Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
That is only what happened in that specific instance. That is what happens in a small percentage of instances.
|
We don't know how many instances it happens in. In the times it has happened to me no shots were fired so no police were called. An unreported defense. We only have figures for instances when it was reported. To support your statement tell us how many times has an armed citizen been present and stopped a robbery/rape/murder/mugging and how many times has one been present and it had no effect.
DGU (defensive gun use) numbers are interesting. Dr Gary Kleck, criminologist from Florida State University, estimates 2.5 million times per year in 1994, but when establishing a more strict criteria the number was reduced to 1.5 million. The Clinton White House did not like this and had the National Institute for Justice do their own study, National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF).
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
The NSPOF came up with 3.1 million people committing a DGU. They also go to great lengths to try to discredit the findings. The report also states, 'On the basis of National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data, one would conclude that defensive uses are rare indeed, about 108,000 per year.' The thing is that even if we use that 'RARE' number it is still over 10 times the number of fireamrs homicides (9,146 in 2009).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
There is no such thing as "this is what happens when..." unless you are willing to acknowledge what is more likely to happen in a majority of instances. There is a greater probability that an armed LAW ABIDING citizen will have the weapon taken or will be too (depending on the circumstances) afraid/cautious/apprehensive/wise to use the weapon in the first place.
|
That is pure speculation on your part. I showed you a video of an old guy shooting bad guys. I previously listed a number of high profile, primarily school, shootings stopped by armed intervention of concealed carry permit holders (Virginia, Austin, TX, Pearl, MS). Show me instances where an armed LAW ABIDING citizen has had his weapon taken away. I know of no instances that has ever happened. It has happened to law enforcement, but the job of an LEO is to go into harms way. The obligation of a concealed carry permit holder is to avoid confrontation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
It is similar to what happens in the average home invasion in which the law abiding home owner has an accessible weapon either hidden or in her/her hands.
|
Not similar at all. Whether you believe it or not few of us, LEO included, carry at home. My father use to leave his S&W mod 10 .38 Spc revolver in its holster on top of his dresser in the bedroom. It came off the belt when he came home and went back in place when he left the house. I am one of only two people that I know for a fact have a firearm within reach effectively 24/7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
There is a greater likelihood that the law abiding citizen cannot or chooses not to access the weapon OR the weapon is stolen by the motivated offender.
|
Weapons used by criminals are usually source to burglaries from people who fail to secure them properly. Home invasions are rare, as a burglaries of occupied dwellings, due to the chance of an armed incounter with the home owner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
That is one of the differences between a law abiding citizen (who are not law enforcement officers or military) and a motivated offender. I laugh when the average law abiding citizen boasts about having been to gun ranges and being about to "take" a motivated offender. That makes the law abiding citizen sound delirious or too anxious to shoot an actual person. The small percentage of gun owners who actually can access their gun and can effectively take down an offender aside, there is a greater probability the law abiding citizen is (1) full of crap and will do what most gun toting law abiding citizens would do if the time comes to shoot a person; (2) the law abiding citizen is too excited over the possibility and is therefore crossing the line into becoming a motivated offender her/himself; and/or (3) the law abiding citizen has a mental health condition that fuels the excitement over potentially shooting an offender.
|
I wouldn't laugh. I attended an Urban Combat Rifle course here a couple of years ago taught by John Farnum. Urban settings are, for me, the most likely scenario for a defensive encounter and although a pistol is usually the weapon that is available, when at home there are other options, the shotgun and rifle. In fact when I travelled extensively by car a rifle was with me much as the police carry a shotgun or patrol rifle in their cars. I was the second student to successfully complete the final course of fire, doing so on my first pass. I easily beat the firearms trainer for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol who was also taking the class. From the people that I know who carry on a regular basis, you would find them highly proficient. Many who have a permit only have one to carry 'when they feel like it' and are not willing to go through the trouble and make the sacrifices necessary to do so on a daily basis. They tend to be much less proficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
Law enforcement officers can have their guns taken from them or can opt out of using their guns for whatever reasons. Why can't people grasp this happening for other law abiding citizens, most of whom do not have extensive training?
|
They can and do, though training and equipment has reduced those occurrances. The downside to being a cop is that your job is to go into harms way, not avoid it. You also stick out like a sore thumb wearing the uniform, badge, and gun. The private citizen generally has the advantage because the gun is concealed and the bad guy doesn't know you have one. Can't take it if you don't know it is there. The concealed carry holder in Texas must also complete conflict resolution training as part of the Concealed Handgun License class. Another advantage that the private citizen generally has is much more lee way in shooting while LEO's have very strict rules of engagement and escalation of force that must be followed. A LEO is usually equiped and will resort to pepper spray and/or a TASER as well as physical restraint before introducing a firearm because their job is frequently to apprehend while the private citizen is generally just as authorized to use a firearm as they would pepper spray. If you are justified in squirting them with pepper spray you are usually justified in shooting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
Law enforcement officers can be cautious about having to shoot a person (especially for the first time) and traumatized after having to do so. Why can't people grasp this happening for other law abiding citizens, most of whom do not have extensive training?
|
It is traumatic. My trainers always told me that the second worse thing that can happen is shooting someone and taking a life. The worst thing was having them kill you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
People need to stop the silly pro-gun versus anti-gun as though this issue is that simple.
|
Agreed. You can't ban guns without a rewrite of the US Constitution and that isn't going to happen. The Supreme Court Ruled on it last year. The question of assault weapons was actually answered in the US v Miller (1939) Supreme Court case when they were discussing the 'militia'. If you don't know what the definition of 'militia' is, it has nothing to do with the National Guard that was formed by the Militia Act of 1903 while the US Constitution was written in 1787, read US Code Title 10 Section 311 which defines the types of militia. US v Miller (1939) states '...that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.' The M16A4 and M4 carbine is the standard issue rifle, or carbine, for the US Armed Forces today and the most popular firearm sold today is the MSR, Modern Sporting Rifle, which is a semiautomatic version of the M16 platform. Externally similar, but the internal fire control parts do not interchange and the receivers are different. There is much more to it. There are cultural issues. We are not has bad as most countries when it comes to murder, but worse than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
|
I read the article and found it amusing. He supports gun control, he worked in a city that has the strongest gun control in the country, he worked in the only state in the country that does not allow concealed carry, yet Chicago currently has the highest gun murder rate in the US.
1. Thank you for pointing out that gun control is not effective.
2. Thank you for pointing out that guns are not the problem.
Chicago doesn't have a gun problem, they have a people problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
If people are pro-gun access, that is fine as long as the proper training and precautions are required.
|
I don't know what you are suggesting, but I have no problem with it so long as it doesn't violate the 14th Amendment against equal protection and it survives a 'rights test' when applied to the other rights recognized in the US Constitution.
Hybrid Mode
