition less likely to go through a wall than a 9mm pistol bullet. With over 7 million AR15s in private hands in the USA, the amount of criminal misuse of an AR14 comes to about .00004%, and that's generously rounding up. In short, the criminal misuse of the AR15 is a statistical blip that would be far better handled by law enforcement and mental health authorities actually doing their jobs regarding known threats such as the asshat who attacked the Parkland school. After all, if you've gone to his house over 4o times, bee told that he hit his mother and brother, pointed a gun at his mother and brother, committed violent acts at school, had weapons at school, have videos of him threatening to shoot up a school, and have reports of him cutting himself and having suicidal and thoughts of violence towards others and you do nothing, I daresay blaming the gun rather than complete law enforcement gross negligence and failure is rather ludicrous.
Many of your other points sound nice but are often twisted by gun banners in ways that make them unworkable. You do know that insurance does not cover an intentional act, right? As such insurance will do nothing if someone deliberately shots someone. For accidents yes, but firearm accidents are at an all time low and decreasing pretty much year over year. The canard of requiring insurance is simply being used as a means to drive up the cost of owning firearms with no conceivable benefit.
No lawful gun owner wants criminals or those with mental illnesses that pose a threat to themselves or others to have a firearm.
Nangleator: Gun advocates do well know the difference between them and the current regulations and laws affecting each, do you?
My dad, who was a Golden Gloves boxer in Oklahoma in his youth, gave me this piece of advice about fighting, which your post reminded me of: If you get in a fight with a big fella, you might get a black eye or get your shirt tore, but if you get in a fight with a little fella, you might be in trouble because he's gonna have him an equalizer of one kind or another, because he's still a little fella even when you're not around.
I unequivocally support your right to carry whatever you want to defend yourself. I don't care if it actually is that naval rifle, you wouldn't carry it unless you could use it properly. (Yes, I know what one is.)
I have a friend named Henry who used to be a Captain in the CHP, and one night after we had moved his sister in law, pretty much by ourselves, he fed me some dinner and gave me a ride back to East Oakland where I lived. This was in the early '90s when things weren't as calm in that part of Oakland as they are now, and before he got in the cab of the truck, he went back in the house for a minute, and when he returned, he set a triangular leather case on the seat between us and said "It's night. We're going to Oakland. I'm bringing my gun."
told him "You know, Henry, you're one of the few people I'm comfortable about that with, because I know that you know what you're doing with that gun. Now, just out of curiosity, what is it?"
"Oh, it's just my .38..."
And we drove from Castro Valley to East Oakland without incident.
-Doug in Oakland
Oblio, first off, what part of "civil right" is unclear? I should not need a license that is issued by a governmental entity to exercise my rights.
Second, your argument proves too much. If the Second Amendment applies to weapons of a type that existed in 1791, then so do all of the others. The First Amendment would apply only to newspapers that were printed on hand-made rag paper by Franklin-type presses, or to town criers (which, by your scheme, would require licensing and training in fairness and accurate reporting). No radio, TV, Internet, mass-produced wood-pulp periodicals, none of that.
Your right to travel would only apply to horse-powered or foot traffic on dirt roads or by sailing vessel. Lawful execution methods would be limited to hanging or beheading.
2nd Amendment, fine, if overdrawn, but in principle, fine. Concealed carry, all for it, with reasonable training and standards. Insurance, not so much, as it is a tool to deny rights. Open carry, less sanguine...it makes you are target more than it deters, in my opinion. Open carry of long weapons...necessary in a number of ways, but I don’t like it unlimited as it seems the push is for. Strict liability, absolutely necessary. We need to hold gun owners responsible for their weapons and actions. A responsible owner has no heartburn with this, it’s those that leave their gun in the bedside table, unsecured that have the concern. There are no accidents with weapons, there are failures to follow safety protocols, basic handling, security and storage.
Back to training and standards. A person carrying should be trained on the above items, in addition to shooting. A person must be trained on the legal consequences of carrying a weapon.
There should be areas you cannot carry, perhaps under stipulations. In a bar, you cannot drink if you are carrying, and carrying under the influence should be a serious crime. Alcohol (and other drugs) impair the thought and decision making process and are contrary to what a carrying citizens responsibility. In a forum where discussion or argument is common or expected, seems a poor choice for a weapon.
I could go on, but Comrade is absolutely correct we must take any action with a clear understanding of the basic rights on both sides. I fear the NRA is failing to account for this and greasing the skids.
Heh... I pretty much expected the pushback on the idea of treating guns like cars, but that's 100% OK. This is an emotional issue, and I'm of the mindset that guns and gun ownership does something to people that makes them... different... than non-gun owners. Not bad or wrong, just... different. It's sorta like a religious fervor, from my vantage point as a non-gun-guy that used to be an NRA member. I used to totally diss on hunters and hunting until I met a real-life Professional Big Game Hunter and learned why he hunts and keeps the trophies in his home, and for me that was a YUUUUUGE epiphany. Here's what I know for sure: I will never own a gun, have no desire to own a gun, and see no earthly reason in my life where a gun would be necessary. Americans who choose to own guns already have that right listed in the Constitution (such as it is) and I doubt that's gonna change in my lifetime, but I want their guns nowhere near me unless in the hands of trained law enforcement or military. Otherwise, guns are a threat to my life and well-being. I'm funny that way.
Oblio, you do not have a right to own a car. You do not have a right to have a driver's license. There are enough court cases that hold that a driver's license is a privilege that is granted by the state.
You do have a right to own a gun. So there really is no comparison.
You don't want to live near gun owners? There are places that you can live which will accommodate your feelings. But I refuse to be bound by your fears.
Oblio ,
Your white privilege is showing . Police and Military ?
Be black in Ferguson .
Not long ago here, there was a similar discussion, and I posted a comment, at around this time of day. When I returned in the evening, I found the comments had been closed, and all had been deleted.
I'm not a gun person. I found my way here by some link to an aviation related topic, but I do find the gun content interesting. I visit several times a day, but comment very infrequently.
The comment I made last time was related to the car analogy. Essentially I said that what Drivers' Education taught me was that driving is a privilege because a motor vehicle, used without sufficient skill or care can cause harm to others. I then asked, "How are firearms so very different than that?"
I'd be really interested to hear a well elucidated answer. Yes, the 2nd amendment provides a "right" to own and carry. I get that part. I'm interested in the practical applications. (In the same way that the framers of the constitution didn't anticipate the AR-15, they probably didn't anticipate commuting from the suburbs, muscle cars, or 80,000 # semis.)
I'll add at this time, that while I'm not a gun owner, I can't argue against the basic thrust of the blog entry that these comments are attached to. I've never lived in an environment where I felt a need to own or carry, but that doesn't mean I won't someday.
As a matter of pragmatism though, I do think the onus is on those who cherish their 2nd amendment rights to come up with a solution, because the pendulum of public sentiment is apparently swinging in a direction that you aren't going to be happy with. It's only a constitutionally provided right until there's sufficient political will to rescind it.
JM
@ Glenn Kelley: Hi there, I'm a Mexican-American, born in East Los Angeles in the 50's and wouldn't know white privilege if it handcuffed me and slammed me to the ground. I get the reference nevertheless. I have relatives who were in law enforcement and they all retired in a shaky mental state, realizing how truly terrible the LAPD Rampart division (along with many others) was/is/were. I've had police guns drawn and pointed at me because of my skin color and my car and where they thought I shouldn't be on a Saturday night. I GET IT.
I LOVE THIS THREAD... real people with real thoughts... it's one of the reasons I've followed Comrade Misfit for years now. We may not always agree or even disagree, but HOLY CRAP it is satisfying to convo with smart people.
THANK YOU.
Anon, if the comments were gone, that was my fault. I do close threads when the arguments become non-productive (usually because people are saying the same things [talking past each other]) or because people are getting into personal attacks.
The difference between owning guns and driving cars is in your answer: One is a privilege and one is a right. I have no problem with requiring training for carrying a gun, so long as that is not used as a tool to deny people their rights.
I'd love to see some group sponsor low-cost firearms training for people of limited means. Many of the gun-control efforts in the past seem to be targeted at minorities and poor folk. An all-day (or two-day) CCW course is out of the reach of a lot of people.
Anon, to follow up, that was my fault. If this is the post to which you refer, I meant to shut off the comments, but leave them in sight.
Thanks for pointing that out.
We talk about rights, but no right is unrestricted. Being a gun owner having my weapons confiscated isn't high on my list of desirable outcomes. Now comes the but, living in a rural area not far from a city I have had holes shot in my barn, where my horses reside,and a good deal of time is spent scooping poop. Also have had the experience of rounding a corner when out on a run and having to dive in a ditch when some shit head and his friends started shooting bottles they had lined up in the road. Have encountered people who had hung targets in a tree, not fastened to the trunk, but dangling from the branches and were blazing away towards a well traveled highway, not to mention had to quit riding my horse at the local lake or fishing as goofballs have no idea that a bullet is a mindless piece of metal and doesn't stop at their intended target. The point of this minor rant is that from my perspective of having my property shot up and having to watch out for the idiots it doesn't seem unreasonable that some training should be required with gun ownership. The value of this opinion is exactly what you paid for it, but their are many opinions and this one is mine.
Mike, your post hits the nail on the head. A right is NOT unlimited, especially in the case of stupidity or failure to consider consequences.
1) The U.S. is, demographically, becoming less gun friendly.
2) About 3 in 10 people own a gun and about 4 in 10 live with a gun in the household. This number is still declining slowly.
3) Around 3% of Americans (~10% of gun owners) own half the guns.
Ok, cool, so what? Well, generally, the "super-owners" aren't the problem. The vast majority of those 3% are properly trained and careful on their storage and use. The other 27% of the population are where a focused program could pay the most dividends. Statistically, the remaining 90% orf gun owners are still pretty safe, but it's almost always someone from this group that has an "accident" or loses control of their weapon(s). If we could determine who these idiots are and train them properly, we might significantly reduce several catagories of gun violence ("accidental" discharge, injury due to negligent discharge, grandmas/grandpas/moms/dads/sisters/brothers gun under pillow taken to school, etc.)
If there was a reduction in this kind of event, combined with careful use of existing laws (and, perhaps, a few new laws to cover the existing holes) to reduce gun events, the overall push to "ban guns" and such would be mitigated. Gun ownership, as a right, holds responsibilities. These must include ensuring that those who elect not to own a gun do not feel unduely endangered by the exercise of that right, and by the same token, those who elect not to own guns must respect the rights of those who wish to, if their own rights are not infringed.
Oblio,
>> This is an emotional issue, and I'm of the mindset that guns and gun ownership does something to people that makes them... different... than non-gun owners. Not bad or wrong, just... different.<<
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Do you understand why?
Comparisons to cars are only qualifiable in some contexts. Why are they different? Cars if mishandled can kill, maim and there is no right to own. A firearm has the immediate capacity to kill. The difference is the fact that many that own and carry realize that its both a right and a responsibility. The key is in awareness of that responsibility. In some ways "a religion" is always a bad comparison, yet as those that own firearms usually get it that they are one error away from something potentially bad. They actively work to avoid that. The person driving down the road with cellphone in hand hasn't yet gotten "religion" in that respect. So the word religion in this case means the awareness and responsibility that goes with knowledge. Yet they can be a moment away from causing injury or death and they do not take that to heart. Like a car a firearm has no conscience but does impart the moral responsibility for its use. Acknowledging that makes people different. It is both a right and responsibility to be a good steward of the right to own and carry.
The right to self defense is not one that can be abridged. It is also one that cannot be assigned to another without abdicating ones own safety. If you give up that right you are unsafe or at best have limited options for your own defense.
Eck!
Mike R,
Those that do as you say are negligent criminals. If you don't call down the cops
or fish and game on them you do yourself and those of us who do shoot a disservice.
It represents the level of uncaring that plagues many places and activities.
The rules are simple, universal, and don't take more than a few minutes to read and understand.
Borrowed from off the net years ago.
1. All guns are always loaded.
Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
Learn how to assure yourself it is unloaded before you touch it.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
(For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target.
This is the Golden Rule.
Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of
inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it.
Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
Be aware of were the bullet might go if you miss.
The people you speak of are failing hard on number 4! Also I know of no
place that allows shooting near or across the road.
Eck!
delete/Repost to correct a sentence that turned into gibberish.
This is reminding me a little of when I was a kid and completely dedicated to racing motorcycles in the dirt. We were responsible about our use of land when we practiced and just rode for fun, because we were bright enough to realize that we wanted to be able to come back and ride there again. To this end we alternated spots so as to not tear them up and cause a lot of erosion, and we picked up after ourselves and anyone else who had used the same area. We always had a couple of shovels in the truck when we went riding, in case we needed to carve out some drainage from the marks we left in the dirt.
We still lost access to place after place when others who didn't think that way damaged them or annoyed people trying to use the land for other purposes.
It always seems like there are just a few assholes who ruin it for everyone else, even when everyone else is making a good faith effort to do the right thing, and those in the responsible majority always seem to be left arguing the case for the assholes in order to continue with their own far better behavior.
We eventually got access to the land we needed to practice.
I hope things turn out as well for gun rights, because I'm still half owner of ten of them, last I counted, and some of them have personal meaning to me, like the model 94 .32 special that my dad and my uncle used to shoot food for them and my grandmother after my grandfather was killed in an oil well accident.
-Doug in Oakland
I have posted here previously how my mother waited for police while her window was being pried open. I strongly disagree with those who want to take her .38.
Oblio- the musket was the standard infantry weapon then; the AR-15 is a downgraded version (only semiautomatic) of today's standard infantry rifle. As it should be.
Also, this is mostly an emotional issue because the gun takers use emotional appeals to justify what they want. "Trained law enforcement or military" is silly; they probably have minimal at best training. Or have you never heard of cops magdumping into someone? My firearms are zero threat to your life and well-being, and I don't like restrictions based on your feelings.
Doug- it must be nice to be able to transit Oakland (or the Iron Triangle, or wherever) with one of the select who can carry in California.
CP88- My rights aren't unlimited. For instance, I can't buy new pistol models because none of them use microstamping. I effectively can never carry concealed. I an also forbidden from open carry. Bearing arms has roadblocks that still do not apply to the critters.
~~~
I'm still waiting to hear the common sense gun laws.
3388: I have been transiting all of the poorest areas of Oakland for 34 years now, mostly on foot, and never once have I carried or wanted to carry a firearm.
In fact, there have been a couple of times when things would have gone very badly indeed had I been carrying one.
I live in a better neighborhood now, and the whole place isn't nearly as dangerous as it was in the late eighties, when there were multiple gunfights in the street in front of our house on a weekly basis, but for the past ten years (as of April) I've been disabled, and walk with a quad-cane.
There are other ways besides firearms to achieve safety in dangerous situations, and from my perspective, being a participant in a gunfight didn't qualify as safe to me.
That said, I stand by what I said to Comrade about carrying whatever she feels like she needs or wants in order to feel secure, and my story about Henry was an attempt at an example of what I, myself, feel is lacking in the urban gun situation, namely competence and sanity.
-Doug in Oakland
eck, thanks for the response. To answer your points, I have called the sheriff and other authorities. Your last sentence basically sums up the problem, it isn't what is allowed, it is what people do. Signs prohibiting target shooting have been placed at my nearest lakes, they work to a degree but eventually get shot to pieces. I have confronted shooters by pointing out the signs and am told that they are being careful and only going to fire a few rounds. If you think police response is slow in the city, try a rural area.
What it comes down to is unless some way is found to gain control of the idiots you can bet that things will head in a direction that will not be beneficial to gun owners. Posting a list of rules is about as much help as thoughts and prayers after a hurricane.
Doug- I am glad to hear you have been safe so long in Oakland. During 6 years in Vallejo, my mother was not.
I can't project or assume your physical appearance, but I'm pretty big and it hasn't always kept me safe. I get you, though; my ex- father-in-law lived in an apparently bad part of Richmond. I had no idea at he time; it looked pretty normal when I was there.
"Anon, to follow up, that was my fault. If this is the post to which you refer, I meant to shut off the comments, but leave them in sight.
Thanks for pointing that out."
Thank you, Comrade, for restoring them. I had missed the chance to read the replies that followed my own.
"The difference between owning guns and driving cars is in your answer: One is a privilege and one is a right. I have no problem with requiring training for carrying a gun, so long as that is not used as a tool to deny people their rights."
I understand the difference between a privilege and a right. If I may expand upon my earlier post--If the founding fathers had anticipated commuting to work, or getting the kids to soccer practice, it's not inconceivable that they'd have made driving a right. If they'd anticipated muscle cars and 80'000# semis, they might have had second thoughts. Lots of privileges are granted through issuance of a license. The reason some of those things require a license is because of their *potential* to cause great harm. Driving, piloting, operating nuclear reactors, practicing medicine, marriage... The list goes on.
I guess what I'm hoping for, in my quest to understand, is to know what factors mitigate in favor of firearms ownership being a right, as opposed to a privilege.
JM
JM, you don't need a license to publish a newspaper or a magazine. Set up a printing operation and have at it. Hell, if you jump through a few hoops, the USPS delivers them for you for below cost.
You don't have to show that you've had any training in journalism or ethics. You can do incredible damage to a person's livelihood and reputation with a newspaper. But you don't need a license. Because (what for it) you have a constitutional right.
The factors that say that you have a right to own a firearm are the United States Constitution, about forty or so state constitutions and a number of court cases that say so.
Frankly, saying "what if the Founding Fathers had muscle cars and freeways" is pointless. it's a false argument. You don't have a right to own a horse or a car or fly a plane or run a nuclear plant or produce pharmaceuticals...because none of those are rights enshrined in the Constitution. The only tangible things that you can own that are Constitutionally-protected are printing presses and firearms.
I suspect that was no accident.
Actually, as a personal effect under the 4th amendment, I think I do have a right to own a car, but I'm restricted in how and when and whether I may use it.
"The only tangible things that you can own that are Constitutionally-protected are printing presses and firearms.
I suspect that was no accident."
Thanks. I hadn't considered that.
What I'm inferring, and correct me if I'm wrong, from your association of printing presses and firearms is that, it's healthy for our democracy that we the people are able to openly express any dissatisfaction we have with our government, and in case that doesn't work, there's always the option of armed insurrection. (And you may not have said that in so many words, but it seems as though many who defend their 2nd amendment rights use that as a foundation.) I don't necessarily disagree.
I'm not one of the people who are screaming to take away your guns, but it seems as if there are a lot of them, and more every day. What I was really looking for was whether there were any other arguments besides, "Because, The Constitution", and "We may have to rise up and throw off the yoke of tyranny again someday." I don't think that the growing population that's afraid of your gun ownership are finding those very persuasive.
JM
a 105mm howitzer or a 5" naval rifle" will not guarantee stopping a determined attacker. By the time you could load it and point it at them, they would have killed you.
Wow - your local critters are allowed to be armed! And if you call the authorities they might get there in time to pronounce time of death. No wonder you're so scared. Where is this place - I want to add it to my list of bad destinations (e.g. Syria, Gaza, etc.)
Post a Comment