Worst Mass Shooting in U.S. History

[periopdoc]

I got jaws of lifed out of a car in college and I still don't always wear my seatbelt. Till my car or fiance yells at me

Both of my parents and my grandmother were shot and killed during my final year of residency. Dad and Mom were well-respected professionals and Mom was an amazing chef. Mimi was pleasantly pre-demented and loved Bill O'Reilly.

Now, I carry almost every day, and I advocate that others do the same.

My sister hates guns and won't touch them, but she firmly believes every American has the right to choose whether to be armed or not.

When I argue statistics, they aren't just numbers to me, they have names and faces attached to them.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Great video, if a person is able to defend himself or others (safely), I'm all for it but there is always a risk to innocent bystanders. I just don't have enough faith in the average citizen to make the right judgement call on my behalf. Although law enforcement can (and often at times) make mistakes, I at least know for sure they had some type of vetting process and training with a deadly weapon.

Chances are this would have just been a robbery but once you introduce guns in the equation, the stakes rise and someone could end up dead (not always the suspect). I undestand the "intent" but one bad decision can change a person's life forever. I've been robbed before at gun point and it's something I will never ever forget, but if I had a gun on me, I may not even be alive today (there were multiple robbers with guns).

I'm not against having guns, but I am against the idea of vigilantes taking action in public places. As Twiggidy stated above, I would also be a "target" as a suspect first because of my ethnicity and if I own a gun, I would likely end up dead due to bad judgement from a "good guy with a gun."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cidentally-hit-victim-head-fleeing-scene.html

http://deadstate.org/combat-veteran...d-guy-with-a-gun-is-based-on-a-fantasy-world/

 

[deleted480308]

Great video, if a person is able to defend himself or others (safely), I'm all for it but there is always a risk to innocent bystanders. I just don't have enough faith in the average citizen to make the right judgement call on my behalf. Although law enforcement can (and often at times) make mistakes, I at least know for sure they had some type of vetting process and training with a deadly weapon.

Chances are this would have just been a robbery but once you introduce guns in the equation, the stakes rise and someone could end up dead (not always the suspect). I undestand the "intent" but one bad decision can change a person's life forever. I've been robbed before at gun point and it's something I will never ever forget, but if I had a gun on me, I may not even be alive today (there were multiple robbers with guns).

I'm not against having guns, but I am against the idea of vigilantes taking action in public places. As Twiggidy stated above, I would also be a "target" as a suspect first because of my ethnicity and if I own a gun, I would likely end up dead due to bad judgement from a "good guy with a gun."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cidentally-hit-victim-head-fleeing-scene.html

http://deadstate.org/combat-veteran...d-guy-with-a-gun-is-based-on-a-fantasy-world/

"vigilante" clearly has an implication of hunting down criminals on your own....that is a far cry from being able to physically resist a criminal who is bringing their violence to your immediate location

 

[RadOncDoc21]

"vigilante" clearly has an implication of hunting down criminals on your own....that is a far cry from being able to physically resist a criminal who is bringing their violence to your immediate location

Vigilante (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vigilante)

noun
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures:

British Dictionary definitions for vigilante
noun
1. one of an organized group of citizens who take upon themselves the protection of their district, properties, etc
2. (US) Also called vigilance man. a member of a vigilance committee

I believe their definitions fits the description I stated.

 

[deleted480308]

Vigilante (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vigilante)

noun
1. a member of a vigilance committee.
2. any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
adjective
3. done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures:

British Dictionary definitions for vigilante
noun
1. one of an organized group of citizens who take upon themselves the protection of their district, properties, etc
2. (US) Also called vigilance man. a member of a vigilance committee

I believe their definitions fits the description I stated.

I wouldn't call someone stopping an active shooting or robbery "avenging a crime"..... I'm not sure how you can advocate world in which all people just lie down and take whatever an aggressor wants to do to them

 

[Seattle Mariners Fan]

Get used to govt. violating your rights as per SCOTUS the Constitution is a living, breathing document open to interpretation.

This is my concern. The 2nd and especially 4th amendments have pretty much been...canceled. I'm all for greater gun control - indeed I do not oppose a ban on handguns in practice - but you need a constitutional amendment to do so.

This business of an unlimited expansion of government power in response to emotionally charged (hyperbolized, thanks to Fox News) events is why we have the highest incarceration rates in the world, why government controls a third of economic activity and mandates another third of it, why the government can read your emails at their pleasure. Moreover, this has mostly occurred since the 1960s, and for this much expansion of power to have occurred in a single generation is terrifying.

 

[Seattle Mariners Fan]

A handgun is one thing, but an all out guerilla war militia army is a little extreme in my opinion.

The 2nd amendment was intended, in part, as a check and balance against the expansion of government power.

Several political philosophers - Jefferson and Rosseau - thought regular revolutions were socially beneficial. Bluntly if government expansion of power - power clearly being used corruptly - continues at its current shocking rate, I'm not too sure that revolution won't be necessary to preserve basic expressive and identity freedoms.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I wouldn't call someone stopping an active shooting or robbery "avenging a crime"..... I'm not sure how you can advocate world in which all people just lie down and take whatever an aggressor wants to do to them

Where did I say I would allow an aggressor to do whatever they want? I would hope you wouldn't pull your gun out when there are 3 guns pointed at your head.

If so, then do whatever you want to do, but make sure that there is nobody near you after you decide to be a hero.

 

[fancymylotus]

Both of my parents and my grandmother were shot and killed during my final year of residency. Dad and Mom were well-respected professionals and Mom was an amazing chef. Mimi was pleasantly pre-demented and loved Bill O'Reilly.

Now, I carry almost every day, and I advocate that others do the same.

My sister hates guns and won't touch them, but she firmly believes every American has the right to choose whether to be armed or not.

When I argue statistics, they aren't just numbers to me, they have names and faces attached to them.

I am sorry for your loss


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[RadOncDoc21]

The 2nd amendment was intended, in part, as a check and balance against the expansion of government power.

Several political philosophers - Jefferson and Rosseau - thought regular revolutions were socially beneficial. Bluntly if government expansion of power - power clearly being used corruptly - continues at its current shocking rate, I'm not too sure that revolution won't be necessary to preserve basic expressive and identity freedoms.

I'm sure I wouldn't be a part of that revolution if it was to occur. If anything, I would side with the government. So far I'm not impressed with the anti-govt establishment groups I came across on this forum.

 

[deleted480308]

I'm not against having guns, but I am against the idea of vigilantes taking action in public places.

Where did I say I would allow an aggressor to do whatever they want? .

do you see my confusion? you say you are against people using their firearms for defense in public settings and then seem shocked when someone asks why you want them to let an aggressor do whatever they want

 

[RadOncDoc21]

do you see my confusion? you say you are against people using their firearms for defense in public settings and then seem shocked when someone asks why you want them to let an aggressor do whatever they want

Sorry for the confusion so let me see if I can clarify my view some: If an "aggressor" is committing a crime (in public), sometimes it is better to "let an aggressor do whatever they want." If that involves taking your lollipop then yes it's okay, no need to use guns. If the aggressor is shooting people in the face, then "take him out." It all depends on the situation but going after somebody just because he's bad is not justification to use a gun.

Why does everything have to be all or none?

 

[deleted480308]

Sorry for the confusion so let me see if I can clarify my view some: If an "aggressor" is committing a crime (in public), sometimes it is better to "let an aggressor do whatever they want." If that involves taking your lollipop then yes it's okay, no need to use guns. If the aggressor is shooting people in the face, then "take him out." It all depends on the situation but going after somebody just because he's bad is not justification to use a gun.

Why does everything have to be all or none?

You replied to a video in which two thieves were waving a gun in people's faces...to then say that you are against "vigilantes" taking action in public places. It seems kind of "all or nothing" if you want citizens to let criminals threaten people with guns and not resist. Am I missing something? It seems like you wanted that man to wait to fight back until the criminals had actually shot a few people in the face

 

[RadOncDoc21]

You replied to a video in which two thieves were waving a gun in people's faces...to then say that you are against "vigilantes" taking action in public places. It seems kind of "all or nothing" if you want citizens to let criminals threaten people with guns and not resist. Am I missing something? It seems like you wanted that man to wait to fight back until the criminals had actually shot a few people in the face

Ok, yes you got me! I wanted all those people to get shot in the face because that is how ALL robberies end.

 

[deleted480308]

Ok, yes you got me! I wanted all those people to get shot in the face because that is how ALL robberies end.

So, you support that man's right to fire at the thieves?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

But because the right we're talking about is protected by the 2nd Amendment, you think it's OK if the government arbitrarily excludes everyone who isn't rich.

I think this has kind of been covered, but ok! I support the second amendment, and I'm happy to report that many, seriously, MANY, poor people own guns!
I DO think certain weapons are too dangerous to be readily available, such as RPGs, grenades, machine guns, etc... Yeah, the line's a little arbitrary but I don't think we should have a lot of those out there.

Why don't you care about the rights of the poor? Are you really so blinded by your desire to regulate and ban guns, that you accept this?

I absolutely care about the rights of the poor! I think it's terrible how a rich country like the US skews so heavily in favor of the rich... It's NOT good.
Also, I think their right to life is actually pretty far up there too, and gun deaths are far more common in poor communities.

Also as a doctor in a wealthy country, I think affordable and good medical care should be available to the poor.

I wish we would argue as emphatically for them to get a checkup as we do got them to get a fully automatic weapon. That seems like it would benefit their communities even more than having lots more Uzis and AKs on the streets. But admittedly that is a little arbitrary because I don't have great data to back it up.

So, if the government put a $20,000 surcharge on the purchase of permits to hold public gatherings, and poor people weren't able to exercise their free speech rights to the same extent as rich people, you'd be OK with that as long as the government didn't spell out its "intent" to exclude poor people?

Oh man, no! That sounds like a terrible idea! Why would they do that?

Or if the government ruled that only 1,000 churches could be open at any one time in the US, and only rich communities could afford to have them, that'd be OK?

Jeez-oh-Pete! That would be BAD... I don't think they would do that. Plus, why would they?

What if the military decided to quit spending money on housing, and just decreed that a squad of Marines would be housed in any home they chose? But the homeowner could pay a tax of $10,000 to avoid quartering troops? Would Pooh & Annie say, oh well, too bad for poor people?

Oh god no! We already fought a war partially over that, and rightly so! You think they would do that?

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Both of my parents and my grandmother were shot and killed during my final year of residency. Dad and Mom were well-respected professionals and Mom was an amazing chef. Mimi was pleasantly pre-demented and loved Bill O'Reilly.

Now, I carry almost every day, and I advocate that others do the same.

My sister hates guns and won't touch them, but she firmly believes every American has the right to choose whether to be armed or not.

When I argue statistics, they aren't just numbers to me, they have names and faces attached to them.

There is no way to even IMAGINE what you've gone through.

It is a SERIOUS testament to your strength as a person how well you've done for yourself and your family after something like this. You are a VERY impressive person, pod... And that's not lip service- most people would not be functioning after something like that.

Also, you're a living testament to how well they did their jobs as parents and grandparents.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

So, you support that man's right to fire at the thieves?

I support his right for a firearm but believe he was fortunate since it worked out. One could argue "IF" something bad was to happen, for example a baby gets shot, then one could argue that he escalated the situation from what would have been just a simple robbery (Yes, I'm assuming most robberies don't end up being murders).

I still wouldn't actively prosecute him in court (IF something happened) but those are the situations I'm worried about. I admit that it is very hard to determine who would kill, but that is why we have intensive law enforcement training and why cops do not fire (or not suppose to fire) immediately.

 

[deleted480308]

I support his right for a firearm in that situation but believe he was fortunate in this situation since it worked out. One could argue "IF" something bad was to happen for example an innocent baby being shot, then one could argue that he escalated the situation from a simple robbery.

I still wouldn't actively prosecute him in court (IF something happened) but those are the situations I'm worried about. I admit it is very hard to determine who will kill, but that is why we have intensive law enforcement training.

LEO training is to assume anyone brandishing a weapon is willing to use it

 

[deleted162650]

The only reason why i "season" the conversation with a dab of race is by the fact that if I (a black man) kills a person defending my home I'll have to argue self defense a lot harder then a white man. Just they way America works. Just ask George Zimmerman. Just ask Marissa Alexander. That's why I take my chances with not owning firearms. The consequences of using it aren't always fair. It's tough to argue that.

Twig, that line of reasoning seems waaaaaay outta wack to me. So you'd rather be the victim of a home invasion in which you or your family may get injured/killed than "risk" having to defend your actions of self defense because you're worried they won't believe you simply because you're black??

I'd much rather have the ability to defend myself/family in the time of need and worry about the aftermath later than be defenseless just so I didn't have to explain myself.

 

[doctalaughs]

LEO training is to assume anyone brandishing a weapon is willing to use it

I have no problem with what that guy did and what happened to those criminals.

The main problem is that for every one instance like that, there are probably 50 instances of gun owners who left their firearms unsecured causing an accident, or gun owners who commit crimes themselves with their weapons, or suicides.

I wish everyone who owned a gun was not stupid, or mentally ill, or impulse-control challenged, or poorly-trained or prone to crime but both you and I know thats not true. I don't want to restrict gun rights on lawful, responsible level-headed citizens but there is no 100% effective way to reduce the number of guns "bad" people get without placing some burden on "good" people. I dont think "good" people should resist a little hassle, paperwork, vetting or training for that sort of effort.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[Seattle Mariners Fan]

I'm sure I wouldn't be a part of that revolution if it was to occur. If anything, I would side with the government. So far I'm not impressed with the anti-govt establishment groups I came across on this forum.

I'm curious - do you consider the United States a free country?

It is not. Incarceration rates are the highest in the world - mostly for recreational drug related offenses - the government controls probably 70% of economic activity, and the government has decided it doesn't need to obey either the 2nd or 4th amendments.

I appreciate the zeitgeist is overwhelming leaning towards the need to "feel safe" over liberty, but we are moving towards Orwell at an increasing rate.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I'm curious - do you consider the United States a free country?

It is not. Incarceration rates are the highest in the world - mostly for recreational drug related offenses - the government controls probably 70% of economic activity, and the government has decided it doesn't need to obey either the 2nd or 4th amendments.

I appreciate the zeitgeist is overwhelming leaning towards the need to "feel safe" over liberty, but we are moving towards Orwell at an increasing rate.

Considering the last time part of the country attempted to break away from the union, along with the current racial/political divide going on now.. I think I would still choose government. Now depending on the results of the election, I may start exercising my right for bear arms just in case I get deported!

 

[deleted480308]

I have no problem with what that guy did and what happened to those criminals.

The main problem is that for every one instance like that, there are probably 50 instances of gun owners who left their firearms unsecured causing an accident, or gun owners who commit crimes themselves with their weapons, or suicides.

I wish everyone who owned a gun was not stupid, or mentally ill, or impulse-control challenged, or poorly-trained or prone to crime but both you and I know thats not true. I don't want to restrict gun rights on lawful, responsible level-headed citizens but there is no 100% effective way to reduce the number of guns "bad" people get without placing some burden on "good" people. I dont think "good" people should resist a little hassle, paperwork, vetting or training for that sort of effort.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

You are making things up...

And the law abiding should absolutely oppose any restrictions on their freedom....

 

[doctalaughs]

You are making things up...

And the law abiding should absolutely oppose any restrictions on their freedom....

Not really: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

I'm open minded though- please link a large N study that show the number of self-defense use of a firearm is way higher than used in accidents.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[deleted480308]

Not really: "For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/9715182/

I'm open minded though- please link a large N study that show the number of self-defense use of a firearm is way higher than used in accidents.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

you claimed that for every defensive shooting there were 50 instances of an improperly stored gun causing an injury......do you have a study for that or are you ready to admit you made it up?

I'll point out that there are a number of issues with these types of studies...they attempt to say the presence of a gun in my home has a certain risk but then attempt to use statistics that include drugs/gangs/illegal activity. That's not my cohort and it's not the cohort of the majority of the country but they skew the stats. These studies also don't count for every crime prevented without having to actually fire the gun. I've personally ended a theft that was heading toward me being assaulted by reaching for my pistol.

 

[doctalaughs]

you claimed that for every defensive shooting there were 50 instances of an improperly stored gun causing an injury......do you have a study for that or are you ready to admit you made it up?

I'll point out that there are a number of issues with these types of studies...they attempt to say the presence of a gun in my home has a certain risk but then attempt to use statistics that include drugs/gangs/illegal activity. That's not my cohort and it's not the cohort of the majority of the country but they skew the stats. These studies also don't count for every crime prevented without having to actually fire the gun. I've personally ended a theft that was heading toward me being assaulted by reaching for my pistol.

If you read my prior post actually I said 50 accidents OR crimes OR suicides so I didn't make it up.

Every study has issues and the one I cited isn't perfect. Maybe there are a ton of crimes prevented without firing a shot by carrying (though I would think there would be police reports to study this). Maybe there are a ton more accidents than reported in that study. We don't know without evidence.

If your stance is that you are willing to have 4 gun accidents for every defensive action with a gun (totally putting the suicide and assault piece aside) then fine I can respect that. If not, present your study to show this is erroneous.

You are probably well aware as a physician that people do many incredibly stupid and irresponsible things. I don't know why you'd assume all (or even most) gun owners are as careful and responsible as you without evidence for it.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[deleted480308]

If you read my prior post actually I said 50 accidents OR crimes OR suicides so I didn't make it up.

Every study has issues and the one I cited isn't perfect. Maybe there are a ton of crimes prevented without firing a shot by carrying (though I would think there would be police reports to study this). Maybe there are a ton more accidents than reported in that study. We don't know without evidence.

If your stance is that you are willing to have 4 gun accidents for every defensive action with a gun (totally putting the suicide and assault piece aside) then fine I can respect that. If not, present your study to show this is erroneous.

You are probably well aware as a physician that people do many incredibly stupid and irresponsible things. I don't know why you'd assume all (or even most) gun owners are as careful and responsible as you without evidence for it.



Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Your study...which doesn't separate from legal gun owners and criminals....shows that for every time a gun is fired it's 22 times more likely to be used for crime/accidentally/suicide. You claimed 50.

I don't remotely assume all gun owners are responsible. A lot of gun owners are drug dealers and gang members...some are well meaning but stupid. What I am opposing is the ridiculous concept that it's ok to impede on the rights of a law abiding citizen because someone else misuses a gun.

 

[pgg]

Oh man, no! That sounds like a terrible idea! Why would they do that?


Jeez-oh-Pete! That would be BAD... I don't think they would do that. Plus, why would they?


Oh god no! We already fought a war partially over that, and rightly so! You think they would do that?

I thought I wasn't being subtle, but the point of those examples was to illustrate how totally unacceptable it would be for the government to price free asembly, religious gatherings, or non-quartering of troops out of the reach of poor people.

But they did just that with the 1934 NFA tax, and again with the closure of the NFA's MG registry ... and you're OK with the government pricing that out of the reach of the poor because it's only gun rights being infringed.

Do you really not see the connection?

 

[doctalaughs]

Your study...which doesn't separate from legal gun owners and criminals....shows that for every time a gun is fired it's 22 times more likely to be used for crime/accidentally/suicide. You claimed 50.

I don't remotely assume all gun owners are responsible. A lot of gun owners are drug dealers and gang members...some are well meaning but stupid. What I am opposing is the ridiculous concept that it's ok to impede on the rights of a law abiding citizen because someone else misuses a gun.

You are right - 22 (not 50) tragic shots for every for every 1 justified shot. I was wrong in guessing at 50.

I can respect your view on protecting rights. And it seems that you agree with me there are tons of irresponsible or hotheaded gun owners. Don't you think there is SOME way to limit how easily/quickly these people obtain guns, or limit gun stupidity without unduly impeding rights of law aboding citizens?

Couple years ago I purchased a handgun which I keep locked up in a safe in my house. As a law-abiding citizen, I would have been happy to jump though a few more hoops, waited longer, gone through more comprehensive background checks and taken more training courses to prevent ONE of the hundreds of children accidentally shot annually in the USA (putting aside all other arguments of homicides and suicides).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[deleted480308]

You are right - 22 (not 50) tragic shots for every for every 1 justified shot. I was wrong in guessing at 50.

I can respect your view on protecting rights. And it seems that you agree with me there are tons of irresponsible or hotheaded gun owners. Don't you think there is SOME way to limit how easily/quickly these people obtain guns, or limit gun stupidity without unduly impeding rights of law aboding citizens?

Couple years ago I purchased a handgun which I keep locked up in a safe in my house. As a law-abiding citizen, I would have been happy to jump though a few more hoops, waited longer, gone through more comprehensive background checks and taken more training courses to prevent ONE of the hundreds of children accidentally shot annually in the USA (putting aside all other arguments of homicides and suicides).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

I'm not willing to hop through extra hoops because other people make bad decisions...I've not heard any great proposals to stop all gun injuries without imposing on the rights of citizens with no criminal record

 

[pgg]

You are right - 22 (not 50) tragic shots for every for every 1 justified shot. I was wrong in guessing at 50.

Self defense shots fired are not the only measure of the positive value of a gun.

Most defensive uses of guns involve zero shots fired.

There's the real but hard to exactly quantify value of an armed populace, both for "herd immunity" vs crime, and to make anyone in power think twice about bad ideas.

There's hunting value.

I shot 40 rounds in competition today with a hundred or so of my closest friends, who also shot 40 rounds ... there sure weren't 88,000 tragic shots to accompany our 4,000 justified shots.

 

[pgg]

I would have been happy to jump though a few more hoops, waited longer, gone through more comprehensive background checks and taken more training courses to prevent ONE of the hundreds of children accidentally shot annually in the USA (putting aside all other arguments of homicides and suicides).

That sounds great in the vacuum of an Internet forum, but here's what happens when those hoops are actually implemented.

You get things like CA's 10-day waiting period for buyers to "cool off" ... even if they already own other guns. Can you imagine a logical reason why a person who already owns a gun should have to wait 10 days? Yet when we tried to change the CA law, to limit the waiting period to just the first gun a person purchases, it was fought tooth and nail and shot down by the Democrats in the state legislature.

We're constantly being asked to be reasonable, to accept common sense measures, but the honest truth is that the Democrats are not at all interested in being reasonable.

Everything they attempt is a stepping stone to a registry, a ban, and/or confiscation.

 

[doctalaughs]

I'm not willing to hop through extra hoops because other people make bad decisions...I've not heard any great proposals to stop all gun injuries without imposing on the rights of citizens with no criminal record

No one in their right mind would claim to be able to stop "all" gun injuries. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce them, especially because I personally think a few hoops/hassles is not really infringing rights (obviously your opinion differs). Right now, getting a gun in this country is as easy as buying toilet paper, so a few hoops to me is worth the possible benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[zero0]

And our anti-gun president arms their bad guys.

Well, yeah, but that's an inconvenient truth and frighteningly reminiscent of the true state of national politics so we kinda just ignore it and pretend it goes away. Ahhh sweet ignorant bliss...

 

[Twiggidy]

Twig, that line of reasoning seems waaaaaay outta wack to me. So you'd rather be the victim of a home invasion in which you or your family may get injured/killed than "risk" having to defend your actions of self defense because you're worried they won't believe you simply because you're black??

I'd much rather have the ability to defend myself/family in the time of need and worry about the aftermath later than be defenseless just so I didn't have to explain myself.

To many people who look like me in prison
This country doesn't hesitate to put people like me in prison
People shoot people who look like me in possession of guns much faster than others

Sorry, I'll take my chances. The country hasn't proved it enough that if I'm sitting in a court room saying "Your Honor, I was defending myself" that they'll let me walk out. My home is pretty secure in a secure area, so it's a chance I'll take. If I live in a
low class neighborhood, maybe I'd think different, but I live in a neighborhood with good looking white yoga moms. I'm good. Guns in the home have more chances of resulting in death than those without.

Moreover, much props to you guys that can conceal carry as if it's no big deal. As said above, imagine the CNN story

"A Starbucks was being held up the other day when a courageous black man pulled his concealed weapon to take on the robber, but in a confusion he was shot by local police who thought he was an accomplice."


If you think that rationale and thinking is waaaaay out of whack....then you maaaay not be black.

 

[fancymylotus]

Considering the last time part of the country attempted to break away from the union, along with the current racial/political divide going on now.. I think I would still choose government. Now depending on the results of the election, I may start exercising my right for bear arms just in case I get deported!

I didn't think about this...maybe I'll get deported too!


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[deleted480308]

No one in their right mind would claim to be able to stop "all" gun injuries. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce them, especially because I personally think a few hoops/hassles is not really infringing rights (obviously your opinion differs). Right now, getting a gun in this country is as easy as buying toilet paper, so a few hoops to me is worth the possible benefit.

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

no... it isn't

 

[pgg]

Right now, getting a gun in this country is as easy as buying toilet paper, so a few hoops to me is worth the possible benefit.

Wow, two sightings of the Good Idea Fairy in one thread!

Enacting laws that affect civil rights in the vague hope that there might be kinda sorta some possible benefit doesn't even rise to the level of rational basis, much less strict scrutiny.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

I thought I wasn't being subtle, but the point of those examples was to illustrate how totally unacceptable it would be for the government to price free asembly, religious gatherings, or non-quartering of troops out of the reach of poor people.

But they did just that with the 1934 NFA tax, and again with the closure of the NFA's MG registry ... and you're OK with the government pricing that out of the reach of the poor because it's only gun rights being infringed.

Do you really not see the connection?

Again-
I think many things are unfairly skewed against the poor in this country, and I wish it weren't so. The intent of those laws was to prevent machine guns from being commonly and easily available. Now they're expensive and difficult to get a hold of, and machine gun deaths continue to be rare.

Paying for ads for a candidate, and buying political favors is considered "free speech" by our government. Poor people are at the mercy of what the rich want our government to be. That's an infringement on the rights of the poor that's egregious.

Data indicates that the poor and minorities are far more likely to face police action, detainment, poor defense, and stiffer penalties. I think that's egregious. (Incidentally, it's also why I became anti-death penalty a few years ago. I used to be strongly in favor). Anyway, the legal system is unfair and often infringes on the rights of the poor and minorities.

I think these problems (among others), are ASTRONOMICALLY more destructive to poor communities than the fact that machine guns aren't readily available.

My mind can and has been changed MANY times by reason. In fact, until this discussion I was definitely a "common-sense" gun legislation band wagoner. But I've learned from you guys and beyond that expanding what we have in place in terms of background checks and "bans" may not really make much of a dent, and I now believe that. I'm definitely not as cynical as you about the intentions, but I think we need to look further into what might reduce gun violence and accidental gun deaths.

But I don't think making machine guns more available is part of the solution. If it IS an infringement on someone's rights, I think we can put that in line behind the 7.3x10^9 other problems we've got.

 

[doctalaughs]

Wow, two sightings of the Good Idea Fairy in one thread!

Enacting laws that affect civil rights in the vague hope that there might be kinda sorta some possible benefit doesn't even rise to the level of rational basis, much less strict scrutiny.

I'm not sure why you are intent on calling everything a "Good Idea Fairy," especially when I didn't even mention a specific idea. Is anything anyone suggests that is contrary to your beliefs a "Good Idea Fairy" or is it some sort of name calling meant for liberals (which I dont consider myself one btw)?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

 

[deleted162650]

If you think that rationale and thinking is waaaaay out of whack....then you maaaay not be black.

No, not black, just a suburban white kid. And, I'll readily admit I've never walked a mile in your shoes. And I'm also not even disagreeing with you that you might face some more challenges proving self-defense than I would.

I'm just saying that (god-forbid) it ever came down to it, I'd rather be in sitting in prison knowing I'd saved myself, my wife, or my kids from harm/rape/death than be the victim in my own home.

And although they may be exceedingly rare, home-invasions happen in upscale neighborhoods full of yoga-pant wearing soccer moms too. Haven't you ever seen Home Alone??

 

[psychbender]

I'm not sure why you are intent on calling everything a "Good Idea Fairy," especially when I didn't even mention a specific idea. Is anything anyone suggests that is contrary to your beliefs a "Good Idea Fairy" or is it some sort of name calling meant for liberals (which I dont consider myself one btw)?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

The Good Idea Fairy (GIF) is a term commonly used in the military to describe a well-intentioned, but often uninformed person making suggestions that seem reasonable only if you do not possess knowledge or experience regarding the subject matter, and are in fact rather harmful to those involved when actually executed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile

 

[deleted162650]

The Good Idea Fairy (GIF) is a term commonly used in the military to describe a well-intentioned, but often uninformed person making suggestions that seem reasonable only if you do not possess knowledge or experience regarding the subject matter, and are in fact rather harmful to those involved when actually executed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile

They are also prevalent in the healthcare industry and often come carrying clipboards and dressed in long white coats embroidered with 17 letters after their name.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Did anyone else notice that among the gun advocates, one guy argues that the laws are specifically meant to keep guns out of white people's hands, and another guy argues they're specifically meant to keep guns out of minority's hands?

Just an observation. All of this stuff is of course up for interpretation.

 

[psychbender]

You are right - 22 (not 50) tragic shots for every for every 1 justified shot. I was wrong in guessing at 50.

I can respect your view on protecting rights. And it seems that you agree with me there are tons of irresponsible or hotheaded gun owners. Don't you think there is SOME way to limit how easily/quickly these people obtain guns, or limit gun stupidity without unduly impeding rights of law aboding citizens?

Couple years ago I purchased a handgun which I keep locked up in a safe in my house. As a law-abiding citizen, I would have been happy to jump though a few more hoops, waited longer, gone through more comprehensive background checks and taken more training courses to prevent ONE of the hundreds of children accidentally shot annually in the USA (putting aside all other arguments of homicides and suicides).


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app

Putting aside all other arguments of homicide and suicide, you think that waiting ten days, instead of a few hours, would make a father not leave his gun unlocked where his child could get it? A more extensive background check system would prevent his teenager from playing around with the gun and shooting his sibling? MAYBE the extra training course would drive home the point to lock up his weapon, and prevent an unintended shooting. Otherwise, you're adding extra steps to the process, and increasing costs, for no benefit.

Sent from my SM-G920V using SDN mobile

 

[periopdoc]

...if a person is able to defend himself or others (safely), I'm all for it but there is always a risk to innocent bystanders. I just don't have enough faith in the average citizen to make the right judgement call on my behalf.
http://deadstate.org/combat-veteran...d-guy-with-a-gun-is-based-on-a-fantasy-world/

So your support for your position is an opinion piece, written by a journalist who didn't even bother to confirm the military service credentials of the individuals he quoted? No numbers, no stats, just some feelings from two purported vets and two law enforcement trainers who are worried that civilian carriers may not use good judgement or have good marksmanship.

Incidentally, Stephen Benson, who's opinion and "experience as a Navy SEAL" formed the basis for the original piece, was found to be lying about his military service. His name and quotes were removed from the article, but the original can still be viewed on The Wayback Machine here.

The main problem is that for every one instance like that, there are probably 50 instances of gun owners who left their firearms unsecured causing an accident, or gun owners who commit crimes themselves with their weapons, or suicides.

Probably? Any numbers to back that up???


There were 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 according to the Bureau Of Justice statistics. Violent crime and homicide is on a downward trend so we can expect the numbers are currently lower.

Per the CDC, there were 41,149 suicides in 2015 21,175 of which were from firearms.

The last year I have unintentional firearms-related fatalities numbers from the National Safety Council is 2013 when there were 530. This number is down 65% from 1993 and is at all time lows since records on this started being kept. Firearms are involved in 0.39% of all unintentional fatalities. Only a percentage of these are from "unsecured firearms," but I'll spot you all of them.

Now not all accidents are fatal, so that number could be higher, but at the same time I suspect that when you said "gun owners that commit crimes themselves with their weapons" you were talking about generally law abiding citizens, not career criminals. If that is the case then I am being GENEROUS letting this be a wash.

So we have a combined total of 321,705 incidents of fatal accidents, crimes, and suicides. Using your 50:1 ratio means that we would expect 6,434 defensive gun uses per year.


How does this predicted 6,434 number compare to actual stats on defensive gun use? Well according to the CDC report, commissioned by Obama in 2013, estimates of annual defensive gun uses range from about 500,000 to more than 3 million. Further, they found that

Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,”

Over the last 20 years, we have seen an explosion in the number of guns, gun owners, and gun carry laws. Each time these laws have been introduced, they have been met with dire predictions of bloodbaths in the street. So far, the predicted results fail to appear. Homicides (which include justifiable/ defensive homicides) and violent crimes continue to trend down.

Yes, you can find incidents of inappropriate and illegal actions by concealed weapons permit holders, but by and large they are the most law abiding citizen subgroup in the U.S. In fact the annual conviction rate for firearms related crimes by police officers is 0.01% compared to 0.0003% for concealed carriers.

Concerns of shooting bystanders also appear to be overstated. Sure it may happen occasionally, just as it does with cops that is a risk we have to evaluate. I know of two true spree shootings in Oregon where carriers did not shoot due to concerns of hitting bystanders or being confused for a bad guy by the police; Clackamas and Umpqua. So there is my anecdotal response to RadOnc's anecdote.

- pod

 

[deleted451730]

I propose an experimental state in the US whereby we conduct a trial of Constitution-less government and put all people in that state who agree with it and see what happens. No phone a friend. Or, better yet, everything but the first two amendments. Peer reviewed. Eventually, what will happen? The same thing that brought about the US and its Constitution: revolution. Inevitable.

The Bill of Rights is our, the citizens', check and balance for the government.

The whole thing is the same illogical thought process as the anti-vaxxers. Throw them in that experimental state too and see what happens.

 

[deleted451730]

I can only conclude that if the Orlando shooter had arrived at the club with this level of firepower and taken out all 300 people inside, and massacred the police and SWAT teams that arrived to defend the public, you wouldn't budge on your position.

Do we even need to take it that far?

With body armor, full-auto rifles, and large capacity magazines, he could probably accomplish the same thing.

It that event happened in your town, would you have the courage to step in front of the cameras and grieving families to make your point about how these weapons are important to protect us against the government?

I think more than a few people would be right to ask who's side you're on.

If that happened to the SWAT team, I'd question the skill of government forces and rather have armed citizens in charge of protecting citizens. Or, if they let slip through the cracks a known questionable person previously interviewed multiple times. Oh wait...

 

[Twiggidy]

So your support for your position is an opinion piece, written by a journalist who didn't even bother to confirm the military service credentials of the individuals he quoted? No numbers, no stats, just some feelings from two purported vets and two law enforcement trainers who are worried that civilian carriers may not use good judgement or have good marksmanship.

Incidentally, Stephen Benson, who's opinion and "experience as a Navy SEAL" formed the basis for the original piece, was found to be lying about his military service. His name and quotes were removed from the article, but the original can still be viewed on The Wayback Machine here.



Probably? Any numbers to back that up???


There were 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 according to the Bureau Of Justice statistics. Violent crime and homicide is on a downward trend so we can expect the numbers are currently lower.

Per the CDC, there were 41,149 suicides in 2015 21,175 of which were from firearms.

The last year I have unintentional firearms-related fatalities numbers from the National Safety Council is 2013 when there were 530. This number is down 65% from 1993 and is at all time lows since records on this started being kept. Firearms are involved in 0.39% of all unintentional fatalities. Only a percentage of these are from "unsecured firearms," but I'll spot you all of them.

Now not all accidents are fatal, so that number could be higher, but at the same time I suspect that when you said "gun owners that commit crimes themselves with their weapons" you were talking about generally law abiding citizens, not career criminals. If that is the case then I am being GENEROUS letting this be a wash.

So we have a combined total of 321,705 incidents of fatal accidents, crimes, and suicides. Using your 50:1 ratio means that we would expect 6,434 defensive gun uses per year.


How does this predicted 6,434 number compare to actual stats on defensive gun use? Well according to the CDC report, commissioned by Obama in 2013, estimates of annual defensive gun uses range from about 500,000 to more than 3 million. Further, they found that



Over the last 20 years, we have seen an explosion in the number of guns, gun owners, and gun carry laws. Each time these laws have been introduced, they have been met with dire predictions of bloodbaths in the street. So far, the predicted results fail to appear. Homicides (which include justifiable/ defensive homicides) and violent crimes continue to trend down.

Yes, you can find incidents of inappropriate and illegal actions by concealed weapons permit holders, but by and large they are the most law abiding citizen subgroup in the U.S. In fact the annual conviction rate for firearms related crimes by police officers is 0.01% compared to 0.0003% for concealed carriers.

Concerns of shooting bystanders also appear to be overstated. Sure it may happen occasionally, just as it does with cops that is a risk we have to evaluate. I know of two true spree shootings in Oregon where carriers did not shoot due to concerns of hitting bystanders or being confused for a bad guy by the police; Clackamas and Umpqua. So there is my anecdotal response to RadOnc's anecdote.

- pod

An explosion of gun sales and gun owners didn't lead to the reduction in crime......

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-caused-the-crime-decline/477408/