To all of the in-your-face tough guy Open Carry zealots who held Starbucks rallies such as the one pictured here, thanks.
Thanks for forcing a major, high profile international corporation into choosing between its image and yours.
Thanks for making such complete idiots of yourselves with your “Look Ma, I’ve got a gun and a coffee at the same time!” antics that what had been a nice political win for our side is now a huge media circus about how Starbucks finally said stop bringing guns into our stores.
You can croon about how you’re educating the public all you want, but it’s bullcrap. And here’s a perfect example. Did you convert the average American? No. But you scared enough soccer moms, kids, and coffee jockeys that Starbucks was forced to take action.
It was you that turned Starbucks into a political battleground. It was you that couldn’t just take the victory of Starbucks saying it would abide by local laws rather than ban guns. It was you who had to push the limits and do things utterly unacceptable among almost any normal community in the United States just so you could brag to your equally moronic Facetwit buddies. You did this. You gave the entire Second Amendment movement a huge black eye. You just educated America, all right, you educated them into believing that gun owners are a bunch of retarded monkeys who’ll throw feces the first chance they get if it’s legalized.
Do you know what would happen if you walked into the NRA Headquarter Range carrying a gun like the guys pictured above? You’d be refused entrance because they don’t allow people to walk around like that. Know what would happen if you, a stranger, walked up to my front door carrying a shotgun like this guy:
At a bare minimum you’d have a gun pointed at your face and police sirens closing in at top speed. Worst case scenario, you’d get shot dead. You know why? Because in suburban America, normal people don’t walk around carrying rifles and shotguns. Period.
Go tattoo your forehead or get your eyeballs pierced if you want to be cool & different & edgy. Stop carrying guns or talking about guns or even thinking about guns. Because you’re idiots, and you’re not helping.
(for a less angry, more in-depth intelligent read on the subject, try Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned)
Train hard & be smart for once in your God-forsaken life! ToddG
original rifles in front of Starbucks photo from NBC affiliate KXAN
shotgun photo from thenewcivilrightsmovement.com (edited to add: per the shotgun-wielding gentleman in the photo above via practicaltacticalpodcast.com via Tam, that particular Starbucks is in fact in Kuwait circa 2005 … so no harm no foul, buddy, but thanks for giving me a photo to riff off of)
JeffB
Again, the article I was interested in spoke to this very well. I, up stream, spoke honestly about this very subject. This happens on your side as much as on my side. Considerate people are not the two dimensional targets you shoot at. Respect my arguments, I respect yours. I’m competitive, think I am right, will argue till you change your mind, but don’t think I am the amalgam presented to you by gun supporters. I am a human man.
Obvious troll or not, I agree with him about mandatory OC. I firmly believe all criminals illegally carrying guns should do so openly. Also, the law should require written prior notice of criminal activity. It’s only logical after all. More laws will solve this problem.
OK, discussion at its lowest level. Happydappy and Hippydippy are obviously not the same people. I don’t agree with Hippydippy much at all, really. But the quality of “happydappy” content hardly breaks the bar of childishness.
Is this really what you have? Really the content of your charterer? A handful of us would like to talk, children please leave the room.
when the other guy resorts to ad hom, its over.
means: cannot address argument made, whatever it is, changes subject to poster, ignores post.
is admission of no refutation of argument.
Hippydippy said:
“However, the discussion started with pointing towards the more… “outgoing” of your group. Discuss/defend that.”
Why? Not my job to defend what others say. They are grown ups… they can speak for their damn selves.
TBR:
“Considerate people are not the two dimensional targets you shoot at. Respect my arguments, I respect yours. I’m competitive, think I am right, will argue till you change your mind,…”
I have met very few “considerate” people on the anti-gun-ownership side of this discussion. The overwhelming majority are perfectly happy to remove from me the best option for defending my wife and daughters from harm in the name of “peace”. You may find this offensive, and if so I really don’t care, but your “right” to live in a world free of violence does NOT trump my right to protect my family from violence.
You painted all gun carriers with the same brush when you told Tam that she was more dangerous because she had a gun. Implied in that is this: “People with guns are dangerous”.
What you, sir, fail to realize (or recognize, I don’t know which) is this: I, as a gun owner, am absolutely NO threat to you.
I don’t know you from Adam, but if you showed up on my front porch, said “I’m TBR from pistol-training.com, and I’m in a bad way… I could use a meal and a place to sleep”, then I would probably offer you a warm shower, a hot meal, and a place on the sofa (sorry I can’t offer a bed… My wife and I take one, my two girls take the others, and we only have three bedrooms.)
Hell, you might even get one of the dogs to sleep in the den with you, stand guard, let you know if someone breaks into your Prius.
In the morning, I’d offer you coffee, my wife’s biscuits and gravy (you should try them, they are heavenly), and a ride to the bus station.
What I would NOT do is harm you or pose a threat to you…
… unless you tried to harm us first. At which point, things change.
Yet you have painted all gun owners with the same brush: We’re all threats to you, and therefore bad people.
Then you wonder why we don’t trust you?
Please, you’ve gotta be smarter than that.
I’ll respect your arguments, sir, when you respect ME.
CCW is useless. point conceded.
deters nothing.
the higher the number of DGU the more times CCW failed to deter anything.
game set match
JeffB,
You are talking to one now. We aren’t a monolith, just as this article started. You are not all the same, and slightly further down this post, you “paint” me several times with an undeserved brush.
I do have a right to live in a world as free from violence as you. I don’t trump your right, we stand together in a society trying to find the right blend.
You really need to reread that. I took time with those posts. She, Tam, IS more dangerous to me with a gun than without. Nothing said yet contradicts that simple fact. There is very little logic that can twist the fact that an armed person is more dangerous than an unarmed person.
That is demostritly untrue. Gun carriers ARE more capable of inflicting injury than unarmed people. Again, that’s the point of carrying the dam thing.
Love biscuits and gravy. Love dogs, have a pointer named Lily. Driver a Jaguar (v12) not a Prius, but would LOVE a Tesla
You want to be treated like a “human man,” yet you insist that we are all carrying because we want to shoot our guns. YOU are telling US why WE carry OUR guns, and we are trying to give you our reasons, yet you continually dismiss them. You must admit that there is something wholly wrong about you giving us our intentions. Treat US like people.
We do want to shoot our guns. That’s what shooting ranges are for. And yet still, that is only out of a want to be better at shooting. Training to shoot is not fun. It is tiring. It is tedious. It is fatiguing. It is painful. It costs a whole lot of money. However, shooting is not the only thing we train to do. We work to be observant. We try to be conscious of our surroundings wherever we are. We do our damndest NOT to get into a situation where we will have to use that gun. Todd is the epitome of what we do. Working to master pistolcraft so that in that horrid moment, on that unforeseen day we may perform at the highest level and prevent another tragedy from happening. The tragedy of ANYONE getting hurt because of the ill intentions of another person. We don’t carry our guns so that we may shoot them; we carry them so that they may protect us, and that is not just a simple play on semantics. At its base is the mindset that we bring to the table.
As for carrying without ammo… why? Sure, an empty gun has the same deterrent effect as a loaded gun… assuming that everyone thinks it is loaded. What about when someone calls you on that bluff and threatens you with deadly force? Damn, bullets would be nice then.
“That is demostritly untrue. Gun carriers ARE more capable of inflicting injury than unarmed people. Again, that’s the point of carrying the dam thing.”
Being capable of being a threat and actually being a threat are completely different. This is the crux of the argument we submit: a gun is not threatening without a person with harmful intent behind it. Thus, coming from that mindset, when you say that we are much more dangerous once we put on a gun it hits a bit of a nerve. It seems like you are assuming that because we are carrying a gun we mean to harm someone which, any one of us will tell you, is entirely false.
OK, TBD. You can believe what you want. You don’t want to listen to opposing views, because you HAVE to be correct.
However:
“What you, sir, fail to realize (or recognize, I don’t know which) is this: I, as a gun owner, am absolutely NO threat to you.”
“That is demostritly untrue. Gun carriers ARE more capable of inflicting injury than unarmed people.”
Those are NOT the same. Being ABLE to inflict injury and being a threat are NOT the same.
Would you support a national database and mandatory licensing of people who take Tae Kwon Do classes? People who have pocket knives? People who have a softball bat at their home?
TBR said: “She, Tam, IS more dangerous to me with a gun than without.”
You’ve dodged the question of how. Intent is what matters, not so much the tools the person has on their person. At conversational distance, just about anybody you meet could kill you if they wanted to, even if they don’t have a gun. A 17 year old kid killed a cop in El Paso a few months back by punching him a few times. The kid wasn’t even big or muscular…
I’m sorry, TBR, but your argument that a gun makes someone more dangerous to you isn’t based in the real world.
FYI, I have faced down someone with a gun when I didn’t have one. If he’d tried anything, I had him cold because he was close enough for me to grab hold of him, and I had a knife to his gun. Wisest choice he’s probably ever going to make was walking away…
“As for carrying without ammo… why? Sure, an empty gun has the same deterrent effect as a loaded gun… assuming that everyone thinks it is loaded. What about when someone calls you on that bluff and threatens you with deadly force? Damn, bullets would be nice then.”
Why would someone threaten you with deadly force? Do you get threatened with deadly force much?
when was the last time you were threatened with deadly force?
“As for carrying without ammo… why? Sure, an empty gun has the same deterrent effect as a loaded gun… assuming that everyone thinks it is loaded. What about when someone calls you on that bluff and threatens you with deadly force? Damn, bullets would be nice then.”
How could anyone think it was loaded if they did not even know you had it?
“Why would someone threaten you with deadly force? Do you get threatened with deadly force much?”
I have no idea why someone would, and no, I don’t. However, I can’t tell you what the outlook for that type of behavior is for the rest of my life.
“Why would someone threaten you with deadly force? Do you get threatened with deadly force much?”
I have no idea why someone would, and no, I don’t. However, I can’t tell you what the outlook for that type of behavior is for the rest of my life.
By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013
Whether you are CC or not you do not get threatened with deadly force.
therefore, the purpose of carrying ammunition is to load it and fire the weapon.
the reason you want to conceal that you have the weapon is?
1. the concealed unloaded weapon has the same deterrent value as the concealed loaded weapon.
2. the unloaded OPEN carry has MORE deterrent value than any concealed one, loaded or empty, just by being visible.
why would you want to conceal it – if the intent was not to use it, but the intent of carrying it at all.. is to reduce the possibility of needing to use it?
“1. the concealed unloaded weapon has the same deterrent value as the concealed loaded weapon.”
Sure
“2. the unloaded OPEN carry has MORE deterrent value than any concealed one, loaded or empty, just by being visible.”
Iffy, but I understand your argument.
“why would you want to conceal it – if the intent was not to use it, but the intent of carrying it at all.. is to reduce the possibility of needing to use it?”
Assuming the only consequence of me openly carrying a weapon is that people with ill intent decide not to do whatever it is they were thinking of doing, then no, I wouldn’t want to conceal it. However, there are more consequences than just that. Other people may perceive me as having ill intent. I may get hassled more. I may be seen as a troublemaker, or an extremist. People I’m with just might not want to be around me. And if the person who wanted to harm me or others sees my gun, and that doesn’t dissuade them from committing their act, then I am likely now their #1 target. I would rather not have those unintended consequences.
Ryan,
Ryan, give me you reasons. I have been as crystal clear as I can, I’m not trying to shut down any productive avenue of discussion, and where I have seen reasons given, have discussed them with honesty.
I have never stated that anyone in this discussion, or anyone in the CC or OC groups have any malice. If I have struck a nerve, it may be that you haven’t really thought this through before. The nature of the gun as a device has nothing to do with intentions. No one has even attempted to address my point directly. A gun, by its very design, has the potential to harm me, family and friends. I am, without a doubt, in a more dangerous situation in the company of a gun carrier vs a non-gun carrier.
Jeff
This makes no sense to me. I argue because I think I am correct. I am always open to opposing views, I’m the only gun control advocate on this thread! I’m LISTENING!
TBR — I’ve got to tell you, I fell out of this debate primarily because your contention that being around lawful gun owners puts you in a “dangerous situation.” You clearly don’t understand it regardless of the many people who’ve tried to explain, but that’s just a very offensive attitude.
Nonetheless, to address your last statement and hopefully give you an understanding of why the object isn’t the issue compared to the man:
You said, I am, without a doubt, in a more dangerous situation in the company of a gun carrier vs a non-gun carrier. So let me ask you this. Would you rather be alone in a room with me, who is carrying a gun, or with an unarmed but otherwise unfettered Charles Manson?
If you’re walking down the street and someone attacks you — whether it’s with a gun, knife, baseball bat, or really thick phone book — are you more or less “in danger” if there also happens to be a law-abiding citizen, like say a cop, with a gun nearby who tries to help you?
Your analysis has been very one dimensional. You keep saying that things like accidental shootings only occur when there is a gun present so a gun’s presence necessarily means the odds of injury are greater, but that completely ignores the potential benefit that a gun could have in preventing injury if you’re suddenly the victim of a violent crime. As others have explained already, the number of incidents of lawful self-defense with a firearm — many of which don’t even require a shot to be fired — outstrips the number of accidents and even felonious deaths/injuries caused by firearms by orders of magnitude every single year.
“Simple semantic arguments are for the very week debater. Please reply with some substance, providing I change the question to “you with your gun can maim or kill me””
Not only am I a week debater, I am also a day and month debater. Yes, I could, hypothetically, maim or kill you with my sidearm. I could also do so with my pocket knife, a ballpoint pen, or my boot lace.
TBR,
“Again, most of your reply is simply flippant. The only meat in there is you agree that it may be unnecessary. The entire “hidden malice” bit is the same you have chased before. Let me set it straight. I have no malice for you, and assume you towards me. Last bit is surreal… Really.”
No.
This is where our good faith conversation ends.
The pistol in my holster, absent human intervention, will crumble into rust and disappear without human intervention.
You posited an imaginary meeting between you and I in which I am carrying a firearm. You claimed this firearm is a danger to you.
Since this firearm is an inert metal object that will sit still in its holster from now ’til the heat death of the universe absent human intervention, one or the other of us would have to pull it out of the holster to make it dangerous.
That someone wouldn’t be me. That kinda narrows things down, no?
“Assuming the only consequence of me openly carrying a weapon is that people with ill intent decide not to do whatever it is they were thinking of doing, then no, I wouldn’t want to conceal it. However, there are more consequences than just that. Other people may perceive me as having ill intent. I may get hassled more. I may be seen as a troublemaker, or an extremist. People I’m with just might not want to be around me. And if the person who wanted to harm me or others sees my gun, and that doesn’t dissuade them from committing their act, then I am likely now their #1 target. I would rather not have those unintended consequences.”
By Ryan on Sep 25, 2013
Ok. now you just introduced a lot of extraneous IFS. Assuming that you are a relative unobtrusive, have a holster on your hip that is not painted hot red, act like a normal human being for the circumstances, that is, if at a shopping mall, just stroll around and shop, or at a baseball game, cheer for the home team.
What would draw attention to you in the first place that would make anyone think you had ill intent, etc? What would you to do make anyone think you were an extremist? Any more than if you had the holster where nobody knew where it was even if they were inspecting you closely.?
Talking real life here. scenario one is where you are acting normally with a conceal. scenario two is where you are acting normally with a hip holster.
why would anyone think you were an extremist or troublemaker if you did not attract attention to yourself in some way?
and…”And if the person who wanted to harm me or others sees my gun, and that doesn’t dissuade them from committing their act, then I am likely now their #1 target. I would rather not have those unintended consequences.”
Well, assuming that your OC DID dissuade 99% of those who wanted to harm you (which is a very low number when you are CC, and a lower number when you are OC and they see it….)
so then there is this extreme malcontent who is practically psychotic in the first place in a public place who wants to harm you or the people you are with for some reason…. and he is using deadly or semi deadly force.. why would you not want to be the one he accosts first? You are the person most ready to deal with it. And.. does this person get the jump on YOU? How inattentive of you. so in your objection: this guy just immediately identifies you as armed and attacks you seeing you are armed, and you are completely unaware of his presence or movements around you?
How many millions of years can we allow for this actual scenario to actually occur in our probability calculation?
TBR, your insistence that Tam with a gun presents more of a risk to you than without is the same logic that she could use to say your anatomy presents a risk to her of rape. If it is conceivable that a series of events could lead to her shooting you, so too a series of events could lead you to raping her. Who can blame her, then, for carrying a gun?
Flippant? No. While you might see the probability of Tam using a gun to defend herself as so low that it does not justify her having a gun that could possibly kill you, the consequence of her NOT having a gun could be so horrifying to her that carrying the gun makes sense even though the probability of using it is very, very low. What value is “public safety” to her if she personally has been the victim of violence? That is cold comfort indeed.
Ultimately, though, the public safety vs self-defense arguments may be irreconcilable. The belief that fewer guns in a society will reduce the number of homicides, suicides and accidents with guns on the one hand, vs the one person who saves herself with a gun on the other. I think the ethics of the former are very shaky.
“These things aren’t causing my society trouble. The death toll is statically insignificant.”
And MY guns aren’t causing society trouble, either. The death toll is exactly zero.
(Well, unless you could that rabbit that was wreaking havoc on my summer squash plants in summer ’09…)
Guys, DON’T feed the TROLL!
There are some great arguments here, and there is some great sarcasm (happydappy)…likewise, the trolls herein are, as trolls are want to do, deaf to actual discussion, presumptive, unwilling to either share their bridge, or to consider anyone else’s argument/position.
When a person in real life acts crazy, for example, continuing to tell you how YOU feel, WHY you feel that way, and what your motivations are, eventually you have to dismiss and cut them out of your life/area of influence, simply because arguing with walls is more productive 🙂
All,
There hasn’t been one reply addressing the possibility for error on your part. There seems to be no room in the gun communities’ collective mind for this simple possibility. We couldn’t even make it to the escalation of a situation, or uneven justice measured out by citizens.
I doubt I post past this, I don’t think there is much more to do other than retread ground. I will check back, answer any questions, or comments directly. I wish there were more of a meeting of the minds between each side in this debate. I keep looking for where we do meet, where each can move a little, and how we can stop bickering. I congratulate each of the participants that are seriously and thoughtful. To those that the initial article was written about, and the handful replies in support of the open carry protesters, I ask you to read my first posts on this thread, look at the Occupy Wall street group, and ask yourself if you are doing anything positive.
To sum this up. There are many people that feel much less comfortable around people carrying guns. They each have their own reasons. These people are not much different than you. They want to be safe, and may see you as an additional problem, not part of a solution. There have been clams of hostility on this thread, clams that the gun control community is hostel towards gun rights people. This is as true the other way around. No one is moving the needle starting from this posture.
TBR,
Well actually there were a lot of people addressing that, but You either ignore it or are just missing it. If You are able to answer a question like “If You have a pencil in Your hand how can You be sure You will not accidentally stab somebody in the eye with it?” then, I think, You have all the answers You need.
But let me try to have a go at it from the other side. Like You, I quite like thought experiments 🙂
Say we have a room (no corners, everything is very soft etc – it would be complicated to hurt yourself even if You tried). There are two people in the room. Both are totally equal (like weight, mental and physical condition etc). Both are naked (for the same reason of safety). Ok?
Now we introduce a necktie into the room. Would You agree that this cardinally (infinitely?) increases the dangerousness (if there is such a word) of the situation? I think You’ll have to say ‘yes’, because until that point it was not possible to accidentally choke/hang yourself on the tie, because there was no tie?
Would that mean, that introducing absolutely _anything_ at all into the room will increase this hypothetical dangerousness? And the dangerousness will increase with each new item added?
Why particularly introduction of the firearm crosses Your imaginary line where ‘accidental dangerousness’ is not comfortable to You? What about a chainsaw? A big axe? A small one? 100000 letter openers? 1000 letter openers? 100?
TBR,
“There hasn’t been one reply addressing the possibility for error on your part.”
So, at our hypothetical meeting, you and I are sipping some Starbucks and I… what? Erroneously pull out my gun and start blasting you? Is that the scenario you posit? Because it is, quite frankly, ludicrous.
I speak from some experience when I say that I have carried a gun pretty much every day for nearly twenty years and I have yet to pull it out of the holster by accident.
Tom,
“TBR, your insistence that Tam with a gun presents more of a risk to you than without is the same logic that she could use to say your anatomy presents a risk to her of rape.”
I had been studiously avoiding going there, but I’m glad someone else noticed that ball lying there, as it were, and picked it up and ran with it. 😉
Audrius,
Really, no. You can look back, there were no replies that addressed the potential for accident. ToodG, and Tams’ replies this am came close, but didn’t address the issue.
As for your thought experiment, I think you are dead on. The gun didn’t cross an imaginary line, each new potential weapon is an additional threat. The gun, by design, has greater potential, that’s what it’s there for, but each new item may increase the arsenal. The tie, in your scenario, has much less potential for accident, escalation, or killing power than the gun. It seems logical, and I applaud you for introducing this into the discussion, that you agree on some level that introducing the gun increases the potential for unintended consequences.
Why this particular device crosses my line? Let me carefully answer this. I’m not attempting to put words in anyone’s mouth. The user’s choice of a gun for protection can reasonably be assumed because of its superior abilities. That any device has potential is not lost on me, or much of anyone who shares my position. It can be frustrating to discuss this honestly with people who choose the best tool for a job, then insist there are other tools too. We know that, but still choose a hammer when nailing something, and choose a tablet for business purposes. Most of what I have been discussing in recent posts has to do with unintended consequences. I have not moved on the theory that there is potential for unintended consequences with a gun. Additionally, there is a reasonable amount of risk I must take on in everyday life. Driving, as has been discussed. I risk a potential criminal encounter too. I must weigh if the addition of guns in this encounter helps or exacerbated the situation. I still see little that leads me to believe that the situation is improved with a gun.
I am participating in a conversation with you. All of you. Enduring a few snide comments along the way. My intention is pure, in that I would like to discuss for both out benefits. I am happy to continue, or fade away. It’s really up to the group.
TBR,
“You can look back, there were no replies that addressed the potential for accident. ToodG, and Tams’ replies this am came close, but didn’t address the issue.”
You still have not answered my question, so I will attempt to rephrase it:
You and I are at our hypothetical meeting at an imaginary Starbucks. We are talking and sipping coffee. I have a holstered gun on my belt.
Draw me a scenario where that gun causes you harm.
TBR,
“ I risk a potential criminal encounter too. I must weigh if the addition of guns in this encounter helps or exacerbated the situation. I still see little that leads me to believe that the situation is improved with a gun.”
Would you call the police instead?
Tam,
Both your most recent comments were post while the page was static. Let me address each please. I have to run to a meeting, but will reply when I return.
“Really, no. You can look back, there were no replies that addressed the potential for accident.”
My reply did. I referred to, and linked to the CDC study which includes rates of injuries, both intentional and accidental…. which have BOTH gone down over the last 20 years… by almost 50%.
Several other replies dealt with other types of accidents being far more prevalent than firearms accidents.
There certainly ARE accidents. Almost 6000 people die in their homes from falling. Over 5000 people die each year form accidentally ingesting poisons….
But at over 25,000, fatalities from vehicular accidents are almost FORTY TWO TIMES more prevalent than fatalities from firearms accidents (citation: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html from the CDC 2010 study)
So… there are 10 times more slip and fall deaths, 8.3 times more accidental poising deaths, and 41.66 times more traffic accident deaths in America (well, those numbers are all from 2010)…
Now, lets throw in stats on CCW users vs others (every study so far has concluded that CCW holders are 1) .07% as likely to commit crime, 2) 1.2% as likely to have accidental discharge as non CCW holders) and I am VERY confident in dealing with legal firearms owners vs simply driving my car, eating something accidentally that poisons me, or slipping and banging my head in the bathroom.
“I had been studiously avoiding going there…”
Well it’s time we start going Andrea Dworkin on this guy’s butt.
Tam,
While I was waiting for my part of a meeting, I was reading accidental gun injury stories where the gun owner was concealed carry licensed, and the accident took place outside the home. I think we can agree there are a slew of them. Basically, I was looking for a case that would fit as close as I could to a competent, thoughtful, female, conceded carry individual. There are a number of “dropped purse” incidents, but I am willing to assume that you are more careful than that. The preponderance of stories center around careless people. Since I have spent most of this discussion on my back-foot, this hasn’t been addressed, but let me tell you, these are the people that scare me, and they clam the same “responsible gun owner” moniker as you.
Anyway, this story was interesting. It has some elements of all things around RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, without resorting to stupid.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/08/detroit-woman-killed-when-hug-triggers-officer-gun-police-say/print#ixzz208VteY8U
Tam. I don’t know you, and have no idea about past experiences. I do know a thing or two about fear, and as best I can empathize your concerns about rape, I do. Men with guns, a man without a gun, each are potential dangers to a woman. Undeniably. This fact does not change the discussion one bit, just as the tie I wear didn’t change the argument.
Robert. Showing decreeing statistics only confirms the fact that accidents happen. Comparing them to other types of accidents says nothing to the fact that a gun accident CAN and DO occur.
TBR:
“I do know a thing or two about fear, and as best I can empathize your concerns about rape, I do. Men with guns, a man without a gun, each are potential dangers to a woman.”
And what single item levels that playing field for the woman?
Reworded: What can a woman do to mitigate those potential dangers posed by all men (assuming, for the moment, that all men are potential dangers to all women, an assumption I don’t consider to be true)?
gun accidents CAN and DO occur.
Swimming pool accidents CAN and DO occur.
Kitchen knife accidents CAN and DO occur.
Automobile accidents CAN and DO occur.
household appliance accidents CAN and DO occur.
Basically,the bottom line is, accidents CAN and DO occur.
You cannot legislate accidents out of existence, the idea that you can is merely ignorant. You cannot make safety mandatory, every attempt to do so has created more trouble than it solved. Mike Rowe has an excellent treatise on this, google “Mike Rowe: Safety Third”. No rules or regulations can replace common sense.
The antigun position has always been one of feeling and fear, and not of reason. Reason and risk mitigation demand an armed citizenry, not disarmament. The risks of any object, be it a swimming pool, an automobile, a firearm or a frying pan causing harm to anyone are minimized by regular contact, familiarization, and training. By definition, accidents are caused by improper use or deliberate misuse. if safety is the real motivation here, then the focus should be on automobiles and swimming pools, which statistically are far more dangerous than firearms. Sadly, safety is not the point, it’s fear and an overt agenda of disarming the law abiding, while doing nothing to the criminal.
“Showing decreeing statistics only confirms the fact that accidents happen. Comparing them to other types of accidents says nothing to the fact that a gun accident CAN and DO occur.”
No one has disputed that accidents can and do occur. However, the fact that firearms accidents occur far less often than many other types of accidents is illustrative of just how rare this type of accident actually is, and how bizarre that on the rare occasion that it does occur that it’s so sensationalized.
Being able to determine, whether through inference by anecdotal experience, or by empirical evidence, the likelihood of a given type of accident is rather germane to both everyday life and public policy. I contend that ~600 accidental deaths per year in a population of 319+million is statistically insignificant (although personally to anyone close to those involved it would obviously not be).
Our media/news orgs publicize, sensationalize, and exaggerate many things… among the worst are their portrayals of most things firearms-related. Can you seriously look at at one type of accidental death, firearms, at ~600 per year, and then look at poisonings, at ~5000 per year, and argue that out of 300+million people that either one is actually significant, and therefore worthy of any level of concern beyond making sure to not drink stuff from a bottle with skulls and “DANGER” labels?
All,
Excellent replies all. Let me address each.
Note: to keep it straight, I am going to try to indent each level. Let’s see how well this works.
Og – It is my contention that it is the gun carrying crowd that is unnecessarily fearful.
Remind me again – who is it that has a phobia about an inanimate object?
They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response. See my posts way above.
1.2 MILLION violent crimes in 2012. How much *MORE* “common” do they need to be, before you deign to allow us the ability to defend ourselves?
It’s at the core of my arguments that the level of fear is not in line with the response.
Just because you THINK it to be so, doesn’t mean that is *IS* so. When you can guarantee that no criminal will ever beat, stab or shoot someone to death, or rape them, get back with us and we’ll discuss further.
It’s not the *odds*…it’s what is at *stake* if you’re wrong.
Others have pointed to statists on crime. Violent crime has been going down for a very long time.
It’s not gone yet.
TBR — It is my contention that it is the gun carrying crowd that is unnecessarily fearful. They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response.
The number of people who use a firearm to defend themselves each year — as others have pointed out and provided statistics thereto — far outstrips all of the other numbers that have been thrown around here for crime, accidents, etc. That seems rather compelling evidence that victimization is not at all uncommon and that firearms are a very common and successful means of responding to victimization.
The Department of Justice puts lifetime victimization rate for violent crime somewhere between 20 and 25 percent. That means at least one out of every five people in the US will be a victim of violent crime in their lifetime. We’re not talking about jaywalking or getting your house burgled while you’re on vacation. We’re talking about people trying to murder you, assault you, rape you, or use physical force to rob you. That doesn’t fit my definition of “uncommon.”
More than one million people per year are victims of violent crime in the United States. That’s almost twice as many as the number who die of cancer in a year.
So if carrying a gun would, say, double your chance to avoid cancer, would you do it?
“They are preparing for events that are not common enough for the response. See my posts way above. It’s at the core of my arguments that the level of fear is not in line with the response. Others have pointed to statists on crime. Violent crime has been going down for a very long time”
None of this has anything to do with the discussion at all. All I see above is “I don’t like this so you guys should stop”. Come back after you’ve led a successful crusade to rid the world of automobiles and swimming pools, items that claim far more lives than firearms. Then we’ll know you’re serious about safety, and not just anxious to disarm people because you fear armed people in your midst.
I am never, ever unarmed. I rarely carry a firearm. There is very little of which I am afraid.
Sane people who understand risk assessment will tell you that it is the vanishingly small risk for which you must be prepared. There is some risk each day in Chicago that you could encounter a rainstorm. If you aren’t prepared, you will be wet and miserable. There is some risk each day in the fall that you could go to work in the sunshine and come home with snow on the ground. If you don’t have an ice scraper in your car you will be inconvenienced. There is risk in the desert that you could encounter a rattler, be snakebit and die miles from help. The risk is vanishingly small, but only the ignorant go unprepared. There may be a vanishingly small risk of being set upon by people against whom you must use force. being prepared for that risk is not fear, it is intellect.
In my truck, I carry a backpack. In that backpack is a change of clothes. Some food. Some water. Some simple fishing equipment. Facilities to cook, should I need to. A weeks worth of the medicines I take. Tools, cash, some cold weather gear and a few personal items.
Does this mean I am afraid of being stranded somewhere? not even remotely. I am simply prepared. In the way more than a million miles I have driven in my career, I have never been stranded. because I am constantly prepared to be stranded, being stranded will never be a problem for me. No fear is involved.
I will be more verbose later, but just a quick reply to ToddG.
Tom,
“TBR, your insistence that Tam with a gun presents more of a risk to you than without is the same logic that she could use to say your anatomy presents a risk to her of rape.”
I had been studiously avoiding going there, but I’m glad someone else noticed that ball lying there, as it were, and picked it up and ran with it. 😉
By Tam on Sep 26, 2013
Tam is a threat with or without gun. True
Tam is also a potential ally against other threats with or without a gun. True
Tam is MORE of a threat with a gun True.
Tam is MORE EFFECTIVE AS AN ALLY AGAINST OTHER THREATS WITH A GUN. True.
conclusion: the state of tam relative to threats is exactly equal with or without a gun.
TRUE.
Argument that “tam is more of a threat with a gun” in and of itself: INVALID.
Tam is a deterrent to a crime being committed with or without a gun: not true.
Tam carrying a concealed weapon is a deterrent to a crime being committed. not true.
Tam carrying a weapon openly is a deterrent to a crime being committed. MIGHT BE TRUE.
Tam carrying a weapon openly or concealed will be able to respond to a threat situation equally effectively in both cases. PROBABLY TRUE.
If Tam is carrying openly and a crime is being committed and other unknown CCW weapons carriers draw weapons, TAM might mistake them for perpetrators or co conspirators of the crime. TRUE.
If tam is carrying openly and other persons are also carrying openly, Tam will be able to identify people carrying openly as carrying and will not mistake them for possible co conspirators if a crime is committed. PROBABLY TRUE.