Weapons

[SeaCat]

I suppose what you consider to be a weapon. For me it also depends on the circumstances.

Most common for me is a small three inch lockback knife, a key ring, my wallet and my phone.

When I'm camping I carry the lockback knife or a Multi-tool. A sheath Knife, A camp axe or a machete. Depending on where I'm camping and my plans during the camping trip there may be added to this mix a Handgun, (either my Baretta 92fs or my Ruger Blackhawk.) A rifle or a shotgun.

My wife on the other hand carries Miltiary Grade Pepper Spray on her Key Ring.

Oh and both of us do have concealed carry permits and we do shoot a lot. I also have the training of several shooting schools, years of competition and several years of having to carry for my job.

I haven't needed to nor felt the need to carry for several years although I do keep the liscence up to date.

Cat

 

[cantdog]

Very true.

I don't think there's anything wrong in itself to carry a weapon. It is, when push comes to shove, one more option to defend oneself with. The problem with it is the false sense of security that it tends to bring. "If I get attacked, I'll just whip out my blade/shooter/nunchucks, and everything will be fine."

I often hear stuff like "Oh, but I know how to use my gun, I go to the range every saturday and squeeze out a couple." Sure you know. On a range. In a fear-free situation. The only way to know if you're good at handling a weapon, whichever it is, is if you're forced to use it.

Unless you have the ability to keep your head on straight in a life-or-death crisis situation, you could be carrying gherkin blades, kalashnikovs, thermo-nuclear missiles and vials of small-pox, and you'll still lose.

I was a fireman for twenty years, on the ambulance (as the man in charge of the patient) for nearly ten. I believe that training is the factor most determinative of the way the mind will lean under stress.

I have seen some really horrendous things, frankly. And I handled them, usually with pretty good aplomb. The ones that hit me hard affected my behavior and my dreams and so on later. Weeks later. Once, there was a young woman who died alone, having gone off the road into a declivity which was low-lying enough so that her car was hidden from view, from the road. I had repercussions from that one for better than a year, but I handled it at the time.

You mean Gurkha blades, not Gherkin blades, by the way..

ahem

But even trained people's accuracy goes 'way down in a genuine emergency. That's why cops are trained to fire at the center of mass, and not even worry about subtleties. Time after time, even the best marksmen, in practices, shoot only vaguely in the correct direction, when their real test comes and it counts, and cop training reflects this fact.

Training just with a weapon, on a range, has to be very frequent to have much impact on performance in emergencies. More useful is experience in critical situations, whether they involve a weapon or not.

Unless your training and experience have already led you to know that you can stay centered and functional under real critical pressure, you need so much martial training that you've built unthinking reflexes. if you do the training so often that you react accurately without having to think about it, then fine. Otherwise, there's no substitute for the experience and training in real critical conditions.

Let's face it, gang. Most of us are not at this level. And Mckenna, as she often is, is quite right. People with a pistol strapped to their ankle are cocky in a threat scenario when they ought to have been fading.

 

[Lisa Denton]

The rhetoric and reality of an "armed" citizenship are very different.

I agree 100 percent.

Some armed honest law-abiding citizens are deadly stupid, but they might kill you with thier car as quick as with a knife or gun. Some are also capable and able to defend themselves or others in a deadly situation.

Its the same as:

"The rhetoric and reality of an "armed" CRIMINAL are very different."

Is he a jaywalker with a pocketknife? An ax-murderer with ... I dunno ... maybe an ax? A rapist? A rapist/murderer? A serial rapist/murderer? A serial rapist/murderer with a machete and a bad attitude?

I have a concealed carry permit and often exercise my right to live and breathe as I travel about working, shopping, running errands, by carrying a gun. I don't carry a knife because I don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight.

I don't disagree with peoples who say they don't believe in guns, though I hope they don't say that to the criminal who points a gun at them .... unless he intends to kill them anyway at which point it does't really matter how they feel anyway.

Guns don't kill people, but often criminals with guns do.

AS ALWAYS, JMO.

 

[JagFarlane]

Let's face it, gang. Most of us are not at this level. And Mckenna, as she often is, is quite right. People with a pistol strapped to their ankle are cocky in a threat scenario when they ought to have been fading.

Actually a lot of CCW people I've met, at the least try to endorse this upon people wanting to carry: "A weapon is the absolute last resort, when you don't have a means to escape".

I am a firearms owner, but I don't carry, don't have reason to. Though, I have once or twice wanted to, when deep in the woods and I see something, not quite on the level. Not so much to intervene but to ensure I come out alive.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Let's distinguish between deadly and non-deadly weapons. Zade, darling, aside from your deadly wit the self-defense tools are of the latter variety.

I have considered getting a concealed pistol permit just so I could carry one in my glove compartment. No, GGs, not to vent my rage at the occasional rude driver or after a minor fender bender, but just for general prudence, because you never know what kind of f'ing maniacs and predators are lurking out there, and the only thing I'd hate to do more than shoot someone is have someone do something to me for which they should be shot. But I'd have to undergo an intrusive background check and take a pain-in-butt training course so I've never bothered.

I don't get the concealed weapon permit thing.

If you don't have one, does that mean you have to keep your gun visible at all times when you're walking around the streets? Like if you forgot yourself and put it in your handbag, could you be arrested?

 

[rgraham666]

Let's distinguish between deadly and non-deadly weapons. Zade, darling, aside from your deadly wit the self-defense tools are of the latter variety.

I have considered getting a concealed pistol permit just so I could carry one in my glove compartment. No, GGs, not to vent my rage at the occasional rude driver or after a minor fender bender, but just for general prudence, because you never know what kind of f'ing maniacs and predators are lurking out there, and the only thing I'd hate to do more than shoot someone is have someone do something to me for which they should be shot. But I'd have to undergo an intrusive background check and take a pain-in-butt training course so I've never bothered.

Gun control works!

 

[snap1415]

I don't get the concealed weapon permit thing.

If you don't have one, does that mean you have to keep your gun visible at all times when you're walking around the streets? Like if you forgot yourself and put it in your handbag, could you be arrested?

States generally deal separately with open carry and concealed carry.

Here in Texas, open carry is not legal. If you have a CHL license, concealed carry is legal.

 

[Liar]

You mean Gurkha blades, not Gherkin blades, by the way..

No, I mean blades to cut gherkins with, of course.

(Saw what I wrote this morning, but decided to leave it in for dadaist humor, or something like that.)

 

[Liar]

I have a concealed carry permit and often exercise my right to live and breathe as I travel about working, shopping, running errands, by carrying a gun. I don't carry a knife because I don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight.

I don't disagree with peoples who say they don't believe in guns, though I hope they don't say that to the criminal who points a gun at them .... unless he intends to kill them anyway at which point it does't really matter how they feel anyway.

I think you missed the point. Or at least you didn't quite adress it.

First of all, let's not confuse things. You exercise your right to live and breathe, by living and breathing. You exercise your right to carry a weapon, by carrying a weapon. And that's that.

Like I said, I don't oppose your right to carry a gun. But what Intercontinental and I pointed at was something else, namely that just because you carry a gun, and know how to aim and hit somethnig with it, doesn't mean that it's nessecary a useful tool for you to defend yourself with against said rapist/murderer.

The question is not whether you carry a weapon or not, but wether you can use it correctly when the hoodlum is rushing at you and you have adrenaline spurting out your ears. Or if you know when other means of defense are more effective.

Unless you've been forced to use a gun, you have no idea whether or not you can actually use one, or if it just feels safe to have one in your purse.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Gun control works!

Yes, it keeps my AR-15 in the closet, ready for the next phase of the war on terror - the conquest and harsh occupation of Canada. (Won't do a damned thing about Islamo-fascism but we'll feel better.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't get the concealed weapon permit thing.

If you don't have one, does that mean you have to keep your gun visible at all times when you're walking around the streets? Like if you forgot yourself and put it in your handbag, could you be arrested?

In many state open carry is technically legal, but I'm told that it generally results in being arrested for disturbing the peace. Apparently not everyone is satisfied with that state of affairs:

Detroit Free Press, 7/25/08
Gun owners show their metal
About 40 stroll for 2nd Amendment
HASTINGS -- Most of us probably don't know it, but Michigan is among the 44 states where it's legal to carry a gun in public without a permit.

To make that point, about 40 gun advocates walked out of Richie's Koffee Shop Inc. late Thursday afternoon with handguns holstered at their sides, part of a small but growing national movement to stand up for the constitutional right to bear arms. They strolled down this tidy west Michigan town's main street, barely causing a stir among passing motorists and pedestrians.

When they finished, the group -- mostly white men -- gathered around a fountain at the Barry County Courthouse and heard a red-meat, pro-Second Amendment speech by organizer Skip Coryell, 50, who wore his .40 caliber semi-automatic handgun openly for the first time and extolled the virtues of carrying a weapon.

"Look at all the people around you carrying guns and not a criminal in sight," said Coryell, a gun instructor and self-styled publisher who lives near Holland. "Quite frankly, I don't feel criminals would feel comfortable among us right now." He said educating people about their right to carry guns openly is the "next wave of the Second Amendment."

The event, tinged with local gun politics, was the latest statement from gun advocates around the country to promote and defend the open toting of handguns.

Earlier this summer, a small group caused a minor stir when they showed up to picnic at a park near Flint wearing holsters on their hips. On Sunday, 10 people made headlines in Boise, Idaho, when they carried handguns into the local zoo.

Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign, the largest U.S. gun control organization, said he doesn't dispute the legal right to carry weapons openly but thinks those who demonstrate for such rights are pushy and aggressive.

"Their No. 1 mission seems to be making other people nervous," he said. "That's a little childish. Of all the issues that need volunteerism in this country, in Michigan, in Detroit, you'd think people would find a more useful way to use their volunteer hours than walking around showing they have a gun."

Organizers said they were defying Hastings Police Chief Jerry Sarver, whom they say wants to stifle their gun rights.

Sarver, who's running for Barry County sheriff, denies that he wants to step on anyone's rights and acknowledged that Michigan law allows people to carry their handguns in a holster.

"We're not going to interfere with them," Sarver said before the rally. "I think that's what they want."

The event was heavily promoted on the Web site OpenCarry.org, the premier place on the Internet for those who like their pistols at their side. Web site cofounder Mike Stollenwerk, a retired Army officer, said he and partner John Pierce started the site in 2004 out of a mutual interest in U.S. gun laws.

"It's a couple of geeky guys who put together some maps and a database, and it became a movement," Stollenwerk said.

Stollenwerk said the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that assured the right of individuals to own and carry guns stoked some interest in the open-carry movement, but he added that it's been growing on its own.

His Web site has more than 8,500 registered members and has been attracting 600,000 visitors a month, he said.

The Hastings event was posted, and this week Stollenwerk issued a news release about it that suggested a looming confrontation in the streets. It didn't happen.

Heather Reed, 37, of Middleville, an unemployed animal-control officer, was among about a half dozen women who participated in Thursday's event.

"I enjoy the freedom of the Second Amendment and I want to make a point that women ought to be able to defend themselves," said Reed, who packed an inoperable two-shot black powder antique derringer she had borrowed. "Right now I can't afford the .38 I want."

 

[Liar]

"Look at all the people around you carrying guns and not a criminal in sight," said Coryell

How the hell did he know that?

 

[Equinoxe]

The Bad Guys rarely challemge you to a fair fight, and if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time you are likely to be incapacitated before you can reach for "our friend".

This is the central issue to me and the reality of personal defence. If you are physically attacked, you are unlikely to even draw a weapon before things go awry. Soldiers get into gun fights: ordinary people get shot.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

How the hell did he know that?

One of our grammar-hawks can give the precise formulation, but I think he's using a future tense, second conditional, as in, "If an individual acted in a violently criminal manner in this group, then he would get his ass blown away by 39 well-armed non-criminals."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This is the central issue to me and the reality of personal defence. If you are physically attacked, you are unlikely to even draw a weapon before things go awry. Soldiers get into gun fights: ordinary people get shot.

Except that very frequently armed citizens do prevent crimes, and not infrequently criminals do get shot in the process.

I believe that in the U.S. most gun deaths are suicides, and the vast majority of the remainder are what might be loosely termed "business disputes," or at least disagreements between members of competing "associations." A relatively small number are crimes of passion, and a tiny, tiny remainder are the thing that everyone actually fears, which is victimization of innocent citizens by armed criminals. Needless to say armed citizens have no effect in reducing the numbers in the predominant categories, the first two.

 

[Liar]

Except that very frequently armed citizens do prevent crimes, and not infrequently criminals do get shot in the process.

I believe that in the U.S. most gun deaths are suicides, and the vast majority of the remainder are what might be loosely termed "business disputes," or at least disagreements between members of competing "associations." A relatively small number are crimes of passion, and a tiny, tiny remainder are the thing that everyone actually fears, which is victimization of innocent citizens by armed criminals. Needless to say armed citizens have no effect in reducing the numbers in the predominant categories, the first two.

I'm fairly sure that there must be some reliable citation to either agree or disagree with this.

Or reliable-ish. It would, after all, be statistics.

 

[Equinoxe]

Except that very frequently armed citizens do prevent crimes, and not infrequently criminals do get shot in the process.

Do you have a source on this?

I'm fairly sure that there must be some reliable citation to either agree or disagree with this.

Or reliable-ish. It would, after all, be statistics.

That part is definitely true, although as a percentage of overall gun-related deaths, suicides are much lower in the United States than in most other first world countries.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"About 18,000 out of 31,000 people who commit suicide in the U.S. every year do so by gun." http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2000/09.28/firearms.html

Suicide 57 percent of gun deaths in 1991. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/frmdth.htm

The first cite includes the surprising info that there are not real good stats on characteristics of shooting deaths along the lines I described: "Business" and "associational" shootings, crimes of passion, innocent victims of shooting associated with another "predicate" crime like armed robbery. Of course those involved in the first category aren't the most forthcoming witnesses.

BTW, I do vaguely remember seeing some stats supporting my previous statement, but perhaps it just jives with decades of following the daily news: Most shooting death reports suggest gang or drug activity. A few are crimes of passion, or involve, er, highly dysfunctional relationships. Very few are "masked gunman shoots convenience store clerk," and even fewer are "mugger shoots pedestrian in robbery attempt gone bad."

 

[cantdog]

Do you have a source on this?



That part is definitely true, although as a percentage of overall gun-related deaths, suicides are much lower in the United States than in most other first world countries.

Cromwell in Ireland. I think the second amendment has ponderable historical roots. It has to do with governments, not criminals, and so the criminal arguments are by the way. The way the second amendment has played out, though, is sometimes a bit nightmarish.

The drive-bys and so on, that's due to prohibitions and is even less relevant.

 

[Guest]

More current data would be useful, I think:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

You'll have to do your own searches to confirm these numbers--it doesn't appear possible to link to the results pages.

According to the CDC, in 2005 there were 12,352 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. In the same year, there were 17,002 suicides by firearms. And, there were 789 unintentional deaths by firearms. There are other firearms-related fatalities where the intent is classified as unknown.

That gives a total of 30,694 fatalities out of an estimated total population of 296,507,061.

In the same year, there were 15,635 non-firearm suicides.

 

[rgraham666]

When someone says 'every one should have guns' I always think of the fun I could have on a crowded street with a string of firecrackers.

 

[colddiesel]

Comparative Stats.

Between 1979 and 2002 in Australia guns were used for:-

1 10,383 suicides (77% of all gunshot deaths)

2 2007 homicides (15% of all gunshot deaths) compares with 40% for US quoted above

The number of gunshot homicides fell from 383 per annum in 1996 to 217 per annum in 2002 a drop of 40%.

In the 13 years prior to 1996 there were 10 occasions where a single gunman had killed more than 3 people ( maximum 35 at Port Arthur in 1996). In 1996 the government banned all semi and automatic rifles and most automatic shotguns. There has been no occasion since where 3 or more people have been killed at one time.

The population of Australia is just 20 million a few more than New York State and a few less than Texas.

Source Kreisfeld Flinders University

 

[cantdog]

More current data would be useful, I think:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

You'll have to do your own searches to confirm these numbers--it doesn't appear possible to link to the results pages.

According to the CDC, in 2005 there were 12,352 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. In the same year, there were 17,002 suicides by firearms. And, there were 789 unintentional deaths by firearms. There are other firearms-related fatalities where the intent is classified as unknown.

That gives a total of 30,694 fatalities out of an estimated total population of 296,507,061.

In the same year, there were 15,635 non-firearm suicides.

Suicide strategies. I can only vaguely imagine a situation where suicide would be a good option (barring a torture prison, but there, I daresay they foreclose the option if they can). I have too big an opinion of myself, and life is such a gas. But once you make the decision, surely the swift bullet has an appeal, unless you hate yourself enough to wish to die in lingering pain?

I know that many thousands of failed suicides pass through emergency facilities. People shoot off their jaws or noses, meaning to hit the brain. I took a man who'd shot himself in the heart, but he located it by the place one puts a hand, pledging allegiance in third grade. Got his lung, scared his girlfriend badly (they were in bed and she was sleeping), but he had to go on living.

The trouble with peaceful death by deliberate overdose is, people intervene when they find you doggo, and you can't prevent what follows.

Availability of firearms is pretty much going to skew stats on suicides, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Folks in jail largely can't shoot themselves to death, for example.

If anyone finds it important, I suppose gun death stats have to be adjusted for the suicidal uses. But the debate really doesn't hinge on facts, much, and I am not certain that it ought to. The question is, what priority ought such an idea as the right of people to resist armed force to have? And I think the context of the question ought to be what sort of society you want to live in.

You need common sense, in the Latin sense of communis. The society you inhabit is affected by such decisions. You cannot know, regardless of the stats or any other factual indices, what one decision or another will do to the whole society. People are not knowable in such a way.

Therefore you need, frankly, to guess. Public debate, like the operation of a jury, must embrace the idea that one is never to be really certain. Reason deals only in certainties; its honest logic will show you that, in fact, you cannot know. Reason will fail in such a case, and therefore, as in all cases where justice is the goal, common sense must take the lead.

Doubt is the starting point. Reason is of limited use, but bring it in where it helps. Memory-- history or experience-- will be more good than reason, I imagine. And common sense, the apperception of probabilities with regard to the desired goal of a just and livable society, must be the guide to judgment.

That being the case, ideological Truths, one way or another, aren't very useful. Remember how many unintended consequences have happened, when changes in the law were made, and made by experts armed with Truths.

It can be a good debate, and given the nightmare aspects, it may be one we need to have. But let's exclude Truths.

 

[rgraham666]

You've been reading John Ralston Saul again, haven't you?

 

[cantdog]

I have.