"You Don't Get to Pick the Day You Need Your Gun. Someone else will pick that day and they will only tell you at the last minute."

A nice line, attributed to Tom Givens of Rangemaster. Thanks to Joseph Horton for the pointer.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

A woman who found herself involved with such a man would run away instantly if she heard him talking like that.

To hear a privileged ivy tower scholar talk like that would be a comical sendup if insecure masculinity if the real world consequences weren't so dire.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Save some chicks for the rest of us, cap.

[Bruce Hayden]

Yeah, right. Self defense and defense of family is now somehow considered indicia of toxic masculinity.

[NToJ]

You've got it backwards. Living your life in irrational fear is not manly.

[The original jack burton]

"irrational fear"

Says the person who locks his doors at night...

[NToJ]

I don't begrudge anybody who keeps a gun in their home. I don't think it's irrational, either, provided they've been trained to use it, and keep it someplace safe. But I don't wander around the neighborhood with a gun, or put one in my glove compartment. Because I don't irrationally believe that everyone is out to get me, but that this gun will save me if they are. If I lived in Nigeria, my calculus would change and I'd probably carry a gun everywhere I went. But I don't.

[Caphon]

Your calculus would change even by American neighborhood, current localized events, etc. You're projecting your own present sense of security upon all people in a big, diverse nation based on the narrow range of your experiences in your common environments. Considering some American cities have a higher murder rate than Nigeria as a whole and many Nigerian cities specifically, you certainly should allow for the idea that many people face higher risk than you do on a daily basis.

You're also making the mistake of thinking that crime is about you personally ("Everyone is out to get me"). Crime is often impersonal, and may not even involve you directly. We often talk this way about cybercrime - a small business thinks, "well who would target little old me? I'm not the DoD or a big bank". Right, but it's not about you. Nobody cares about you, personally. It happens to be you because you happen to be standing there and didn't take right precautions.

[NToJ]

"You're projecting your own present sense of security upon all people..."

I didn't do that.

"...you certainly should allow for the idea that many people face higher risk than you do on a daily basis."

I do.

"It happens to be you because you happen to be standing there and didn't take right precautions."

You should assume that when I go out, I don't assume that someone else is waiting for me to stand there to commit crimes on me. Because being the victim of violent crime by strangers, in the United States, is exceedingly rare.

But, again, I don't begrudge anybody who arms themselves in especially dangerous situations. Given violent crime rates in the United States, most people don't live under constant threat of violent crimes happening to them.

[susancol]

This is just ninny-ism. Do you claim that folks who keep a fire extinguisher in their kitchen believe that their stove is "out to get them"? Of course not. They know it's *POSSIBLE* that a fire may occur in the house and want to have the right tool to address it. Do you think folks with a decent first aid kit or little electric roadside flares in their car are yearning to see an accident? No, but they are aware that if there is an accident, those can be important tools to have to minimize harm.

Are you claiming it's NOT POSSIBLE for someone to be attacked outside their home or to see someone else attacked? Then you're living in fantasy land. If I *really* thought it was *likely* I'd be attacked, I wouldn't go out--avoiding trouble is better than overcoming it. But in the unlikely event trouble decides "your life test is now!", I'd rather be armed than simply plead for them to please leave my poor old arthritic body alone.

[Roman Moroni]

Do you have insurance against unlikely events? Why? Paranoia? Toxic masculinity?

Should I begrudge you if the odds of you needing the insurance are too long?

Why begrudge ANYONE who has a gun for self defense, regardless of the odds they'll need it? That person isn't doing anything worth begrudging. No more than you and your catastrophic insurance.

[NToJ]

"Why begrudge ANYONE who has a gun for self defense..."

Is it not fair for me to criticize somebody else for making a decision I wouldn't make in their situation? Christ y'all are sensitive.

[The original jack burton]

How odd that nt considers this young woman "irrational" for wanting to defend her life.

Lancaster Woman Scares Off Bat-Wielding Attackers By Pulling Gun On Them

https://tinyurl.com/yao76jbk

and I am sure he would call this young lady a "zero" instead of a hero.

Woman With Concealed Carry License Who Shot Robber Called A 'Hero'

https://tinyurl.com/y7r5k4ao

(had to use tinyurl as the address was too long)

[NToJ]

Data is not the plural of anecdotes.

[susancol]

Data supports this--even the government's data. It takes only minimal google-fu.

[NToJ]

"Data supports this..."

What do you think "this" is? That I'm crazy for not carrying a gun?

[DonP]

If you want data? Check the 2013 CDC gun use study. You know the CDC that is not supposed to be allowed to do any gun related research, but did an extensive study for President Obama? Who promptly buried the report results.

[The original jack burton]

"Data is not the plural of anecdotes."

As noted, nt considers these women as irrational and zeros. He did note even attempt to refute it.

[NToJ]

What is there to refute? If you think you can point to several anecdotes as evidence of why everyone everywhere should carry a gun, I don't agree with you.

[RobinGoodfellow]

IIRC it was a CDC report that documented civilian used firearms between 1,000,000 and 1,800,000 times to stop crimes.

Anecdote is not the singular form of data.

[Bruce Hayden]

Let me add that the guys who aren't willing to defend themselves and esp their families are the ones with insecure masculinities. Defense of family has been a protomale behavior since time immemorial. Males unwilling or unable to engage in that activity are the ones with insecure masculinitities. What do they offer women otherwise, besides a bit of semen?

[Martinned]

QED

[NToJ]

Right. People who don't carry bear spray in downtown NYC are not masculine because they aren't protecting their family from bears. Do you know how insecure you sound, by the way? Who are you trying to convince that you're a man?

[Hunting Guy]

I'll bet you don't have a first aid kit in your house either. After all, you can just call the paramedics, right?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

Does duct tape count as a first aid kit?

[Rat on a train]

Duct tape, 550 cord and baling wire.

[James Pollock]

Duct tape and WD-40. If it moves and it shouldn't, duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, WD-40.

[JWatts]

Well clearly he doesn't have smoke detectors. Because there's far less chance you'll be killed by a fire than there is you'll shot by gun.

[Michael Ejercito]

Insevure masculinity?

You are quite the living example.

[KevinP]

Why are gun control advocates so obsessed with other people's sexuality and masculinity?

Here is a gun owner who is compensating for impotence and sexual inadequacy:

Teen shot dead while trying to rob woman had been accused of attacking Chicago cops last year

Quote:
Goings was out of jail only two months when the 19-year-old walked up to a bus stop about a block from his home, pulled out a gun and tried to rob a woman on the Far South Side. But the woman had a gun too and fired first, hitting Goings in the chest, according to Chicago police.

Surveillance video shows the woman on her knees as Goings ran off... Police said she has valid state permits to own and carry the .38-caliber handgun she used to shoot Goings.

The teen had a record of arrests, mostly for drug charges. But last June, he was charged with attacking a sergeant and a police officer after he and his father were arrested during a narcotics raid in Englewood where the father lived, according to court records.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Liberals in general are obsessed with sexuality.

You drive a big truck? You have a small penis.

You carry a pistol? Small penis.

You don't agree with same sex marriage? You're a float homosexual.

You don't want a man sharing a bathroom with your minor daughter? You have repressed sexuality issues.

[Sarcastr0]

Well, this hit a nerve.

I think it's wrong and mixing up dramatic flair for insecurity, but it sure did stir up a bunch of angry men insisting they were super secure.

[jph12]

Of course, liberal says something stupid and insulting, conservatives react, and Sarcastr0 rushes in to defend the liberal. Douchebag.

[Sarcastr0]

Lots of stupid and/or insulting posts around here. This one looks like it was special somehow.

[KevinP]

Who cares about insecure angry men?

Here is a gun owner who is compensating for impotence and sexual inadequacy:

Woman shoots her stalker in the throat

Quote:
Ganobick slammed her head into an unknown object, told her to 'give me all your money', and showed her a knife, the arrest report said.

'The victim stated she was afraid that she would be raped or murdered and as she fell across the passenger seat of her vehicle, she was able to reach into her purse and grab her gun and attempt to fire a shot at the suspect,' the report states.

[Sarcastr0]

Anecdotes about guns abound on both sides of the issue, Kevin.

[susancol]

There's actual data. Published on this site as well as from federal sources.

[susancol]

There's actual data. Published on this site as well as from federal sources.

[The original jack burton]

angry men pounce...

That's the best that sarcastro can do.

[Hank Ferrous]

And, how does the paranoid insistence that women are being raped more and have fewer rights in the US than in wartorn anarchic regions sound coming from privileged academe? Or, does your bias only extend to firearms and men?

[TwelveInchPianist]

All women should carry a gun in the US. Experts say that the US is the 10th most dangerous country in the world for women, more dangerous than Nigeria, most countries in Africa, and more dangerous than any country in Latin American. And men who love women should carry guns to protect them.

[OldGuy]

Pro tip: Don't mess with this dude.

[WJack]

The problem presented is - Progressive judges manufacturing meanings to support personal preferences, e.g., opinions that "shall not be infringed" applies only "in the home."

[ActualRightWingPatriot]

Or that "deny due process of law" really means "deny gay men the 'right' to bareback other men and knowingly spread HIV."

[DjDiverDan]

ARWP, I really do not understand your compulsive obsession with gay sex. I mean, seriously, if you don't like gay sex, no one is forcing you to have gay sex, are they? I am a dedicated heterosexual, but I don't really care what others might choose to do in the privacy of their own homes (or hotel rooms, or camper trailers, or whatever). As long as no one is forcing me to participate, live and let live. Your endless preoccupation with the subject makes me think that either you were an altar boy serially abused by various priests in your youth, or that you are deeply ashamed of the gay porn mags that you hide under your mattress (or the gay porn you watch anonymously on line) that you rely on for masturbation.

[a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf]

It really gets him going, doesn't it.

[Chem_Geek]

It raises healthcare costs and it serves as a vector for the spread of disease. He's not wrong to be concerned about its legality.
I do worry about his seeming obsession to bring it up in unrelated posts, though.

[NToJ]

Are you concerned about the legality of unsafe sex between heterosexuals? Or oral sex between heterosexuals?

[ActualRightWingPatriot]

75% of new HIV cases occur in gay men. The other 99% of the population is 25%.

[NToJ]

Are you worried that you're going to contract HIV from having sex with gay men unless unprotected sex with gay men is criminalized?

Do you know if 75% of new HIV cases occurs in gay men who are performing unsafe or safe sex? If it was unsafe sex, would that mean you're ok leaving safe, gay sex legal?

[ActualRightWingPatriot]

In theory, yes. But there is no such thing.

[FiftycalTX2]

he's just worried about his latent homosexuality and when he might act on it.

[Chem_Geek]

Two words: Ryan White.

(And yes, technology and protocols have advanced since 1984, blah, blah, blah, what rubbish. Just ask the government worker in LA who was recently diagnosed with typhus. Point is, unsafe practices are unsafe.)

[ActualRightWingPatriot]

Mainly because the left holds it up as among the most paramount rights (along with abortion). If the left decides to put all of its "freedom" eggs in one basket, they should be called out on it.

[James Pollock]

"Or that 'deny due process of law' really means 'deny gay men the 'right' to bareback other men and knowingly spread HIV.'"

THIS is where the idea that firearms enthusiasts are insecure in their own masculinity.

Either that, or thinking about guns really DOES make his mind wander to gay sex.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Maybe he really is a leftist, considering that the first think they always seem to think of when they see a gun or a big truck is a penis.

[VinniUSMC]

AWRP is a caricature of an extreme right winger. My guess is that it's Artie making up for his "banned" alter-ego from 10 years ago that he can't shut up about.

[Sarcastr0]

The Revolution will be decried as a false flag.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Whenever I see a false flag, I think of a penis.

[loveconstitution1789]

Its why the Natural Right to defend yourself and your family was written as a protection (2nd Amendment) into the US Constitution and every state Constitution at its founding.

[Martinned]

Literally no part of the 2nd amendment says anything about self defense.

[WJack]

No need to point out the obvious, but the Second Amendment merely acknowledges a human right and says it shall not be infringed.

[I Callahan]

Word for word? No. But it was written in that spirit. The founders who wrote it talked about it extensively during the time - try the Federalist papers.

[WJack]

Word for word, "the right of the people ... shall not be infringed" a human right - not to be curtailed.

[I Callahan]

I don't disagree, I was actually responding to Martinned, who hinted that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with self-defense because the actual words don't say it directly.

[Kazinski]

The first amendment doesn't list the topics that you exercise your freedom of speech on either.

Once you have the right to keep and bear arms, then exercising that right pretty much handles most self defense needs.

Besides the 2nd amendment mentions self defense just as often as the rest of the constitution mentions abortion.

[Sarcastr0]

Relying on natural rights is the real living constitution - you can call whatever you want a natural right and insist the Constitution is reflecting it!

(I do think the right to self defense is behind the Second Amendment, but citing natural rights as any kind of authority is a slippery slope)

[I Callahan]

Do you deny that self-defense is a natural right?

[NToJ]

I do.

[BadLib]

Almost every animal, humans included, instinctively defend themselves against attack by fighting back and/or fleeing just as they will eat food and breath air necessary to keep themselves alive. I assume that there is also no "natural right" to breath available air or eat available food?

Suppose someone, without provocation, is beating you up and it is clear that if they continue to do so, as seems almost certain, your death is almost certain. You really don't think that you have a "natural right" to strike them in order to facilitate your escape?

Is it that you just don't believe there are any natural rights?

[NToJ]

"I assume that there is also no "natural right" to breath available air or eat available food?"

In a state of nature there isn't. Your example highlights this. Otherwise the possum would have a stronger case against my dog when she murders it.

"You really don't think that you have a "natural right" to strike them in order to facilitate your escape?"

Well I'm an adult so I don't speak in terms of natural rights. But if somebody is trying to murder me, I'm not focused on my rights. I'd strike them in order to facilitate my escape regardless of what the fucking Constitution said about it.

Natural rights are imaginary. Rights are things that you enforce against other people by collective agreement. Nothing more.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

But if somebody is trying to murder me, I'm not focused on my rights. I'd strike them in order to facilitate my escape regardless of what the fucking Constitution said about it.

That's exactly what a "natural right" is, you moron.

[Sarcastr0]

RRWP found a right to illegally immigrate!

I mean, it's an act in order to facilitate escape regardless of what the fucking Constitution says!

[NToJ]

"That's exactly what a "natural right" is, you moron."

Oh ok that solves it then lololol

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I find it more amusing that you think people have to rely on Government Almighty to determine whether they can defend themselves from attack or not.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, paying attention to and following the law is for wusses who don't have the inside track on nature.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Yeah, paying attention to and following the law is for wusses who don't have the inside track on nature.

Don't be mad just because I don't need the permission of Government Almighty to defend myself and my family.

[Sarcastr0]

Neither do I, chief. Government permission isn't a requirement for any action; very existentialist of you!

But the government does a great job of making life hard on you when you do choose to obey what nature tells you versus what it does.

[RobinGoodfellow]

That's why we have the Bill of Rights.

[NToJ]

"I find it more amusing that you think people have to rely on Government Almighty to determine whether they can defend themselves from attack or not."

I said literally the exact opposite.

[James Pollock]

"Do you deny that self-defense is a natural right?"

In the sense that there's no such thing as a "natural right"? Yes.

[AustinRoth]

The Left believes instead "You don't get to pick the day you need your gun, if we take them all away"

[apedad]

I bet Ian Long, Stephen Paddock, James Holmes, Devin Kelley (and a bunch of others) would disagree with that statement.

[WJack]

Who are these people and which statement?

[I Callahan]

The guy isn't even trying. Don't bother...

[WJack]

Which guy?

[I Callahan]

I'm talking about apedad. The examples he put up has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, as is usually the case.

[O Tempora]

"When seconds count the police are only minutes away."

[ToddR]

Nothing like a pithy quote about armed self-defense to ignite the comments section.

[ScottK]

Pithy? I think it's literally fantastic!

You will be hit with a bullet before the sound reaches your eardrums. Someone wishing to shoot you is highly unlikely to provide full disclosure in advance of doing so. In support of this proposition, I cite the homicide-by-firearms statistics of all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

[Harvey Mosley]

Wait. ALL 50 states? Even that hoplophobic wet dream California? They can't have homicides by firearms. They have all of the gun control that the anti gunners could want. There's no way there are any instances of homicides by firearms in California. Or any other assaults with firearms.

Because if there are it is proof that all of the waiting periods, bans on so called "assault weapons", universal background checks, government fees, bans on internet ammo sales, bans on unsafe handguns, one gun a month limits, and safe storage laws don't work. And that is simply unpossible!

[James Pollock]

"Because if there are it is proof that all of the waiting periods, bans on so called "assault weapons", universal background checks, government fees, bans on internet ammo sales, bans on unsafe handguns, one gun a month limits, and safe storage laws don't work."

They also prove that the 2nd amendment doesn't work. If you set your terms so that your desired result can't be achieved, you can blame the failure on anything. A butterfly flapped its wings somewhere in South America... THAT'S why all those shootings happened.

[Harvey Mosley]

The Second Amendment isn't working. Judges are not enforcing it. But that has nothing to do with the failure of gun control other than letting us see that failure.

[3ducerist]

Your comparison basically says failing to change the oil in your engine and having it fail proves that the engine is useless.

The 2nd has been hampered in so many locations that it's impossible to determine whether or not it actually works.

Compare also the locations with more lax fire arms laws. By comparison shouldn't they be absolute meat grinders? Except they aren't.

Go figure.

[DjDiverDan]

You cannot claim that the Second Amendment isn't working in a location - California - where it has never been tried.

[David Cary Hart]

Fortunately for most readers (and Eugene) this is an issue in the abstract. I am a victim of gun violence. I was shot in the back point-blank with a .45 in the hands of a presumably prohibited purchaser. It was a paid-for attack to put the brakes on an audit. I could have been carrying an Uzi and the outcome would have been the same.

Additional gun rights would have done nothing for me but better inter-state enforcement might have taken the gun out of the shooter's hand.

[Michael Ejercito]

How would better inter-state enforcement have taken the gun out of the shooter's hand?

Is there a guarantee that it would have done so?

[James Pollock]

"Is there a guarantee that it would have done so?"

Is there a guarantee that making murder illegal prevents 100% of murders?

No?

No sense in making murder illegal, then.

The argument is that trading a bit of hassle around possession for a lower rate of gun crime is a deal that's too good to pass up. That's nice, and all, but it's fair to argue that the people deciding how much hassle there should be are generally not the ones upon whom the hassle descends. It's fair to talk about just how much hassle buys how much reduction. But it's disingenuous to demand that every limitation result in a 100% eradication of crimes.

Using that sort of logic, capturing bin-Laden doesn't (didn't) guarantee that there won't be another terrorist attack against the USA. Still worth doing.

[Harvey Mosley]

'The argument is that trading a bit of hassle around possession for a lower rate of gun crime is a deal that's too good to pass up. That's nice, and all, but it's fair to argue that the people deciding how much hassle there should be are generally not the ones upon whom the hassle descends. It's fair to talk about just how much hassle buys how much reduction."

But all of the areas that have strict gun control have crime that is as bad or worse than those that don't. So the trade is imaginary. And in those places with strict gun control the hassle is more than a bit. But I propose a compromise. Let's put the same requirements and restrictions on buying, owning, and bearing guns as we do on voting and abortion. After all, it's only a bit of a hassle. Right?

[3ducerist]

The statistical evidence from the FBI indices regarding homicide and violent crime don't bear out that the 'bit of hassle' actually results in 'a lower rate of gun crime'.

[DjDiverDan]

While your experience might be tragic, it only illustrates the rather obvious truism that there never are any perfect solutions. Sure, additional gun rights might not have helped YOU, but they certainly would help the thousands of victims of home invasions, car-jackings, and armed robberies which occur every year. If you actually look for them, there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of stories of armed law-abiding citizens who used their legally acquired and legally possessed weapons to thwart a crime and prevent injury or death at the hands of armed criminals (who, as your example so well illustrates, don't give a damn about laws restricting gun ownership).

Just a couple of days ago there was a story out of Georgia about an armed robber being shot and killed while trying to rob a convenience store. When the perp aimed his gun at the clerk and demanded all the money, an armed customer who was legally carrying shot and killed the robber. Sure, the robber died. But better him than the clerk or the three customers in the store who might have been caught in the crossfire, or killed by an armed robber who didn't want any witnesses. Your opposition to greater gun rights based on the fact that they wouldn't have helped YOU is just selfish, a thoroughly unreasonable demand that any solution must be perfect. You're hunting for unicorns, and they don't exist.

[Brett Bellmore]

You mean like it's taken meth out of the hands of addicts?

Prohibitions don't work. They don't work for drugs, they don't work for guns. In fact, they're more likely to work for drugs, because drugs get used up a lot faster than guns.

[James Pollock]

"Prohibitions don't work."

Go ahead and give Iran some nukes, then, and quit whining about whether or not they're trying to make some.

[3ducerist]

Which proves the point that mutually assured destruction can and will make the misbehaved think twice about misbehaving. Thus the point that if the criminal doesn't know who is armed, and anyone around said criminal could be armed how likely do you think it is they will pull a gun? If you knew that it was likely 75% of everyone around you was armed, would you take the chance?

[KevinP]

I am sorry to hear about your attack. It was a targeted attack upon you and you were not prepared for or expecting it.

For the vast majority of other cases:

CDC report: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

Quotes:
Pages 15 and 16: Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

Page 15: Defensive uses of guns are common:
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year?in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Additional gun rights would have done nothing for me but better inter-state enforcement might have taken the gun out of the shooter's hand."

Sounds like you live in a state where a shooter might safely assume that you, and others around you, are unarmed.

[James Pollock]

"Sounds like you live in a state where a shooter might safely assume that you, and others around you, are unarmed"

A dude who's willing to shoot first has no reason to care. All those Taliban fellows had good reason to believe that all the Americans they met were armed, and well-armed, at that. That's why nobody got shot in Afghanistan the whole time we were there.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

It's telling that you have to resort to the most inane analogies to try and prove your point.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"All those Taliban fellows had good reason to believe that all the Americans they met were armed, and well-armed, at that. That's why nobody got shot in Afghanistan the whole time we were there."

So people who think gun ownership doesn't help reduce crime or aid in self defense also believe that arming combat troops is ineffective? Sounds about right.

[3ducerist]

James seems full of fallacious arguments.

[Rossami]

You say it was a "aid-for attack to put the brakes on an audit". In other words, your attacker already committed multiple felonies before he/she even pulled the trigger. But you think that the shooter would have balked at getting a gun from the black market? Or do you believe that somehow you can craft enough rules to stop the black market for guns despite the absolute failure across all time and history of stopping black markets in any other context?

[James Pollock]

" do you believe that somehow you can craft enough rules to stop the black market for guns despite the absolute failure across all time and history of stopping black markets in any other context?"

Come on. The fact that a law doesn't stop 100% of crime doesn't mean it isn't worth having. If you could craft rules that cut the number of guns in the hands of criminals by 99%, would that be good enough? Well, that dude on the other side says that, say, a 10% reduction is worth it (partly because, as a person who doesn't think he needs a weapon of his own, he isn't having to do any of the paperwork or hoop-jumping).

The trick is balancing A) the amount of restriction that affects people who shouldn't be interfered with (defined variably by different people) and B) the amount of reduction you get amongst people who shouldn't have a weapon (also defined variably by different people).

Screaming "no negotiations!" and putting your hands over your ears just means that you, and your concerns, get left out of the negotiations.

[Rossami]

First, James, let me enthusiastically agree with your points above about it being a matter of balance and that the people arguing for the hassle are rarely the ones upon whom the hassle descends.

From there, however, I don't recall every screaming "no negotiations". But I do think that in the face of the repeated bad faith by those calling for ever more stringent gun control that it is appropriate to demand that they at least present some evidence that their new proposal has a credible hope of achieving their alleged goals before the rest of us waste our time debating whether that proposal meets the desired social balance.

[perlchpr]

If you could craft rules that cut the number of guns in the hands of criminals by 99%

Then that would be great. But all of your proposals only make it more difficult for the law abiding, so we've got pretty good reason to ignore you.

[The original jack burton]

This is a fine example of how the anti-freedom people think... if a gun doesn't protect him in ~his~ situation then a gun won't protect anyone in ~any~ situation.

I call it the Harry Potter Wand belief, in that because a firearm doesn't have the magical ability to protect its owner from every harm including losing a winning lottery ticket then it just isn't good for anything.

[Sarcastr0]

It's not like the pro-gun side doesn't use anecdotes to generalize off of either.

Same magical logic: 'Because a firearm isn't currently massacring everyone in a school or accidentally discharging and killing it's owner then it's just not a problem!'

[Michael Ejercito]

Because the vast majotity of firearms are not doing so.

[The original jack burton]

perhaps you can state for the record just what "problems" my firearms are causing at the moment. Give detail. Be specific.

And then you can share with us just what percentage of the 300,000,000 millions guns in the hands of Americans are "currently massacring everyone in a school or accidentally discharging and killing it's owner." I know math is hard but I am confident you can do it.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm all for gun rights - the policy arguments on both sides are ambiguous or spurious, but absent good data I'll tend towards individual liberty.

But your argument is one of the spurious ones. It can easily be mirrored - what percentage of guns in the hands of Americans are currently actively protecting someone from harm?

It's not math, it's logic - you prove too much.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I'm all for gun rights

Dude, stop lying.

[Sarcastr0]

Thanks for the vote of bad faith.

Just because I'm not slavering to put all the gun grabbers against the wall doesn't mean my preferred policy isn't widely available handguns and rifles under a well-regulated shall-issue registration scheme.

[The original jack burton]

So you assume the state of firearms falls into three categories...

Doing nothing

Actively protecting someone from harm

Causing harm

Okay... in that "causing harm" category what percentage of the total guns of 300,000,000 fall into that category?

In the other two categories you can give us the same test.

And we'll then see which of the three categories fit just what you mocked earlier...

"Because a firearm isn't currently massacring everyone in a school or accidentally discharging and killing it's owner then it's just not a problem"

[Kevin Smith]

He does the inverse as well. "If would have helped him in his situation, then it will help everyone in all situations"

[The original jack burton]

Kevin, if you are replying to me then you have a vast distorted idea of reality.

Having a firearm handy guarantees little. The same as having a locked door doesn't mean you won't get a burglar, or a fire extinguisher in the kitchen doesn't mean your home won't burn down someday. Or a seat belt doesn't guarantee you'll come out of a car wreck in one piece.

But those are certainly the way to act, if you want to bend the odds in your favor. And as the first responder for me and my family, I would prefer to stack the odds as much on my side as legally, moral, and ethically as possible. That means keeping an effective means of self defense available.

You may choose different. That is jake with me. Go for it.

[3ducerist]

You're leaving out some details. Interstate purchase of fire arms is regulated at the federal level because states cannot legally regulate interstate commerce. Only intrastate commerce can be regulated by states. If the prohibited person was sold the fire arm then it was already illegal. Your assumption then that only better inter-state enforcement would have prevented it is not necessarily accurate.

It is very likely the prohibited person would have obtained it from an illegal source had said person not had access to a retail or private purchase. Which is the case in a significant amount of crimes similar to this.

[Kazinski]

Its a shame what happened to you, but really, if the perp was at point blank range and was hired to kill you to stop an audit then he probably would have been hired to use a knife or a hammer to stop the audit too even if guns were completely unavailable.

[grb]

Oh heck : Let's take the title of this post and play with it a couple of times :

You don't get to pick the day you need a portable heart defibrillator. Fate will pick that day and you will only learn at the last minute.

You don't get to pick the day you need a snakebite kit. Fate will pick that day and you will only learn at the last minute.

Now I'm sure all the gun enthusiasts here already stock defibrillators, snakebite kits, and every other item with has the slightest microscopic chance of being useful in any theoretic emergency. I'm sure those who carry also drag a cart behind them piled high with every single piece of gear just as likely to save them - odds-wise - as their beloved gun. Take me : I live in a big city and walk everywhere, including a stretch next to water. Who knows? Maybe I'll fall in. Now you'll say I'm a good swimmer which is true, but I can imagine scenarios where that's not good enough. You'll say those scenarios had the wee-tiniest odds of occurring, but can I take that chance? Nope. I better strap on a bright-yellow life preserver each morning, just after putting on the tie.

You'll say I'll look silly, walking down the street wearing that. True. Unlike carrying a gun, huh?

[DjDiverDan]

Just for future reference, reductio ad absurdum is not a terribly persuasive form of argumentation.

[grb]

Mathematical odds, however, are wonderfully solid to the touch. Perhaps that's why gun enthusiasts are so unenthusiastic about confronting them, in regards to their passion.

[KevinP]

Speaking of mathematical odds: Guns are used by criminals to commit crimes, but they are used far more often by law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals. In the US, this is at least 100,000 times a year, and could be as many as 3 million times a year.
In many cases, the defensive gun use succeeds without a shot being fired. The criminal decides to seek an unwary victim elsewhere.

CDC report: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

Quotes:
Pages 15 and 16: Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

[grb]

Oh, is it time to trade factoids? Here's one from the National Institute of Heath:

Study : Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.

Method : Review of police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.

Result : For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

You see, not only do guns have a minuscule chance of serving any positive need, but they have a massively larger chance of blighting their owner. Now you'll say that larger chance still isn't a substantial threat to the average gun owner, and you'll be right. But that doesn't say much for your case, does it? The odds are still much higher for ill than good.

[gormadoc]

Your facts don't actually address his. Yours only counts shootings. His includes instances where guns weren't needed to be fired.

I note that I can't access the paper easily even from a university, so I rather doubt you read the paper and know how the study was carried out.

[KevinP]

LOL, the Kellermann study surfaces again! The one which has been long debunked!

These bogus "studies" use a methodology which proves that doctors and hospitals correlate with untimely death, and insulin correlates with diabetes. And the greatest weakness of all is described in this article:

Can Owning a Gun Really Triple the Owner's Chances of being Murdered? The Anatomy of an Implausible Causal Mechanism

---Begin Quote:
Using a case-control design comparing homicide victims with matched nonvictims, Kellermann et al. (1993) concluded that keeping a gun in one's home increased the risk of being murdered by a factor of 2.7. The authors' underlying assumption was that a significant elevation in homicide risk derived from the risk of being murdered with a gun kept in the victim's home. This article shows that homicides are rarely committed with guns belonging to members of the victim's home and that such killings could be responsible for no more than a 2.4% increase in the relative risk of being murdered. Guns in one's own home have little to do with homicide risk. Scholars need to attend more closely to the mechanisms by which an alleged causal effect is supposed to operate and to consider their plausibility before concluding that an association reflects a causal effect.

[Toranth]

Here, try a CDC study which counts something other than gunshots fired in self defense for one side, and doesn't count non-gun crimes or non-crimes in the other.

Man, that Obama, commissioning pro-gun studies like this from the CDC... I always knew he was a bitter clinger at heart.

[James Pollock]

"Speaking of mathematical odds: Guns are used by criminals to commit crimes, but they are used far more often by law abiding citizens to defend themselves against criminals."

Something's funky with your math, if more crimes are being defended than attempted.

If one guy attempts one robbery, then either it works (criminals 1, citizens 0) or it was defended (criminals 0, citizens 1). But if ten guys tell you they stopped a crime, and only one crime was attempted, then there are at least nine liars.

[KevinP]

Committed, not attempted.

If a crime is prevented by a Defensive Gun Use, then it is not counted as a crime.

If a crime is committed, then it is counted as a crime.

Simple enough.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Using the extreme to make the point but still not making any point.

Which part of the Bill of Rights addresses ownership of defibrillators, snakebite kits or life preservers?

What laws attempt to restrict your ownership of defibrillators, snakebite kits or life preservers?

[grb]

Really? I just said if you buy into the "philosophy" of Professor Volokh's (tiny) post, you live in continual fear, endlessly chasing your own tail taking (stout manly) measures to "protect yourself" from ever-multiplying tiny threats. People don't usually live like that. They take prudent precautions based on real likelihoods. Let me illustrate the distinction with a story :

The guy who used to work one-desk-over was a real gun nut. He said he needed guns for protection where he lived, which wasn't impossible. This city has areas with horrible crime and maybe he lived in one; I didn't know. But it turned out (small-world coincidence) that we'd lived a stones-throw apart in another city a few years back. Me and the Ex were comfortable walking around that area any hour of day or night. We would look over the local crime report and nothing was reported nearby. We had an elaborate security system but usually didn't bother. I thought it too much when the Ex left the windows open off the porch, but otherwise we were fine.

So curious, I asked the GN : Did you need a gun for protection then? His eyes grew wide : Oh, yes.

Now, he wasn't a timorous person, quite the opposite. He just needed an exaggerated fear for his exaggerated love of guns, not the opposite.

[bevis the lumberjack]

" I just said if you buy into the "philosophy" of Professor Volokh's (tiny) post, you live in continual fear, endlessly chasing your own tail taking (stout manly) measures to "protect yourself" from ever-multiplying tiny threats. "

The point is you're exaggerating when it comes to guns. A lot of people keep fire extinguishers in their house even though the vast majority of people never experience a home fire. Are they endlessly chasing their own tails taking stout manly measures to protect themselves? No. Are they fire extinguisher nuts? Nope. They're engaging in a form of insurance against an unlikely event.

Why are guns any different simply because you don't like 'em?

[grb]

Two points :

(1) The odds of a fire extinguisher serving a positive end are much, much higher than your gun.

(2) People only buy fire extinguishers because they see a real likelihood they might serve a positive end. If people bought guns by the same standard there'd be millions and millions and millions less guns in circulation in this country. And we'd all be better off.....

[KevinP]

My wife and I own both a fire extinguisher and a gun.

We have had to use both. And no one was injured in either incident, but would certainly have been so without the presence of both.

If you think that you don't need a gun, by all means, you can live disarmed and defenseless. But don't presume to make the same choice for other people.

And if you want to be intellectually consistent, if you have ever have occasion to call 911 because you are being attacked, you should demand that police officers respond unarmed. Otherwise, you are just subcontracting your gun use to other people, while keeping your own hands clean.

[bevis the lumberjack]

(1) The odds of a fire extinguisher serving a positive end are much, much higher than your gun

Best I can find by virtue of a quick search, there are roughly 1.25 million violent crimes committed in the US annually, and around 374,000 residential fires in the US annually. You pretty much pulled your odds out of your ass.

(2) People only buy fire extinguishers because they see a real likelihood they might serve a positive end.

Really? You absolutely know why people buy guns?

[NToJ]

What % of violent crimes were committed by family members? I ask because the presence of a gun in the home is not going to make a family member victim of violent crime more safe, for obvious reasons.

I think to rebut grb's claim, you'd also need to know: (1) the percent of the 1.25 million violent crimes that would be prevented by the presence of a gun; and (2) the percent of the 374,000 residential fires that would be prevented (or mitigated) by the presence of a fire extinguisher. For instance, if guns were only 5% effective against violent criminals, but fire extinguishers were 95% effective against residential fires, then fire extinguishers would be approximately 5-6 times more effective at serving a positive end, even if you completely discounted injuries caused by the presence of a gun (by accidents, say).

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

What % of violent crimes were committed by family members? I ask because the presence of a gun in the home is not going to make a family member victim of violent crime more safe, for obvious reasons.

What % of violent crimes were committed by family members where alcohol is involved?

[NToJ]

"What % of violent crimes were committed by family members where alcohol is involved?"

I don't know, but that would be important information in determining how and whether to regulate alcohol, right? Surely you don't think the data is irrelevant?

To be clear I don't believe in criminalizing alcohol just because it leads to dangerous behavior.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I don't know, but that would be important information in determining how and whether to regulate alcohol, right? Surely you don't think the data is irrelevant?

Well, if we're going to talk about "data," about 2-2.5 times as many people die from alcohol-related causes as from firearms, per the CDC. Furthermore, you're just as likely to die in a drunk driving wreck as you are to be killed by someone with a firearm.

No calls for "common-sense alcohol control," despite these statistics, oddly enough.

To be clear I don't believe in criminalizing alcohol just because it leads to dangerous behavior.

Yes, it is interesting that you're looking to criminalize firearms despite the fact that they are empirically the cause of fewer deaths.

[NToJ]

"No calls for "common-sense alcohol control," despite these statistics, oddly enough."

I hate to break it to you but alcohol is controlled. There are many regulations concerning its legal use.

"Yes, it is interesting that you're looking to criminalize firearms..."

Where in the fucking world did you see me say we need to criminalize firearms?

Now, you're still apples:oranges because alcohol is wonderful and makes people happy, and carrying guns doesn't. So if I had to choose between regulating alcohol and regulating guns, I'd regulate the guns.

[NToJ]

"A lot of people keep fire extinguishers in their house even though the vast majority of people never experience a home fire."

For a lot of reasons, including the discount on from your home owner's policy. But surely you agree that humans have finite space in their homes or on their persons, and should prioritize the life saving devices based on the likelihood of their need, right? What do you think his point was re: defibrillator?

[James Pollock]

"The point is you're exaggerating when it comes to guns."

Yeah. Some people get highly emotional over the subject. Makes it hard to have reasonable debate.

Some people don't think they need them. Some people do. A whole middle ground doesn't much give a damn, they have other things to occupy their minds and their time.

If you exercise your rights in such a way that they do not affect anyone else, good for you! Go have fun.
To the extent that your exercise of your prerogatives does affect other people, they start to get a vote. You wanna go out into the middle of damn nowhere and shoot your guns at whatever you want? Meh. You wanna do it in your backyard? Your neighbors might have something to say about it. You wanna do it on the street in front of my house, and, I hate to tell you this, but I'm probably going to side with my right to continue a lead-free existence over your right to fire off your toy.

Now, I'm not just about limiting you. I also limit myself to remain in categories "safe" and "responsible". Doing otherwise might or might not be criminal, but it's definitely rude.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Meh. You wanna do it in your backyard? Your neighbors might have something to say about it. You wanna do it on the street in front of my house, and, I hate to tell you this, but I'm probably going to side with my right to continue a lead-free existence over your right to fire off your toy

You do realize that most towns have ordinances against firing off guns inside city limits, except in cases of self-defense, right? You really sound desperate when you try to argue like this.

[gormadoc]

I think the point is that we don't live in fear so we aren't prepared. For the small number of us who at some point are violently attacked, it would have been best if they were prepared. It is a "prudent precaution" to decide how likely you are to be attacked or see someone being attacked and buy a weapon based on that.

An unverifiable anecdote really doesn't convince anyone of anything. It also doesn't consider that he might have had a particular reason for being armed.

[Absaroka]

I think you miss a pretty serious point. It's not that any particular person ought to be armed at any particular time. It's certainly reasonable for people to consider there own personal set of tradeoffs and decide not to own or carry a gun. What gun rights advocates want is for someone for whom being armed makes sense to have the opportunity. We know a lady, for example, who every couple of years goes to a parole hearing for a man who is in prison because of stalking her. He freely admits he will go after her again whenever he is released. So far that has convinced the parole board to keep him in prison, but in a few more years he will have served his full term and will be released. At that time, her calculus of the benefits of being armed may be rather different than yours.

A better analogy would be whether PFD's ought to be banned because you personally don't want one on your morning walk. If you don't want one, fine, but if someone else is rafting the Grand Canyon...

[Michael Ejercito]

Anyone trying to outlaw these?

[Unicorn Abattoir]

*Who knows? Maybe I'll fall in.*

We should be so lucky.

[The original jack burton]

Perhaps you can point to all the federal, state, and local laws that prohibit folk from carrying a portable heart defibrillator or snakebit kit around with them.

[Rossami]

Bad set of examples.
1. I don't need to carry a defibrillator around because the local businesses and health organizations have made them commonly available. I am rarely more than a few steps away from one.
2. Snakebite kits don't actually provide any protection. Wilderness first aid courses explicitly recommend against ever using a snakebite kit. But even if they did provide protection, the decision to carry one should depend on risk. The number of people bitten by snakes (other than pets) in an urban environment is very, very much smaller than the number of people whose lives are threatened by other humans.

To your larger point, however, let's try the deductio ad absurdum in the other direction.

- The odds of getting thrown from your car on this particular trip are not all that great so who needs the seatbelt?
- The number of people who drown at a beach are far fewer than the number of people who swim safely so let's get rid of those expensive lifeguards.
- Your boat probably won't sink today so let's not have any life preservers at all.
- The odds that someone will break into your apartment are low so let's do away with all the locks on the doors and windows.

The point is that there are lots of risks out there and what you prepare for should be your choice. There is no justification for prohibiting you from preparing for a risk that you think is mitigating.

[Michael Cook knuckle drag]

I have carried concealed for three decades now, usually at least one main gun with a steel frame suitable for pistol whipping if I can't get clear of an attacker who is all over me and one backup. I have had to suffer through one road rage incident where I just sat there and suffered my car to be abused and one domestic violence incident my wife and I happened on while biking. In neither incident did things reach the point where I would draw out the bullet launcher and see where things went from there.

I don't want to ever reach that point. In small town USA it used to be common for cops to retire never having used their guns or even pointed at them at anyone. When my son was an active patrol officer in the worst districts of one of our major cities, he had to pull his gun on average once every shift. Not only is there zero respect for authority in some areas, the folks there are too busy running their mouths to even listen to reasonable commands.

Say, the designated survivor for the SOTU speech was Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Remember when he shot the coyote with a .380 while jogging?

[gormadoc]

Reasonable commands like:

"Keep your hands up!" "Down on the floor!"

or:

"Crawl here!" "Stay where you are!"

Too busy running their mouths pleading for the cops to not shoot them, I'm sure.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

You've never actually lived in the ghetto, have you?

[The original jack burton]

I've carried concealed for about the same length of time. The one time that I needed it the firearm was never even pulled from its holster. The fact that I didn't look/act like a helpless victim gave the two thugs targeting me a clue that perhaps their choice was wrong at that moment. They went elsewhere and I went home to be with my family because the handgun did its job properly.

[KevinP]

By the way, in other news from the Thug's Republic of New Jersey:

New Jersey Slaps Criminal Penalties on Gun Manufacturing Instructions
http://reason.com/archives/201.....lties-on-g

[OtisAH]

You should forward this to E.J. Bradford's family.

[I Callahan]

What does that have to do with the subject at hand?

[OtisAH]

What does the murder-by-cop ? don't worry, the officer will be fine ? of an armed black man who had prevented the loss of more lives during a mass shooting have to do with the quote above? Is that your stupid fucking question?

[I Callahan]

The spirit of the discussion was self-defense and constitutional rights. Hint: You're on a blog where a constitutional attorney posts. So arguing cop shootings is a completely different subject than what everyone is talking about.

Are you picking up what is being laid down yet?

[Eddy]

"You dumb bitter clingers with your tiny dicks and your toxic masculinity, nobody wants to take your guns, lol!"

[I Callahan]

Reverend Art, is that you? (I kid, of course...)

[Alan Vanneman]

When was the last time you needed your gun, Eugene?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Hopefully never, but if someone does invade his home, he's got the capability to smoke the intruder like a pack of Kools. Maybe tell your fellow Democrats to stop breaking and entering, Alan.

[ActualRightWingPatriot]

Yes, the benefits to any laws must be weighed against its costs. But the left puts forth gun laws that it KNOWS will have no benefits on crime, but are purely designed to harass law abiding people. A good example is New York's 7 round magazine law. When these idiot Democraps were told that many handguns don't even HAVE 7 round magazines available, they changed the law so that you could own a 10 rounder, but could only LOAD it with 7.

If someone is able to argue convincingly how that law is NOT in bad faith, I'd like to hear it.

[Michael Cook knuckle drag]

To me the 7 rd magazine law is silly, but as a .45 Colt 1911 afficianado I can certainly live with it. Old slabsides is also good for hitting an attacker up alongside the head if he is breathing on you and you can't get clear for a shot. A lot of justifiable use-of-lethal-force situations start that way, especially when young hoodlums decide to mug us old folks who look to be defenseless.