Firearms, self defense & qualifcations/training

[Archangel M]

In other words::trollsign:lfao:

That works too. :rofl:

 

[thardey]

I wouldn't go so far as to call KP. a "Troll" he has been very respectful, and his replies are well-thought out, with some time and effort behind them.

I figure he deserves the same in reply.

 

[thardey]

It would have been enough force to represent a significant threat to the powers that be in a small area. Enough of that spread around and the sum total would have been fairly significant.

. . . (inclusive)

So, I'm trying to get a bead on what you're overal point is.

Are you saying that we should repeal CCW permits, but allow people to own a wider range of more powerful weapons, as long as they keep them in their home?

You say you carry a .45 for protection against wildlife, so, you're for open carry? Or open carry outside of city limits?

What exactly would you like to see?

Home defense is not impacted by conceal carry laws. One needs no conceal carry permit to be armed within one's home.

In Oregon, the "retreat" laws only require you to retreat to a building, a car, or a home, even if it's not yours. You don't have to leave a "safe building" to run to your car, to drive home before you can defend yourself. Therefore, in my mind, my "neighborhood" moves with me, as well as my "neighbors." My car, my church, and my workplace all constitute my "home" and my "neighborhood." (Especially in church, where I have been asked to provide protection.)

I can't do that if my gun is locked at home.

 

[Archangel M]

It a never ending spiral of limitations...you can defend yourself in your home but that gun has to be locked up and the ammo in a separate place so good luck with that. And if you decide to leave your home you apparently are not allowed to defend yourself with a firearm at all.

 

[elder999]

I wouldn't go so far as to call KP. a "Troll" he has been very respectful, and his replies are well-thought out, with some time and effort behind them.

I figure he deserves the same in reply.

Yeah, I tried that......:idunno:

 

[Deaf Smith]

The right to defense does not lead necessarily to the right to arms. Moreover, the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is that a significant number of people who were directly responsible for ratifying the Constitution did not in fact believe that the rights in those first 10 amendments were clearly reserved to the people. So the claim that "it would still be our right," is a bit fragile. That may have been the case, but there were certainly plenty who feared that it would not.

KP,

If one does not have the means to self defense, then the 'right to self defense' is meaningless. That's like saying you have the right to breath but not to air.

Now as for the Constitution. All one has to do is read the works of the ones that wrote the constitution and you will see what their views were on arms. It's very clear. And that is why SCOTUS, even with a liberal bent, said it was an individual right.

The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms was part of the English Bill of Rights.

And that same Constitution said these rights (in the Bill of Rights) were NOT given by the Constitition but by God. The rights were already there and could not be taken away.

Deaf

 

[chinto]

Springboarding from this post:


Let's look at the issue.

Are guns in the hands of the public or for home or self defense a good or bad thing? (Reasonable regulation assumed, namely that you must obtain a CCW permit, aren't legally prohibited from having a gun, and aren't drunk or otherwise in a condition you shouldn't have a gun.)

Personally, I don't have a problem with private gun ownership or concealed weapons, for the most part. I do support two specific points in regulation: first, enough of a cooling off/waiting period to stop some knee jerk/paranoid purchases, and second, a basic training requirement. More on each follows.

My first point is simple. I've talked to people (and taken the very late report) who buy a handgun right after a burglary or other incident, in fear. They don't really want a gun -- they want to feel safe. And since they're not really happy about owning a gun, it slips out of their conscious mind. And to the back of that closet shelf. They seldom (if ever) fire or clean the gun, and may even forget about it completely. Until it gets lost, stolen, or otherwise into the wrong hands. A brief waiting period just kills that knee jerk purchase.

Training is my second point. Before you can purchase a gun, I think you should demonstrate some basic safety knowledge. NOT GUN HANDLING; practice can come after the purchase. But you should know the Cardinal Rules, and the state/local laws about safe storage and handling, as well as how to make the gun safe. Beyond that, I'd require some skill demonstration, and a practical judgment exercise for a CCW.

But I think guns in private ownership DO add to our safety. I don't have all the stats at hand, but every time an issue like this comes up, someone compares the crime rates in states with CCW versus those without. Pretty commonly, CCW states at least appear to be safer. Don't know... I just know that if you gave me a choice between robbing someone who might have a gun or robbing someone who couldn't have a gun -- I'd sure pick the second guy!

The one thing I do, as a cop, ask of the public is simple. Once you've called us -- don't make things harder for us. If you can do so safely (in other words, you're not taking rounds, or holding someone at gun point), secure your gun before we get there. Handle and store it responsibly and safely. Should something happen and your gun be stolen -- know it, and report it promptly.

i will give it to you simply. if you can legally buy and own a weapon.. ( pistol or rifle or what have you) you should be able to carry it any way you want. if you are not a psyco or some other wise person who is forbidden by law, it should not be a problem or even questioned. You should be held responsible for what you do with that weapon of course.

as to the crooks getting weapons from theft, actually most do not. they get them from crooked dealers, they are smuggled in from other countrys, and some are stolen, but many are not. I am very against the gun laws.. any place that has a high number of guns and people who can shoot is a place you do not have drive bye shooting, and a lot of other crime.. hell Switzerland has a machine gun ( most actually have a full auto capible battle rifle or a real full auto capible { something a real assualt weapon must be able to do} assualt rifle) given to every household and ammo is even given by the gov ... they have a very very low crime rate!

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yes it is a fact. More kids get killed in the U.S. in swimming pools than by guns. And that is why we never had a back yard swimming pool. The guns were easy to control, that swimming pool was an open invitation to any small kid to fall in.

Most other countries have less deaths by guns simply because they have less guns. That does not mean they have less accidental deaths, only the methods changed.

Same goes for murder.

I've owned and shot guns for well over 35 years. I live in a state where guns are very very available. Yet, I've never seen one shooting!

Deaf

Yes, many times more children are killed by backyard swimming pools.

Folks like the Brady Bunch skew the 'child' statistics by including teenage gang members involved in criminal activity, even those shot by the police involved in violent felony, as 'children'.

 

[sgtmac_46]

A totally unsubstantiated claim.

There is no documentation mechanism in use here. That number comes from a self-reporting survey. Identical methodology will also tell you that roughly 5 million Americans have been abducted by aliens.



Fact: if you publish enough bad statistical analysis together in one place, people will believe it.

There have been a dozen or so major surveys taken on this topic. The values returned run from 20% to 70%. The big outlier is John Lott's "survey" (around which there is substantial debate as there is a fair amount of evidence that it was made up to suit his purposes) that put the number above 90%.

Or so says HCI and the Brady Bunch......speaking of bad statistical analysis

 

[sgtmac_46]

The Bill of Rights was also written in a very different age. When the second amendment was penned, the purpose of arms was precisely to ensure that the population had in their possession the means to oppose the government should the need arise.

But weapons which are effective at doing that are no longer allowed to be owned by the public, and for good reason. A small canon and a couple of dozen muzzle loaders no longer represents a significant show of force.

Now, I fully respect the SCOTUS ruling on the interpretation that the second amendment is a personal right. I disagree that a handgun represents "arms" in anyway that meaningfully represents the intent of the amendment authors.

Add in the reality that much of the lethality of American crime results in the easy availability of handguns does represent a real social problem.

Now, that problem is largely theoretical in those areas largely protected from the reality of violent crime -- largely white suburban neighborhoods don't tend to see much in the way of violent crime, yet white middle class males represent the vast majority of conceal carry permits across the nation. However, for those to whom the problem is not theoretical, it is clear that hand guns are a problem -- and not merely in terms of the small number of crime victims. They are a problem because the psychological impact on the neighborhoods involved lowers moral and causes suburban flight of the most economically needed community members. The publicity of such events impacts the desire of outsiders to invest in the economic future of such neighborhoods. The combined economic and psychological effects makes it that much harder on the citizenry, and tends to drive the crime rate. It is a vicious cycle.

Now, there are no 'easy' answers, but the simple reality is that the easy availability of hand guns are a part of the problem. They aren't the biggest problem, eliminating them isn't some magic bullet solution. But to ignore the impact is as naive as suggesting crime would go away by removing handguns.



While guns would still be present (after all anyone with a drill press or lathe can make a one shot pistol) the idea that they would remain in the criminal population in anything close the current levels is simply not particularly respectful of other examples of disarmament efforts around our world.



It has to be that at present as that is the current state of our laws. It need not remain that way, and the discussion around if it should remain that is rarely held in anything resembling reasoned discourse -- from those on either side of the debate.



That has been the finding of the vast majority of research into that very question.

But when it comes to the question of if guns reduce crime, the answer should be obvious -- of the first world nations we are the most heavily armed, but a wide, wide margin. Yet we have a significantly higher violent crime rate. Our murder rate is around 0.045 per 1,000 citizens. By contrast, England, Spain, Germany, New Zealand and other countries with far fewer guns have murder rates below 0.015 per 1,000. Even though we imprison far more of our population.

Is the contention really that without guns our murder rate would be even higher?

But let's assume that it is true that guns have a net positive effect on violent crime. Then let's look at the ratio of gun homicides to all homicides. If the US is lower than those other nations, then there is good reason to suspect that gun ownership actually reduces murder rates.

US .036 / .042 = .85

UK .0015 / .014 = .10

But maybe it really reduces other violent crimes?

Rapes, the US sees about 3 times the per capita rate as the UK.
Robberies, the US is abou 11% lower than the UK (1.4 per 1,000 compared to 1.57 per 1,000).
Assault is nearly identical at right about 7.5 per 1,000 for both, with the US just slightly higher.

The US sees about 20% less property crime than the UK

The US sees about 1.4 robberies per 1,000 people while the UK sees about 1.6 per 1,000.

What it comes down to is simple -- guns are about power, and the presence of guns does not reduce crime. If it did, we'd be better than other nations in terms of personal safety.

If guns make us safer from crime, we should be the safest nation on earth. But compared to our economic peers, we're clearly not.

They are not our peers.....here's a SAD fact that you're overlooking, intentionally or otherwise......OUR crime rate is skewed from European nations......for ONE simple reason.......we don't have a 'gun problem', we have a minority murder problem.

African American offenders account for over 52.2% of ALL homicides committed in America. ONE SINGLE GROUP accounts for over half of ALL homicides committed......and that is not simply explained away by pointing to poverty, as hispanic groups have similar levels of poverty, but FAR LOWER homicide rates. NO OTHER single group has anywhere near those homicide rates.

Firearm ownership doesn't explain it either......as you pointed to the fact that the MOST armed groups are white males.......with nowhere NEAR those homicide rates (homicide rates in line with EUROPEANS even....)

We don't have a 'handgun' problem in America......those making that claim are attempting to deflect attention from the REAL crime problem in America.......and that is a culture of violence that exists in our African American neighborhoods.......until THAT is fixed, we will continue to have higher homicide rates than in Europe. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

Again, the fixation on firearms is a clever diversion from the problem.



One more aspect of your 'statistics' I take issue with is your comparison of everything to the UK.......perhaps you should use Scotland and let us know your results......comparing everything simply to the UK is disingenuous and reeks of cherry picking. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568214.ece