http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003nvps

It occurrs at 42:43-46:15

You won’t be disappointed!

And you can go ahead and cut the condescending BS, because I carry and I am a fanatic about safety. I know they are weapons first and never denied it. Gyges made the claim that a weapon can not be used for the sake of safety because it’s a weapon; he has essentially said that an object’s dictionary definition dictates its usage. No amount of examples, real or hypothetical, will shake him from that insane stance. A gun is always a weapon – but weapon is a morally neutral word, and a gun or any other weapon can be used for good. That this needs explaining or defending is astounding.

Cut the semantic bullshi+, a gun is first and foremost a weapon and MUST BE RESPECTED AS SUCH.

This is why we have RULES OF THE RANGE; so idiots don’t blow holes in other people because of lack of respect for the gun.

I kind of hinted at the notion by posting this:

Michael: Every time he comes up, he’s got no knife, he’s got no jacket, he’s got no pants, he’s got no boots. All he’s got is that stupid gun he carries around like John Wayne.

Michael: Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain’t something else. This is this. From now on, you’re on your own.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/quotes

“I shouldn’t be responding to this, but I’m really bugged about something, your poor comprehension and retention of what you’ve read.”

Aw, that hurt my feelings.

“Quote from one of MY earlier posts ‘You can use a weapon defensively… but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon.’”

You got me, either I missed that or I forgot it. And after a lot of thinking, you’ve pulled me to your side.

I think I have it straight:

A gun is a weapon and therefore can’t be used for safety. If you get hit in the head with a shovel, you don’t really have a skull fracture, because a shovel isn’t a weapon, it’s a tool for digging. Conversely, the people you see at the Olympics shooting at targets are not actually competitors engaged in a harmless sport, but are homicidal maniacs, as they are using weapons.

Also, correctional institutions don’t allow inmates to have steak knives because they don’t want unauthorized steak cutting.

Michael: Stanley, see this? This is this. This ain’t something else. This is this. From now on, you’re on your own.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077416/quotes

F’n handgun owners; no respect for people or weapons.

I guess I should have read the entire opinion.

Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the U.S. Constitution prevent the federal and state governments from creating ex post facto laws.

In Calder v. Bull, our Supremes decided that only applied to criminal laws. We had criminal and civil laws when the Constitution was adopted. If the Framers wanted to permit ex post facto civil laws, they would have said so.

If we have a need for civil ex post facto laws, the remedy is by amendment. Interpreting is one thing…ignoring is the other. -After all…it’s just a piece of paper.

As I said. What part of “no” don’t they understand.

re. Calder v. Bull.

I did not read the entire opinion but it sounded like the SCOTUS was upholding the rights of an individual. It looked to me that the state of CT was trampling individual rights and the individual sought relief through the SCOTUS.

Our country was founded on the scantity of the individual and our government was set up to protect the individual. If one arm of government is digressing it is up to the others to nudge the one back on track.

I dont think this case is as significant as you think it is but then I am not a lawyer and would be interested in what the lawyers have to say about it.

I’ll make sure to tell the U.S. Navy that I participated in weapon patrols rather than deterrent patrols. :>)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSBN_Deterrent_Patrol_insignia

As long as we refer to them as a weapon, not a deterrent I have no problem with it. I subscribe to Orwell’s theory that euphemisms are an enemy to intelligent discussion.

I wasn’t trying to provoke anything but thought.

After spending a good chunk of my life around the most powerful weapon ever known to mankind, I learned quite a bit about the deterrent effect of weapons.

We all talk about guns in terms of their active role, but seem to forget the greater effect of their passive role.

The best weapon is that which never needs to be used.

I’m not ignoring you, the answer to your question is in an earlier comment of mine, and meant what I said about having said my last word on the subject. I just think I’ve spent more time then I should have in a stupid argument about semantics.

The “party line” for Democrats, at least as I see it, has been that we have too many guns. That attitude hurts gun sales. -If you were in the gun business, who would you spend your money supporting?

–If you think I’m part of a conspiracy, you’re wrong. I don’t follow the beat of any drummer. If you want to see how long ago our country was taken from us…see Calder v. Bull. One should have asked the Supremes what part of “no” they don’t understand.

By the same token while I believe America has always been run by an aristocracy, I don’t think their work is a conspiracy, rather it’s the sometimes similar aims of a group of people who hang out together and view their personal perks similarly. You know though that when it comes to the birther movement I do believe there is a conspiracy of sorts, but let’s leave that for another thread.

What is the primary function of a weapon?

I shouldn’t be responding to this, but I’m really bugged about something, your poor comprehension and retention of what you’ve read.

Quote from one of MY earlier posts “You can use a weapon defensively… but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon.”

Anyway, that’s my final word on the matter.

I think you’re over-analyzing. I see this all the time. Conservatives think all things liberal are bad, and liberals think all things conservative are bad. My father, a hard-core conservative, does the same thing. (just try to convince him otherwise.) Truth be told, most things on both sides are intended by the majority who support them to be good for the country.

I think the threat of losing the right to bear arms is just good old fashion marketing. The only plot is to increase sales and expand their customer base. If gun manufacturers know Republicans are going to support increased sales of their product, they’re going to support them.

-The beer lobby does the same thing. Do you think that’s an evil plot to get America drunk, and take advantage of the drunken Americans?

Jim,
This story is a repeat which I’ve previously seen. It reinforces my point about the American Rifle Association’s house magazine and the organization in general. I believe that they ill serve the integrity of the Second Amendment and have become spokespeople for radical elements of the Republican Party and the gun industry that supports them financially. There is no impending movement that will rescind Second Amendment Rights for the distant future. Yet the ARA is almost hysterical in their watchfulness and in their support for hardline Republican candidates. It is pathetic because in addition to attracting serious gun owners who believe in their protective value, target shooting hobbyists and hunters, there is also an attraction to that small percentage of gun fetishists who make the movement seems crazy.

In my view support for the second amendment is not crazy and is vital as a check on potential government tyranny, but the ARA leadership and the small percentage of crazies do make the case seem weaker than it is.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937729n&tag=cbsnewsSidebarArea.0

Looks like an interesting story.

“you wrote that my post was horrifying”

No I didn’t. I said your thought process (personal experience over research) was horrifying.

“and in line with fundamentalist efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools”

Never said a word about prayer in schools.

“or put creationism into public school curricula.”

Well now we’re at least on to something I mentioned.

“either what I wrote is horrifying or it isn’t.”

The thought process was, I didn’t say anything else was.

“I don’t expect you to apologize for your assessment of what I write. I do expect an apology for imagining that you have access to what I think or that you have some clue as to my thought processes.”

You won’t get one because I never did that. The only “access to what [you] think” that I have was what *you* told me.

“I don’t like guns and when you call them safety weapons”

I never called them that. I said that a cop carries a gun to protect his own safety or the safety of others. Gyges insisted on calling them weapons as if there is no other word in the English language that can apply. Again, the word and the object itself are morally neutral. A weapon can be used to support genocide and it can be used to stop the worst of tyrants.

“when they kill enemies or guns when used in criminal activity you are splitting hairs that have nothing to do with the potential for harm that all firearms possess.”

If a gun is used in criminal activity, that’s a bad thing. But it was the human who did the bad thing, not the gun. Take the human out of the equation and the gun sits there doing nothing.

“so, at the end of the day you get to be horrified and I still get to hate guns. doesn’t make us bad people”

I’ve seen nothing that makes me think you are a bad person.

“or extend beyond those specific comments. I have no idea what motivates you or how you think and it would be beyond the pale for me to assume that I do based on a few things you write on a blog.”

My motivation? I am very passionate about the idea that all human rights can be rendered irrelevant if we do not have the right to defend ourselves. When I see people panicking over a law like this that is nothing new and experience shows is not going to cause problems, I try correct the misconception.

me: you wrote that my post was horrifying and in line with fundamentalist efforts to reinstate prayer in public schools or put creationism into public school curricula. either what I wrote is horrifying or it isn’t. I don’t expect you to apologize for your assessment of what I write. I do expect an apology for imagining that you have access to what I think or that you have some clue as to my thought processes. you don’t. all you know about me, of how I think is through the words I write.

I don’t like guns and when you call them safety weapons when they kill enemies or guns when used in criminal activity you are splitting hairs that have nothing to do with the potential for harm that all firearms possess.

so, at the end of the day you get to be horrified and I still get to hate guns. doesn’t make us bad people or extend beyond those specific comments. I have no idea what motivates you or how you think and it would be beyond the pale for me to assume that I do based on a few things you write on a blog.

“This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum.”

GWLSM-
“I guess you get to be horrified then. but don’t lets pretend that I am a fundamentalist christian or that I have motives consistent with theirs. I do not. studies contain elements of bias simply because biased people author studies.”

Let me rephrase, because I did not mean to imply that you are a fundamentalist Christian, I meant that that *thought process* is *like* a fundamentalist pushing creationism into a science curriculum. My apologies.

The dictionary also says that a weapon can be used in defense. Motivation absolutely matters so I suppose we’re done. Inanimate objects are incapable of carrying moral value. The use of the gun is toward a goal. It is that goal that determines the morality of the act. If you can’t see the difference between a gun used to save an innocent person’s life (a WEAPON used for the SAFETY of society) and a gun used to murder someone, wow.

If I said that, I would. Unless you change “citizens” to read “citizens that the cop doesn’t feel presents a sufficient threat to necessitate drawing their gun.” For all practical purposes, nobody aims a gun at somebody for that other person’s safety. People who break the law are as much a citizen after the crime as they were before. Like I said, words have meanings.

That’s not what I said though. I’m not going to repeat myself other than to say: The word weapon has a very specific meaning. (I’ll let you look it up) The ONLY use of a gun is something that is exactly what the word weapon means. Police carry guns for that use, or as a threat to escalate to that use. Motivation does not change a thing in this instance.

Now, unless you’re going to get back to our original discussion, with something other than how unreasonable I am, I’m done.

This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum. I’m not telling you that every study is correct, far from it. Each study needs to be judged on its own merit and often they have none. But you can’t generalize onto society based on your tiny corner of the world. It also means that your view can be summarily dismissed if a person had an experience opposite yours. Of course, our experience informs all of our decisions, but this is something different.

me: I guess you get to be horrified then. but don’t lets pretend that I am a fundamentalist christian or that I have motives consistent with theirs. I do not. studies contain elements of bias simply because biased people author studies.

jw: And this is what I mean. My uncle has been held at gunpoint. I had one friend who was shot to death and an acquaintance who was stabbed to death in her apartment. Another relative had an experience remarkably similar to your sister’s, though had it not been for a rescue, he would have killed her. Over the span of my life, my home has been burglarized twice.

me: I have not been a victim of violent crime. I don’t know if this is because I am lucky or smart or maybe a bit of both. all I know is that we are all informed by our experiences and mine have led me in one direction and yours have led you in another.

Are you going to stand by the idea that cops don’t use their guns for the safety of themselves and citizens?

If you look at my first response to you, I give you a way of starting to establish that the presence of guns makes people less likely to be victims of violent crimes, or alternately that they’re less likely to be harmed by violent crimes. That’s why I suggested it as a starting place.

The universe is full of phenomena that don’t behave like humans expect, some that involve human interactions. Rather than force the data to fit the theory, I force the theory to fit the data. That however involves actually having data. So you make a claim to me, I ask for proof, not explanation. In this case, that people in with guns are statistically more likely to survive (either by avoidance or by a difference in the way the encounter plays out) violent crimes. There should be other ways, but that’s where I’d start.

Words have meanings. A gun is a weapon, it fits the definition perfectly. It’s actually used as an example of Weapon in the two or three online dictionaries that pop up first when you Google “weapon definition” You can use a weapon defensively (although with a gun the defense is limited to offense, it’s not like a club that can be used to block other weapons) but that doesn’t mean they are something other then a weapon. The only reason cops carry a gun is for use “to injure, defeat, or destroy” (Merriam-webster). Therefor, cops carry guns as weapons, the reason they wish “to injure, defeat, etc.” is irrelevant to the guns status as a weapon.

“Now if you have something other then the DGU reports to prove that guns make individuals (and thereby society in general, because individuals make up society) safer, I stand ready to have a discussion.”

Ok, so now that we’ve taken the DGU studies out of the equation, are you actually claiming that not a single person has saved their own life by using a gun? Or are you going to stick with the preposterous notion that because we can’t see into an alternate universe and know what *would* have happened had the victim not defended themselves, that zero lives have been saved?

“As an aside, Police carry guns as a weapon.”

Forgive me, but it’s difficult to believe that you are being sincere when you say things like this. It’s a weapon that is being used to do what? To protect the SAFETY of the LEO and/or the public. When used lawfully, it is because the LEO believes that he or someone else’s life is at risk. I’d call that protecting their safety.

GWLawSchoolMom-

“studies. I have some faith in them, but I tend to put my belief into facts based on real life events.”

This is horrifying and something I would expect from a fundamentalist Christian trying to gut a science curriculum. I’m not telling you that every study is correct, far from it. Each study needs to be judged on its own merit and often they have none. But you can’t generalize onto society based on your tiny corner of the world. It also means that your view can be summarily dismissed if a person had an experience opposite yours. Of course, our experience informs all of our decisions, but this is something different.

GWLawSchoolMom-

“I think my horizon is pretty wide. how many of your siblings have been held at gunpoint.?”

And this is what I mean. My uncle has been held at gunpoint. I had one friend who was shot to death and an acquaintance who was stabbed to death in her apartment. Another relative had an experience remarkably similar to your sister’s, though had it not been for a rescue, he would have killed her. Over the span of my life, my home has been burglarized twice.

I’ve seen all of this and my conclusion is opposite yours. Neither of our personal stories alone should be sufficient for anyone to decide where they are on this issue. It certainly wasn’t for me, because I used to be pro-gun control.

Does that spinning wheel make you better in bed or better looking or taller? Probably not, and it is the same for gun owners.

me: while I’m sure that there must be some record on the number of assaults connected to knitting needles, I’ve generally found knitting and spinning to be pretty safe. Not too many spinning wheel accidents cause death.maybe some wrecked yarn, but no deaths.
I make yarn. it’s rather thin, delicate stuff and I have no interest in making rope. you can buy perfectly good rope at any hardware store. and while someone may use rope in the commission of a violent crime it is generally after a gun has been pulled. I don’t know of any criminals who have walked into someone’s home or business, without a weapon and have been able to convince the homeowner to sit down and allow themselves to be tied up unless there is a gun at their heads. you?

spinning does make me better looking. I’m already very good in bed.

me: studies. I have some faith in them, but I tend to put my belief into facts based on real life events. my sister is an interesting woman, not the smartest in her class, even by half. she’s creative and original in many ways and doesn’t have the best taste in men. one evening, her ex broke into her house and with a legally purchased handgun and no background of violent behavior, tied her up and held the gun to her head. he terrorized her for over 10 hours and left, of his own accord around 8:30 in the morning. he knew her kids would be coming home from their father’s house around 9. she had no warning.
I don’t care who has discipline and who does not. I don’t care who has gun education or respect for guns. I just don’t care.

all I can compare this to is the fact that many other countries have strict gun laws and gun ownership and gun violence is really uncommon. why are we content to put up with any gun violence? I just don’t get this.

IS: As far as rednecks and firearms are concerned you are quite naive, firearms have been the toast of kings and heads of state for hundreds of years and to have a nice set of pistols or shotguns made for your body is a real pleasure. Had Obama had any class at all he would have given the Prime Minister a matched set of french dueling pistols or a fine shotgun.

me: yeah the redneck thing was unfortunate on my part. the guy who held a gun to my sister’s head was from Massachusetts. but I don’t think I’m naive. I also don’t care who is given a gun or from whence it came or how valuable it might be. I just don’t like guns.

IS: I hope this helps widen your horizon.

me: I think my horizon is pretty wide. how many of your siblings have been held at gunpoint.?

I’ll accept that, but it still doesn’t make it a “Safety device.”

Police carry guns as a defensive weapon. (or at least that is supposed to be the reason)

I have no control over what you use as evidence or don’t use. What I have control over is what I consider credible evidence. I happen to think that the most commonly cited DGU studies are flawed and therefor by themselves unconvincing. You’re assuming a reason for rejecting them as evidence that just isn’t there.

I’ll tell you why the supposed reason for my rejecting those studies falls flat (I was also trying to avoid having to explain this again, this isn’t the first time I’ve had this discussion): Even if the number of DGUs is higher than the gun related deaths you list (which isn’t exhaustive of gun related deaths) it doesn’t prove that having a gun made anyone safer than they would be not having a gun. It’s like saying that more bicycles helmets were worn in accidents then there were bicycle helmet related deaths.

Now if you have something other then the DGU reports to prove that guns make individuals (and thereby society in general, because individuals make up society) safer, I stand ready to have a discussion. If not, I truly enjoyed talking to you, I always re-evaluate my arguments every time I make them, so it’s nice to be forced to do that occasionally.

As an aside, Police carry guns as a weapon.

“I hate it when people make me explain this sort of thing. A claim hidden in comparisons is still a claim.”

First you claim that I think CCW makes SOCIETY safer. The evidence for this is currently mixed at best. I think the pro-gun side is overselling this point. An Ohio university, forgive me, I can’t remember which, did a meta study on the subject and came to a conclusion that makes perfect sense to me: concealed carry is basically a wash. It makes sense because of two reasons: 1) There aren’t enough CCs relative to the number of criminals. 2) Media coverage, particularly nationally, of defensive gun uses, is almost non-existent. For that matter, if you listen to people like Dianne Sawyer, it is virtually impossible for any regular citizen to so much as hold a gun without killing themselves, forget self defense.

Gyges-

“That part where you compare a gun to a seat-belt, and a fire alarm is pretty clearly indicating that you think guns are in the same category as them.”

Since I never made the claim that society as a whole is *currently* benefiting from concealed carry (nor is it being harmed), I can only claim a (potential) benefit for those that carry. I suppose I could claim a societal benefit by saying that at least hundreds of thousands of people defend themselves every year, but you don’t recognize those.

“The only category I can think of that applies is things that make people safer. So I ask, why should it be in that category?”

Now you seem back to individual people, but you won’t let me cite the thousands of specific cases that I can cite, or the dozen or so peer reviewed studies on the subject, the most conservative of which put defensive gun uses far above the total number of gun deaths from crime, suicide, and accidents.

“I was just saving us time by saying why I don’t consider the DGU statistics good evidence.”

It’s not uncommon for people to disagree with some or most of the studies in a given area of research. Obviously, the people doing the research disagree, as the numbers they’ve come to are very far apart. What you can’t stand is that even the lowest of them puts the number over the total of criminal gun deaths. So your solution is that they must ALL be wrong.

“If you find that unreasonable, and can’t figure out other ways of showing that guns make a society safer, then I guess we don’t really have anything else to discuss. I do think that if guns really are a good safety device it should be evident in more than one way.”

The two ways that guns can “make society safer”, at least that I can think of, are deterrence and actual use. As I said, I don’t think the evidence is there yet for deterrence. As more people carry, that could change. I think the evidence for defensive gun uses is overwhelming.

Why do police carry guns? Could it be for their safety? Obviously they have utility as a “safety device”.

GWLSM-

“I just don’t get it. sometimes I have a hard time wrapping my head around stuff that other people just get. I read. I listen to the tv news machine and I know that everyday there is gun related crime.”

This is true, and it’s sad. But also every day, people defend themselves with firearms. Those stories are less newsworthy, often because they aren’t even reported because no shots were fired.

“people die in gun related crime. maybe that isnt rational.”

That you would even consider that your opinion *might* not be entirely rational makes you more intellectually honest than most people.

“I don’t think I’d feel safer if I had a gun. I can’t tell you why, I just don’t.”

And that’s ok. I can tell you that there are lots of people who felt the same way but who were exposed to firearms in a safe and comfortable environment and ended up enjoying it.

I’m only half kidding when I say I’m more terrified of hot glue guns than of firearms. My pistol can’t hurt me unless I do lots of really stupid things. On the other hand, I can’t seem to get within five feet of a hot glue gun without getting third degree burns. If Satan existed, he’d be into crafts and he’d have a hot glue gun in a holster.

thank you, I know GWLSM thanks you too and so bad juju could be bad whiskey and its magical after effect.

Juju is from west Africa, it’s a magic item, or the magic effects of the item.

Not every gun owner wants a grenade launcher, and not every gun control advocate wants guns banned. We’ll be much closer to finding a happy middle ground when both sides realize that.

me: I just don’t get it. sometimes I have a hard time wrapping my head around stuff that other people just get. I read. I listen to the tv news machine and I know that everyday there is gun related crime. people die in gun related crime. maybe that isnt rational. and maybe I know I’m right because I know I’m right about it for me. I never intended to preach, I just don’t understand why guns are so important.
I don’t think I’d feel safer if I had a gun. I can’t tell you why, I just don’t.

I hate it when people make me explain this sort of thing. A claim hidden in comparisons is still a claim. That part where you compare a gun to a seat-belt, and a fire alarm is pretty clearly indicating that you think guns are in the same category as them. The only category I can think of that applies is things that make people safer. So I ask, why should it be in that category?

I was just saving us time by saying why I don’t consider the DGU statistics good evidence. If you find that unreasonable, and can’t figure out other ways of showing that guns make a society safer, then I guess we don’t really have anything else to discuss. I do think that if guns really are a good safety device it should be evident in more than one way.

“” gun owners are more attached to their weapons than little kids are attached to their puppies. why? what exactly does a gun do for you? make you feel more of a man? more in love with humanity? more tolerant? better looking? taller? better in bed?””

put simply how would you feel if someone wanted you to stop your hobby and took away your fabrics? You can make rope and rope is used to kill people. So therefore we should outlaw rope and confiscate spinning wheels because some people are going to use rope to kill people.

Does that spinning wheel make you better in bed or better looking or taller? Probably not, and it is the same for gun owners.

I think you misunderstood the intent of my comment. I concur with your reasons to not own or possess a gun. I also know that you, like many others, without a gun, are willing to defend others.

“Now where your point gets annoying to me is your assumption that only those carrying handguns, aren’t good at protecting others.”

I think you intended to say that my assumption is that only “those carrying guns are good at protecting others. -That is not my intent. My intent is to demonstrate that those people, by being willing to use that gun in defense of others, are putting themselves in harms way. -I find that to be honorable.

It’s the insinuation that people who own guns have a desire to kill someone that bothers me. -I, and those I know who do carry, don’t have a desire to harm anyone.

“I’m not a hero, but I think you might see I’ve got a strong sense of duty to my fellow humans.”

I definately do see that, and appreciate that very much. Most of us, even though we may have different points of view, have the same sense of duty.

The best thing to do with any self-defense weapon is to avoid the need to use it. I completely agree that being too comfortable with your abilities is a mistake too often made.

“besides. once she gets good at it,you will be first in line for amazing knitwear.”

I am going to buy some sheep for her. Also I am not saying she is crazy but those people are really into knitting and fibres.

I have an order in for a cashmere codpiece.

“me: sez you. lets see how many likkered-up gun owners decide to go rambo after a few beers. time will tell.
while we are waiting, what us bad juju? is that some redneck cocktail I haven’t heard of? why would anyone drink it?”

First of all from the studies I have seen, concealed carry and just plain carry typically leads to lower crime rates. There is plenty of info on the web in many different forms. Most firearms accidents happen because people do not respect a weapon, I have been around some people that were very lackadaisical about shooting discipline and I left the area. I did not inquire as to their party affiliation.

As for juju it is a catchall word as in bad juju, probably a derivative of some African word for bad medicine although I don’t really know but have heard it used most of my life. I could be spelling it wrong. So it would mean at least in connection with alcohol some sort of rot gut whiskey or gin or vodka that gives a bad hangover and makes your tongue white.

As far as rednecks and firearms are concerned you are quite naive, firearms have been the toast of kings and heads of state for hundreds of years and to have a nice set of pistols or shotguns made for your body is a real pleasure. Had Obama had any class at all he would have given the Prime Minister a matched set of french dueling pistols or a fine shotgun.

An expensive shotgun or rifle that is hand made can run into the tens of thousands of dollars and are exquisite works of art with the engraving and gold and silver inlay.

I hope this helps widen your horizon.

Where did I say that? Aside from that, 41 states are now shall issue or effectively shall issue. I would have no difficulty cherry picking low crime CC states and high crime no CC states.

Gyges: (Anecdotes and hypotheticals don’t count as proof). I would ask that you avoid the studies on DGU (Defensive Gun Use),

“Judge, my client is innocent of these charges and I will prove it in court. Bur first of all, I would ask that the prosecution avoid using evidence…”

So I can’t even use the lowest estimate, which is in the hundreds of thousands?

Gyges: there’s no clear consensus

I agree there.

Gyges: I’d suggest you look for something that compares violent crime rates in areas with concealed carry permits to analogous areas without.

So I have to provide evidence for a claim I didn’t make, and in so doing, I can’t used peer reviewed research from the relevant fields. Sounds reasonable to me!

Jim Byrne,
This is annoying and I’ll tell you why. While you already know that I agree with you on the 2nd Amendment , you also know I don’t have a gun. This is not because I’m not able to shoot handguns or rifles and truth be told I’m a better than average shot. I don’t have a gun around the house, there are no young children, because for it to be effective it would have to be loaded and handy, like in my night table. There are times either my wife or I are up during the night and awake the other coming into the bedroom or bed. Waking up out of a sleep at 3:00am leaves me groggy and my home is dark, I don’t like the possibilities entailed. This is not to say that there are no defensive measures prepared, because there are, I’m a wise old bird who spent many years walking alone on the meanest streets in NYC, day and night. Part of what’s kept me from danger is that I’ve devised scenarios for dealing with all manner of possible attack including the possibility of home invasion.

Now where your point gets annoying to me is your assumption that only those carrying handguns, aren’t good at protecting others. Well Jim I’m damned good at protecting others and have actually saved lives in the process. I’m not a hero, but I think you might see I’ve got a strong sense of duty to my fellow humans. Sometimes people carrying guns get too relaxed in their environments because of their assumed protection. I prefer to be alert to my environment at all times, whereas some with firepower may tend to relax their guard. Now you being ex-military may understand that failure to be alert at any time is where the real danger comes from. Many, who carry without your skill set or my street smarts can just as easily fall victim even if they are packing some heavy artillery.
It’s interesting that the presumed weapons of assasins are low caliber.

So to sum it up, you don’t need to research what you’re saying because you KNOW you’re right? If you want to have a rational discussion on a topic, it’s best to base your reasoning on evidence not faith. If you want to give a great sermon, well then faith is the way to go. Personally I’ve been preached to enough in my life, so you’ll forgive me if I walk out of this big tent revival.

Not every gun owner wants a grenade launcher, and not every gun control advocate wants guns banned. We’ll be much closer to finding a happy middle ground when both sides realize that.

I am a great shot. I used to have a 22. I gave it up after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. I just did not see any reason to fire a gun again. I’ve lived in more than a few places where average people had guns and hunted and did target stuff. I know people who keep guns in their homes. There isn’t anything wrong with the people — its the guns that I don’t care for.

You: Your prejudice is showing. Are you the same person that said you would move your family out of the country if the draft was instituted? –If you won’t defend your neighborhood, your city, your state, or even your country (because “your people aren’t good at that”) be aware that others will have to do it for you. –Those “taller, better looking, better in bed” gun owners will defend you, should the need arise. You won’t be happy that they even exist..until you need them.

me: yes my bias is showing. and I am the same person who wrote that I would move my family out of the country if the draft is reinstated. first you have to believe that a war is worth something to you and I don’t believe that the war we are fighting now has any value to me. I believe that this was was manufactured and is criminal. and my kids are not soldiers. I did not raise them to put on uniforms and go into the desert or the jungle or to be electrocuted from faulty wiring in barracks showers. I never believed in war. I still don’t.
I don’t have to send my kids to be fire fighters or police officers either and this isn’t because I don’t think that their work isn’t valuable. it’s just inconsistent with my kids and their temperament. maybe you see a moral imperative to sending your kids off to die. I don’t.