We previously discussed the questionable advice of Vice President Joe Biden for people to fire shotguns out of windows to scare off possible intruders. He added “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.” I suggested that such acts would raise criminal and tort liability issues. There now appears a man who followed the same approach and found himself criminally charged. In Virginia Beach, Trevor Lamont Snowden, 22, is charged with reckless handling of a firearm after fired his gun through a door and out his window to scare off intruders.
A woman at a Parents Magazine town hall asked Biden “Do you believe that banning certain weapons and high capacity magazines will mean that law-abiding citizens will then become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves?”
Biden immediately did what he does best: put his foot in his mouth and then shoot himself in the foot. Biden chuckled and responded: “As I told my wife — we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded — I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden said. “I promise you whoseever [sic] coming in is not gonna — you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun.”
In the Virginia case, the man actually saw two masked men leaning into his bedroom window. He fired through his door and fired several time at the window. No suspects were found and no one was injured.
The Virginia code states:
§ 18.2-56.1. Reckless handling of firearms; reckless handling while hunting.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to handle recklessly any firearm so as to endanger the life, limb or property of any person. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Even in the context of a hunting party, the act of shooting without a clear target or consideration of unknown individuals in the area is the basis for negligence per se. Schlimmer v. Poverty Hunt Club,
268 Va. 74; 597 S.E.2d 43 (2004). We have also seem prosecutors and others charged for firing warning shots or discharging weapons in their home. Even in a rural area, it is possible to hit neighbors or trespassers crossing property (a common practice) or others like police, firefighters, or public employees on the land lawfully. We recently saw a case of a man shot while cutting across a rural estate.
Unfortunately, this is debate often comes with a strong political bias. If Rick Perry had suggested sticking shotguns out windows and firing them, he would have been ridiculed and widely condemned. The advice is both dangerous and ill-conceived by Biden or anyone else. Yes, there are ways to fire a shotgun in the air to avoid hitting someone but casually advising the firing of guns out windows is neither responsible nor wise.
Source: Hampton Roads
Are police officers charged for reckless shooting when they pursue a subject in a public setting with people around and start shooting?
Article interpretation: when firing your weapon of choice at an ‘intruder’ please make sure that you ‘hit him so good’ to the point he/she is unable to get away? Therefore you will have evidence that you didn’t just wrecklessly discharge your firearm by firing through a door or window? Why would you want to take a chance of damaging your property or hurting the mailman by firing through a window or door? Has Biden or his wife ever been to a shooting range?
Bogus charge. It is blaming the victim. The intruders are the good guys?
Plus, Biden specified a more rural area than Virgina Beach.
It takes police longer to reach most rural areas, so home protection is more normal there.
The guy did seem to be a bit trigger happy, but he was not the one who began the sequence of events.
Drop the charges.
There’s something fishy about this story. The story is reported fairly consistently in the media, but parts of it don’t comport with normal behavior — not that stress won’t lead to some pretty abnormal behavior.
1. Resident says he saw two masked men leaning in his window. They said they were going to rob him and ordered him to leave the room and close the door.
A. It must be a big window for two men to be able to lean through at the same time. (As a separate matter, one can question the wisdom of leaving a window open or unlocked in an unattended room.) What home invader sees his victim and orders him to go to another room and close the door? The victim is now out of their immediate control, and could easily retrieve a weapon.
2. Resident complies with the alleged instruction, and predictably retrieves a shotgun. He then shoots one or more rounds through the bedroom door.
B. While the closed door is chokepoint that the home invaders would have to pass through to get to the rest of the house and we don’t know the layout of the bedroom and the location of the door, shots fired through the bedroom door would seem to have a reduced likelihood of hitting anyone in the bedroom unless they were immediately behind the door.
3. Then resident reenters room and fires one or more shots at or out of the window, where, apparently, the intruders can no longer be seen. Indeed, at this point, there are no identifiable intruders or, apparently, any evidence that there ever were intruders.
C. These last shots seem to fall into the “painting the lily” category. The intruders, if they existed, certainly should have already heard the shots that came through the bedroom door. The intruders have left the house (if they actually ever entered it) and are nowhere to be seen. It would be hard to justify these latter shots as self-defense.
4. It is not clear from the story whether the intruders took anything from the bedroom.
A. It would seem to me that a home invasion aimed only at a specific room (they allegedly told resident to leave and close the bedroom door) would be targeted to something that was known to be there. Indicating some foreknowledge.
There are reasons, I think, to believe that this is something other than what the shooter says it was.
This sounds like the cops needed to make their quota of tickets. The story does not say if the bedroom door was open or closed, and even if open there would undoubtedly be shotgun pellets in or near the window to back up the guys story. If the door were closed, I think that the cost of replacing the door would be sufficient punishment. Since no other property was damaged, as Biden pointed out which would be the case, then there is NO rational reason to charge the guy with anything.
A former co-worker of mine had an abusive husband who she divorced. This did not stop the guy from being jealous and attacking her after the divorce, so she got a protective order. One night she was in her apartment with the two kids, and he came over drunk and saying he was going to kill her. Fortunately, she had bought a .357 handgun. As he was in the process of kicking the door in, she fired through the door and hit him three times killing him. The cops came, asked to see the order, and only said GOOD SHOOTING!
One basic rule to stay out of trouble in home defense shootings. Good advice I got from a friend of mine who was a District Attorney, now retired. The discussion got around to home defense, and he knew I had several threats on my life. He told me the best way to keep it simple if I had a home invasion or found an intruder. He said, “If you ever have to shoot one at your house, just make sure all parts of his body are inside the threshold of the doors or windows.” Otherwise, he said, he would have to present it to the Grand Jury.
Advising anyone to fire warning shots or even wave a gun around is crazy advice. THe’ll end up neck-deep in criminal and tort issues.
Everyone knows that the sensible option is shoot to kill.
Then you can claim Stand Your Ground and walk free – immune from even civil actions.
Even in Florida, you’ll get in trouble for warning shots
Marissa Alexander got 20 years for warning shots.
George Zimmerman (initially at any rate) walked free after killing.
How messed up is that?
Shooting someone inside your house when you are cornered is one thing. If an intruder escapes it is NOT the homeowner’s job to chase the suspect down or shoot at him (or her) while they flee. A fleeing suspect is no longer a personal danger. Let the police do their job and find them the old fashioned way.
I would normally agree with OS, but since there is virtually little or no chance the cops will catch the criminal who is fleeing with the property, it simply gives the crooks impunity to burglarize and rob at will. Crooks are rational actors, so they will commit crimes that have a good chance of success.
In Texas we have the opposite approach that if you rob, steal, burglarize, etc.. the owner has the right to take action to prevent the loss of that property by using deadly force. When Don Horn shot the two crooks who were running away with his neighbors property, there was a large outcry from the crooks who thought it was unfair to shoot at them. Some professional minority groups were outraged too, since they have a large number of their members who make their living that way. Most minority people have the opposite opinion and they have guns to make it more risky to rob them. Thus the law will stay unchanged in Texas for a long time since even liberals like myself see the good points of the law.
Indeed, one older woman in Ft Worth came home one night and saw some men in her house. She called 911, but before the cops arrived two crooks came out her front door. She had her pistol with her in the car, and she shot and killed the first guy out, wounded the second, who limped away, and fired at the third guy who jumped out a window but that shot missed. The news showed the house next day, and I was PROUD to see it had an OBAMA lawn sign. I guess the crooks figured that she was a liberal and would be an easy target with no risk. The cops later caught up with the wounded crook at a convenience store since he had stopped to get something to stop his bleeding, and his buddy was with him. I guess the clerk thought that bleeding from a hole in the guys body was a bit suspicious and called the cops. I am a bit surprised that some race groups did not protest the clerks action as racial profiling.
This guy’s too stupid, taking Bidens advice. A shotgun makes a big mess thats why you use a pistol
I can’t think of someone who would kill to save their TV as anything other than a primitive savage.
randyjet,
I am still pretty active for my age, but I do not do pursuits any more. My insurance will cover everything but the sentimental value of heirlooms, and I don’t think we can call the commonly stolen items such as the TV, DVD player and tools heirlooms.
My dad taught me to shoot as soon as I was big enough to hold a gun. His first and main rule was to always look beyond the target and see what you might hit if you miss. I do not live in a densely populated area, but there are enough houses around I am not taking a chance.
If I think the intrusion is related to my work, then I sure as heck am not chasing after them. They may have friends waiting to ambush me if I venture out. Furthermore, in those cases, law enforcement will have a good idea who to look for.
Regarding cleaning up a mess made by a shotgun in a worst case scenario. It is hard enough to hit anything with a pistol in daylight, much less in a dark room. If worst comes to worst and I had to use a shotgun on an intruder, my homeowner’s insurance will pay for one of those cleaning agencies to come in and do a full hazmat cleanup. Some larger metro areas have companies that specialize in crime scene cleanup, whether it is a meth lab or a messy dead body. When most people think messy, they think of a shooting of some kind.
You have not seen messy until they go looking for Uncle Zeke who has not been seen for the past month. Family goes looking for him and find he probably had a heart attack, and has been laying in the living room floor in the summer heat for three weeks.
As for home defense, yesterday I saw what had to be the ugliest shotgun I have ever seen. It was one of the Mossberg 500 tactical line called the “Chainsaw.” Short 18.5 inch barrel, matte black, pistol grip instead of a stock. The Chainsaw name is because of the chainsaw type handle above the barrel. It is a crossways hand grip attached to the pump slide below the barrel. Hold it like a chainsaw, literally. You can work the pump action by pulling back on the chainsaw handle. The dealer who showed it to me said it had been flying off the shelf, and a surprising number of women were buying them for home defense. Our local paper has a story two or three times a week where some local woman home alone is raped and/or robbed. Some know their attackers and some don’t. Many of these attacks seem to be meth fueled, meth being a major problem for local law enforcement.
As the video shows, the Mossberg Chainsaw is easy for an average size woman to handle, the recoil is modest, and it is lightweight. But damn, it is ugly.
Good lord, all he had to say was he thought it was two bears.
I’m always amazed by gun culture folk who don’t know how to work their system.
” you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself.”
On the one hand AR15 style rifles are harder to aim and use.
On the other hand it it claimed they are such efficient killing machines that should be limited to LE and the military.
So which is it?
Perhaps Biden should help design the next infantry weapon to ensure ease of use and effective targeting.
It would seem that the number of rounds necessary for defense would depend on the circumstances, how many adversaries, how are they armed, are they using cover effectively. How can anyone but a clairvoyant know ahead of time how many rounds are necessary for defense?
The exact numbers are controversial. But the fact is that fire arms are used hundreds of thousands of times each year, legally, to protect ordinary law abiding citizens.
Can you believe that idiot is the Vice President of the United States? How the hell has our country fallen so far so fast.
If you have never seen the movie ‘Idiocracy’, go watch it. Its the future of America.
I am starting to believe that people should have to pass a Civics test to both vote and run for office.
bigfatmike:
“On the one hand AR15 style rifles are harder to aim and use.”
Well, clearly the US military just wants to give the enemy a fighting chance. The M-14 was doing such an amazing job in Vietnam that somebody said, “Wait a minute, this isn’t fair to those Viet Cong guys — let’s design a weapon that won’t be so easy to aim and use.”
“On the other hand it it claimed they are such efficient killing machines that should be limited to LE and the military.
So, which is it?”
There you go again. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” R.W. Emerson See, he doesn’t have to choose, because he is a big-picture statesman and philosopher — a divine, not so much, but, as you suggest, probably clairvoyant.
OS:
we had a family friend who went the way of uncle Zeke, except he was on the couch with a newspaper. He had been there for about a month before my brother in-law found him. He hasnt been right since. Apparently the walls were covered with something and there was a good deal of mold and other things growing on “uncle Zeke”.
They had to basically clean the entire house and replace the carpet in the living room. It was a mess, or so my bil said.
I’ve been worried out my skull about the thought of rapacious housebreakers and the zombie apocalypse.
What with the economy ‘n all, I can’t afford the kind of serious firepower that has become essential in a free society.
But…Good news!!
Survival is not just for the rich.
I can get a .22 for cheap, or even 7.62 !!
Used well, these can deal with many of the routine events in our lives.
The problem is……
…… these guns are not really masturbatory.
But not so fast to poo-poo….
…. these things can be ACCESSORIZED !!!!! LIKE YA WOULDN’T BELIEVE !!!
Watch this:
It’s like watching an exotic butterfly emerging from a very unpromising chrysalis.
Even a .22 can look totally awesome after it’s been accessorized.
.
On a serious note, Biden may be in the vicinity of a sensible suggestion.
I think it has to do with frightening the shit out of an uninvited guest.
Big bang! It might not be necessary to actually injure or kill them.
So..
Poor people ( i.e. the middle classes) get an inexpensive 22 or a bolt action 762 … and you can have accessorizing parties. It’s a great way of upstaging that guy with the newer ride-on mower or whatever.
Really poor people don’t have anything worth stealing. All they have to worry about is zombies. But… don’t worry really poor people!
When the zombies come, run to the mall and lock yourselves in. Then eat all the food and sample the goods while the security guards are too busy keeping the zombies out.
If all else fails, use fireworks.
It’s all good.
I fail to see how firing to prevent a felonious act would ever be considered reckless discharge of a firearm assuming we accept his story.
“Really poor people don’t have anything worth stealing. All they have to worry about is zombies. ”
The implication seems to be that really poor people don’t have to be worried about being victims of crime and therefore do not have a need for a means of self defense because they have few possessions.
I don’t think that is in accordance with the facts. What ever their possessions, lower socioeconomic status individuals are frequently the victims of crime. My guess would be that SES individuals are victims of crime disproportionate to their numbers.
The only bolt action 7.62 caliber rifle that I can recall are the many variations of the Mosin–Nagant, chambered in 7.62 Russian, not the more popular 7.62X39 cartridge. Good luck finding any accessories for that one. And be sure to invite a reliable gun smith to your party. Personally I don’t think I would modify any of the Mosin-Nagnats. They are really more suited for hanging on the wall. The ones in really good condition might have some modest collector value.
It is amazing how many people think that the answers to guns are so obvious that any glib remark is a contribution to the discussion.
On the one hand it is claimed that gun violence declined during the ban on assault weapons.
On the other hand it is claimed that the ban was so riddled with loop holes that weapons with all the capabilities of assault weapons were easily and legally available.
People who really care about lives would ask them selves ‘what caused to decline in gun violence – clearly it had nothing to do with fewer assault weapons?’ ‘What can we do to replicate to societal forces that lead to that decline in gun violence?’
But instead we have superficial twits who promote feel good legislation. It really is shameful.
Stealing a carton of milk is probably a felonious act.
There are countries where this discussion would be unthinkable.
In Afghanistan, it might be a reasonable discussion, but I’m thinking more of First World countries – that get by quite nicely thankyou without people packing heat.
Oh look!
At 4:10 in that vid that I linked above…
The Mosin-Nagant
At 6:00 after an explanation of how many grillions of the thing are hanging around for cheap use as is or for spares, you can sex it up – but you might ned to do a bit of machining. to achive the level of sex in the vid.
I learned to shoot with a similar rifle. I won competitions. I also used way ‘sexier’ stuff. The sexier stuff did not improve my shot.
Such a rifle in not wonderful for concealed carry, but for anything else it’s more than adequate for domestic use – apart from being invaded by a zillion zombies.
.
On the other hand, you got gun masturbation and gun porn.
“Range Time with Cory & Erika” on YouTube is fabulous. Chick with guns sort of thing, with manly man to guide hot chick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or1ctzlR4aY is great
“You need to get your clothes out of the way”. Oh yeah!
I need to practice my concealed-carry draw. Drop the laundry basket and get my clothes out of the way. Yank up my garment.
I need to practice instant draws and not worry about flashing part of a boob. Heavan forfend that anyone might see a flash of skin while people are being killed. Microseconds are vital when doing the laundry and being suddenly confronted by someone I need to kill.
I need to get off four shots – because I’m a crap shot. Then I got to “search and asess” – just in case all four shots missed – I need to asess that. Thank deity I got a HUGE mag. Then I got to reholster and cover up.
Wow! Doing the laundry is more dangerous than the sharp end of invading Iraq.
That’s not security
That’s a form of porn in a sick society.
Sling:
“Stealing a carton of milk is probably a felonious act.”
*********************
That must be some good milk!
“Oh look!
At 4:10 in that vid that I linked above…
The Mosin-Nagant”
I stand corrected. I had no idea that anyone was making after market stocks and sight mounts for the Mosin-Nagant.
But if you intend to do any machining or attach the sight mounts I think I will stand by my advice for a reliable gun smith – at least for the vast majority of people.
BTW, anyone have any idea how many Mosin-Nagant rifles were used in muggings, convenience store hold-ups, drive by shooting – any other crime?
How many gun crimes are committed by individuals fascinated with look-alike, wanna-be accessories?
It feels good to rage indignant.
The shameful thing is that it does not help us understand the problem. It does not solve any problems.
Speaking of masturbation, if you want to stop, why not consider why gun crime declined during the assault weapons ban.
We know it had nothing to do with a decline in the availability of assault weapons or high capacity magazines. Those continued to be legally available in large numbers at reasonable prices. So what changed?
What is the real basis for a reduction in gun crime. Answer that and you might make a real contribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
And people complain about the castle doctrine….
ST/mespo,
“Sling:
“Stealing a carton of milk is probably a felonious act.”
*********************
That must be some good milk!”
The salient question neither of you are addressing and may go directly to value is . . .
“Milk of what?”
Just a thought. A moderately sick and twisted thought, but a thought nonetheless.
Gene,
Sure ain’t the milk of human kindness.
Actually, stealing a carton of milk, and only a carton of milk, would probably be a misdemeanor in most states, because most states set, by statute, a minimum value on the property stolen for a felony charge.
The laws vary widely by state, but breaking into someone’s home to steal a carton of milk, would get you at least an unlawful entry charge, probably a felony; maybe a burglary charge if it is an occupied dwelling at night, pretty likely a felony. A defendant might argue, in some states, that he was only after the milk, so he didn’t intend to commit a felony, but that works better on law school exams than on juries.
Now
Mespo:
“I fail to see how firing to prevent a felonious act would ever be considered reckless discharge of a firearm assuming we accept his story.”
As I posted above, parts of his story as reported in the press sound odd to me; I suspect that the police do not believe it. Hence the charge.
(( Posting this a second time as a word appears to have routed the comment into the Moderation black hole ))
If I understand the Texas situation correctly….. while stealing a carton of milk might in itself be a misdemanor, it becomes effectively a capital offence if the owner of the milk sees it being taken away.
If presented with a suggestion that a carton of milk is hardly worth a human life, the owner of the milk would presumably say that they fired (executed) because they believed that the person was taking ‘stuff’.
A hungry person who breaks into a house only to find some milk/food might not be able to argue this in front of a jury due to being dead.
The logical thing to do is these situations is to shoot to kill.
It simplifies matters. There is no counter argument from the shot person as to the situaton.
Whereas the shooter might have been a depraved person who shot calmly and callously, shooting to kill would prove that they were actually in genuine fear of their lives/property. Shooting to disable or warn would prove that they were not really afraid.
What we seem to have is a society in which a large slice of the general population believes that they can not depend on law enforcement to protect their interests. They therefore become judge, jury and executioner on their own behalf. This is a primitive society.
Would the knowledge that they can shoot people ‘legally’ lead people to ignore good sense in the matter of physical security and actions?
Why bother being careful when pulling a gun is a solution?
Why press for better law enforcement whan a DIY approach seems simpler?
What does this say about the value that society places on human life?
.
Take people from this sort of society and have them invade another country.
That seems to have been the major factor that drove Manning to leak what he did.
Read his statement, particularly from over 1/2 way down where he speaks of the “Collateral Murder” video and moves onto other factors,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/01/bradley-manning-wikileaks-statement-full-text
Extract:
———————————————————–
It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely “good samaritans”. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.
The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote “dead xxxxxxxxs” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.
———————————————————–
Sling,
Texas seems to be an anomaly. (That may be the most understated sentence I have written in my entire life.)
In most states, you can’t shoot people over “stuff”, and civilians can’t shoot fleeing felons, let alone misdemeanants. Whether you believe the rules are followed or enforced, there are in fact strict rules about when the police are allowed to use deadly force on fleeing felons.
Without surveying the law of all states, the District of Columbia, and the various territories, I think I can still state with confidence that a private citizen is generally not privileged to shoot a fleeing felon unless there is a reasonable belief that the fleeing felon is a continuing danger to others — for example, if you came home to find a guy standing over your bleeding wife and 10-yearold daughter with a bloody knife in his hand and the guy subsequently fled with the knife in his hand, you could probably shoot at him as he went out the door,and maybe even chase him and shoot at him during the chase, because he is demonstrably capable and willing to hurt more people with that knife, like, maybe, carjacking someone during his escape. Short of some egregious situation like that, though, you are generally not privileged to use deadly force once the threat has ended.
Personally, I think that if you walked into the kind of situation I hypothesized above, and the guy fled, your time would be better spent calling 911, tending to the wounded (hopefully not dead), and giving a description to the police.
Of course, if the assailant is a one-armed guy and you are a doctor who went for a walk by himself after an argument with your wife, you may want to chase the guy, but that’s a different TV show.
“I stand corrected. I had no idea that anyone was making after market stocks and sight mounts for the Mosin-Nagant.”
I can’t/don’t insist that people view the content of links that I refer to, but I do tend to refer to links that are relevant to a point – as opposed to photos of my cat.
The point in that video was the gun-fetish apparent in the accessorization options..
AR-15 pattern weapons are probably more common – and have similar dress-up-dolly options.
Hard figures on numbers seem difficult to find.
This report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-ar15-rifles-sold
….estimates about 2 million such pattern rifles manufactured for domestic use between 2000 and 2010.
This might apparently account for 20% of all rifles manufactured.
————————————
This is not to suggest that such weapons are commonly used for criminal purposes.
It is more that they might be purchased in the belief that they are a solution to some problem.
.
“why not consider why gun crime declined during the assault weapons ban. ”
There seem to be lies, dammed lies and statistics.
This report on the assult weapon ban
http://factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
…. accuses both opposing sides of cherry-picking to support their position.
It makes the point the the “ban” did not take such weapons out of society. It only prevented (most) new ones being added.
And then, permitted weapons became enhanced to replace the void.
The suggestion is that it was difficult to determine if the ban had any real effect – and that such an effect might only be measurable in the long term.
The effect might be to reduce certain types of gun crime, but would have no efect on others.
.
The term “assault weapon” and its definition seems to be the fairly meaningless child of compromises arrived at in negotiations rather than a sane description of the damage a weapon could inflict.
Sling,
“The term “assault weapon” and its definition seems to be the fairly meaningless child of compromises arrived at in negotiations rather than a sane description of the damage a weapon could inflict.”
It is also redundant or circular or both. Anything that can be used to “assault” is a “weapon”, and any “weapon” can be used to “assault”.
Basically, an “assault weapon”, as the term seems to be used in the current discussion, is a firearm with with certain gadgets attached (none of which affect the mechanical performance of the firearm). I never really understood the whole fixation with bayonet lugs, and grenade launchers in the Clinton-era ban, as murder by bayonet or grenade was not really a significant problem at the time (or now). Actually, you are wrong about permitted weapons being enhanced under the Clinton-era ban – they were simplified. Manufacturers recognized that gadgets such as bayonet lugs and grenade launchers added nothing to functionality and simply removed them from new manufactures of AR-15 platform weapons — unless you were a Vietnam War reenactor, you weren’t going to miss them anyway.
Some people gadgetize their cars, some their computers, some their bicycles, some their firearms. Some do it because it improves performance, others because it looks cool. None of the characteristics that are being demonized improves the mechanical performance of AR-15 rifles; they may affect the ease of carrying, handling, or aiming in some cases. But a lot of people think they look cool.
“None of the characteristics that are being demonized improves the mechanical performance of AR-15 rifles; they may affect the ease of carrying, handling, or aiming in some cases. But a lot of people think they look cool.”
Absolutely agreed on all counts.
So I buy an AR-15 to defend myself.
It’s pure survival. I need that firepower because of one or more of:
- I can’t shoot for crap – or I shoot ok, but I’m going to lose it when the time comes
- I won’t be able to hit a vital spot, so I need to fire enough rounds into the body mass so that the weight of them brings the targets to their knees
- There’s going to be al least 10 intruders coming at me.
It’s pure survival. That’s why I need an AR-15.
I’ll be fighting for my own life and of my children. Hopefully while I’m emptying 30+ rounds in the general direction of some intruders I won’t hit any of my children – or the cat.
Aaaaaandddd………
The AR-15 looks cool, but if I accessorize it, I’ll look extra cool while I’m fighting for survival. This is important to me – to look cool while I’m crapping myself.
SlingTrebuchet,
The ultimate accessorizing:
http://www.geekologie.com/2011/12/29/3d-finger-art.jpg
This conversation reminds me of why my wife and kids always hated to go car shopping with me. The salescritters always wanted to show me the fanciest thing in the place, with all the accessories. Sun roof, moon roof, all kinds of gadgets, fancy inlaid wood dashboard, etc. My questions were: will it run and be reliable? How expensive is it to fix if something breaks? How easy or difficult is it to get in and out of. Gas mileage?
I always got a lot of entertainment value out of asking how the fancy wood dashboard or sun roof improves mileage or handling. How much does the ability to access 9000 entertainment channels on satellite improve ride stability? Come to think of it, the salesman never did answer those questions.
Blouise,
I bet a grillion somethings that
- wearing those when trying to fly would have the TSA stopping you
- someone wearing those to school would be suspended for making terroristic threats.
Seriously!
SlingTrebuchet,
Small price to pay for fitting in with the gun culture
Blouise, Maybe it is gun porn.
SwM,
No maybe about it.
SwM,
Check the IOC wrestling thread … left a post for you
SlingTrebuchet
“The AR-15 looks cool, but if I accessorize it, I’ll look extra cool while I’m fighting for survival. This is important to me – to look cool while I’m crapping myself.”
It’s actually more important to have the right sunglasses and tactical ball cap in order to look appropriately cool.
“There seem to be lies, dammed lies and statistics.”
From DOJ reports we know that from 1993 through 2001 nonfatal firearms violence declined 63% and firearms homicides decreased 41% (see page 9 and 10 respectively in:
Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001
Craig A. Perkins
September 1, 2003 NCJ 194820. You can access the full pdf from the DOJ web site here: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=570 )
Yet there does not seem to be any reasonable basis to believe that the Assault Weapons Ban had anything to do with the declines in those two statistics. There are several good reasons to believe the AWB had no effect on the large decline in gun violence. One compelling reason is that AWB did not regulate most of the types of firearms used in gun violence.
Other reports including Koper’s assessment of the federal assault weapons ban (you can access it here:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf )
conclude the ban had little or no effect on lethality and injuriousness of gun violence – which I take to mean that while we know that the rate per thousand declined, the type and distribution of wounds remained pretty much the same.
The fact that wounds are much the same would suggest that the weapons, calibers, powder charge, bullet weight, bullet design, and other factors, related to wound characteristics, are very much the same.
This is just another way of saying that the AWB had no effect.
I think the only reasonable conclusion is that the AWB had little or no effect on any aspect of gun violence: not on the rate of violence per 1000 of population, not on the kinds of wounds, not on the fatalities.
Yet the best, most authoritative statistics we have demonstrate conclusively that gun violence declined during the period that the AWB was in effect.
One has to wonder what caused the decline in gun violence. What changed? What accounts for the fact that both injuries and fatalities due to guns declined so dramatically? And what can we do to replicate those effects to further reduce gun violence?
It would seem that those who care about lives and gun violence would demand answers to those questions.
Porkchop,
I have a friend who is a deputy sheriff. He took a temporary job with Blackwater in Iraq, where his assignment was personal protection (aka bodyguard) for visiting VIPs. He brought me a Blackwater ball cap when he came back. Cap is desert tan with the bear foot logo embroidered on the front in black. I rarely wear it, but on the few occasions I do, it is interesting to watch people edge away from me. When I walk through a crowd, I understand how Moses felt when he parted the waters.
I also have a US Coast Guard tactical ball cap, but when I walk through a crowd wearing that, I don’t get the same reaction from people. It’s a mystery.
It might have something to do with Blackwater having a reputation for opening fire on civillians.
I note that some YouTube videos showing some of this sort of activity have been hit by copyright issues.
Sample story:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/lessons-blackwater-indictments
P.S. “They hate us for our freedoms”.
I wonder if Blackwater contractors and subcontractors accessorize?
I would like to be on a jury that hears this case. I would like to prosecute the prosecutor for filing the charge.
OS —
Only two problems with that:
Drawing unnecessary attention to yourself and walking through crowds
P
I generally don’t like sticking out in the crowd. Having had to wear a uniform for so many years, and it being like a magnet for everyone looking at you or coming up and asking questions, talking to the uniform etc, I had my fill.
SlingTrebuchet-
You are the adult in the room.
Remember the SNL advert, selling “it’s a floor wax….AND a dessert topping!”?
Gun worship is porn…AND a religion! Your insight into gun porn is right on.
As to religion:
The irony of the first two amendments to the U.S.A. Constitution finally struck me.
The first amendment says, in part,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Having said that, the second amendment provides the one true state religion of the U.S.A.
Our firearm fetish “stiffens one’s resolve” so well, that the fetish has been transformed into a religious object.
Very much like someone’s observation that “If men could get abortions, abortion would be a sacrament.”
And, not being religious, myself, I’m not getting into any more “logic vs. dogma” discussions. I’m not a licensed therapist.
Bob Lauten:
When rational argument fails, resort to bizarre faux puritanism and psychobabble to condemn those who disagree with you.
“I’m not a licensed therapist.”
No, but you should talk with one.
Lorkchop,
Um…I’m not the one with a gun fetish, remember? Let’s try to focus on who belongs on the couch.
” In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with Gun, and the Word was Gun. The same was in the beginning with Gun. All freedoms were made by Gun; and without Gun was not any freedom made that was made. In Gun was death; and the death was the manhood of men. And the death glories in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
The Gun is my Shepherd; I shall not think.
Gun maketh me to lie down in blood-red pastures:
Gun leadeth me beside the still bodies.
Gun destroyeth my soul:
Gun leadeth me in the paths of paranoia for delusion’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For Gun art with me;
Thy magazine and thy barrel, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a grave before me for mine fantasy enemies;
Thou fillest my head with power; The blood runneth over.
Surely blood-lust and macho shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of paranoia and delusion forever.”
-Gospel of St. Stupid to the NRA
In another place (largely a right-wing echo chamber), in a discussion ( i.e. they jump on me
of the Zimerman case, I posted something that included:
A response to that bit was
To my mind, there is something more than a little OTT about “God-given right”.
Bob Kauten:
Wait — you are not a therapist, but you are more than willing to make long-distance, armchair diagnoses of millions of gun owners you have never met. You simply assume the worst about the people you disagree with and dismiss their arguments as the fruit of stupidity and sexual perversion. It’s not argument or rational discourse or even a good polemic — it’s just crap. That last post pretty much proves the point.
SlingTrebuchet:
“Carrying weapons may lead people to get themselves into situations that they would not have gotten into otherwise. It’s heading into vigilantism.”
That is sometimes true; but, generally, the converse is true. One of the things taught in my concealed carry class was that one should take extra care to avoid such situations, because, while it may be one’s right to defend one’s life with lethal force under some circumstances, the consequences of doing so are still likely to be very unpleasant. Tempting fate is not the norm. The proof is the miniscule number of actual crimes committed by concealed carry holders, and the even more miniscule number of crimes involving firearms committed by concealed carry holders.
SlingTrebuchet,
“God-given rights” reminds me of a caller into a radio talk show. He said that Ronald Reagan “was elected by god to lead this country.” This led to my pondering which polling place god used to cast her vote. Does god’s vote count more than mine? Does god live in one of the nearly unpopulated states, with two Senators? Then her vote truly does count more than mine.
Porkchop,
Your witty rejoinder again deeply impresses me with the depth of your intellect. What a zinger!
I was merely quoting St. Stupid to further propagate the tenets of the national religion. I was hoping you’d be grateful. Alas, the seed fell on barren ground.
I made no reference to millions of gun-owners. You did. I have no idea how many gun-owners have religious/sexual relations with their guns. If the truth fits, bear it.
St. Stupid’s most admirable trait is his self-awareness. He knows he’s Stupid.
Bob Kauten:
You should read what you write.
Your moral and intellectual superiority is obvious only to you.
Porkchop:
That’s all you got?
I don’t know why I bother.
Porkchop:
I see Bob still doesnt agree with your well thought out, well presented arguments for gun ownership.
I guess those fantasies of blowing people’s brains out, or did he almost blow some one’s brains out, caused him a scare. And now like an alcoholic he wants to outlaw whiskey so he can save his soul.
Thinking about it, maybe we ought to have gun control, a bunch of out of control people like Bob running around wanting to blow out people’s brains with guns is a really scary thought.
Bob Kauten:
Yeah, that’s all I’ve got — logic, facts, reason, maybe occasionally a wee bit of knowledge concerning the things I write about — the things we lawyers use to make arguments that are designed to persuade the reader.
I don’t know why you “bother”, either.
You got it Bron. Restrictions on gun ownership, types of guns, background checks, and liability insurance is exactly what we need.
Not to worry. I don’t need to wear a gun to protect myself against folks walkin’ around, or to prove my manhood.
Besides, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s why the Army sends soldiers into battle without firearms. They’re people, so they can just kill others, if necessary, by thinking about it. “If looks could kill…”
Bob:
actually soldiers are trained to kill in hand to hand combat. The armies of the world, for the majority of recorded history in fact, killed people without firearms. Personally, I’ll take a bullet between the eyes vs. one of OS’s big Scottish swords across the face or head.
The soluton to gun crime is obvious, elegant and minimal cost.
Issue a concealed carry permit to *everybody*!
SlingTrebuchet:
Everybody who wants one and meets the criteria — not a felon, not mentally ill, etc. That’s working pretty well here in Virginia, a “shall-issue” state.
Our firearms homicide rate is about half that of Illinois, which is for practical purposes a “no-issue” state.
People behave better here for some reason.
Bron,
Regarding the Claymore. It is not “across” the face or head. The operant word is “through”.
OS,
Yikes!
“AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%. ”
From page 7 of Koper, An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.
The Koper report is the gold standard regarding the effects of the Assault Weapons ban. You can read the update of that report here:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf
But suppose we had a way to simply remove every assault weapon and look alike weapon from the society. Suppose the assault weapon ban were 100% effective.
What would be the effect on gun crime if the assault weapon ban were absolutely, completely, totally effective?
The Koper report give us enough data to make a crude estimate for the decline in gun violence.
If we removed every assault weapon and look-alike assault weapon during the time of the Assault Weapons ban, gun violence probably would have declined about 2%. There is no data to suggest that gun violence would have declined more than 8%.
Yet we know that during the time of the Assault Weapons ban that all gun violence declined, in big round numbers, about 50%. I am talking in big round numbers because different kinds of gun crime decline different percentages. However decline various gun crimes range roughly 40% to 60%.
From the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) we know the decline in gun crime was roughly 50% during the time of the Assault Weapons Ban. The NCVS data is nicely summarized for us in the other gold standard of gun information the DOJ/BJS report:
Weapon Use and Violent Crime, 1993-2001
Craig A. Perkins
September 1, 2003 NCJ 194820.
You can access this report from the DOJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics web site (a link is included in my previous remarks in this thread).
One has to wonder, what factors, in addition to the Assault Weapons ban, account for the 50% decline in gun violence. There is no data to suggest that the Assault Weapons ban could possible account for the entire 50% decline.
Well, we still do not have good data to tell us why gun violence declined. But the Washington Post recently published an article, ‘Gun deaths, violent crime overall are down in District and U.S.’ discussing the overall decline in violence. You can read that article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/gun-deaths-violent-crime-overall-are-down-in-district-and-us-but-reasons-are-elusive/2013/03/03/7455ccde-7d24-11e2-a044-676856536b40_story.html
(note: This url is so long that I could not just point and click to access the story. However if you cut and past the url into your browser you should have not trouble linking to the WAPO story.)
The Post article discusses several reasons why overall violence might have declined including: the end of the crack epidemic, anti-gun enforcement efforts, mandatory minimum sentencing, elimination of parole, changing demographics, changing economic conditions, abortion – yes abortion – and other factors.
But none of them seem to tell the whole story or fit the data in a compelling way. Are these factors that possibly influence general violence the same ones that account for the 50% decline in gun violence. Well, we just don’t know – possibly but probably not exactly.
But the factors mentioned by the Post are certainly a starting point for further investigation to understand why gun violence declined so sharply.
The Assault Weapons Ban is feel good legislation of limited value in preventing gun violence.
But there are real societal factors that result in real, significant declines in gun violence – if only we would turn our resources to investigate.
It would seem that the adults in the room and all those who care about lives would demand answers.
OS:
I concur with rafflaw, yikes!
Bron, Raff:
You wouldn’t feel a thing . . .
Porkchop:
for the sake of all those souls, whose skeletons end up on the history with crushed faces and half their skull gone, I hope you are right.
Bron:
Of course, if OS didn’t get a clean stroke . . . that would be different.
Bron,
More of a
I think.