On Gun Defense

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. - Barry Goldwater

I had been searching for this for, what seems like, years. When gun debates come up, there is always a reference to self defense. I have Googled, Yahoo!ed and Binged and have never been able to see what a clear cut gun defense looked like until I ran across this story in the Washington Post.

I have always given gun rights advocates the benefit of the doubt and thought that the main stream media was unfairly shying away from gun defense cases because of some code of honor, political leanings or liability reasons. When I read this article, I was astonished at some of the things I discovered from it, such as:

1. This was not a personal assault on the street, but a home invasion that required the victim to retrieve a gun from a safe and hide with her children in an area of this house that she hoped would be out of harm's way. There was no concealed carry involved.


2. The victim has remained very private about the experience. No talk shows, no interviews, no publicity at all. The only statements made were from the police reports.


3. All of the boasting has come from outside sources such as the NRA, Fox News and talking head radio shows.


4. It has become apparent that crime will probably be mitigated and reduced in that neighborhood. Not because everybody is packing firearms, but because crime mitigation procedures such as Neighborhood Watches, a larger police force and security measures are being implemented.


5. The biggest resulting braggadocio in the neighborhood has been the Walton County Sheriff, Joe Chapman, who was reduced to name calling in court calling the perpetrator a “dirt bag”.


6. The perpetrator was shot 5 times in the chest and face with a .38 caliber handgun and still was able to escape in his car until he crashed a few blocks later. He survived, was convicted and sent to prison.


7. The perpetrator was a resident of the community where he committed the crime.


8. The perpetrator’s wife now possesses a gun to protect herself in what has become an arms race.

A news item like this would be in the best interest of the news media, the gun lobby and the NRA to promote this kind of account. Yet, things like this never seem to make it into any kind of press. Instead, mass shooting tragedies are arrogantly passed off as acceptable losses and any attempts to reduce gun violence are written off as bothersome irritation. It has become dangerously obvious that concern for the security of gun activists' armaments far exceeds their concern for the security of the society in which they live.

The picture that was painted by this incident didn’t follow the Hollywood script types of stories that gun activists like to paint. It is becoming more apparent that the scenarios that gun activists portray are, at best, anecdotal and incredibly rare and the reality invokes images of trauma rather than heroism.

This narrative goes contrary to concealed carry rationalizations. This is a clear cut case of domain protection, and not personal assault. This story reinforces my belief that aside from military or law enforcement professionals, those who arm themselves in public, and mentally and emotionally prepare themselves to take a life suffer from paranoid delusional fantasies. I think it’s worth noting that in the cases of military or law enforcement, their carry is not concealed.

My observations are further supported by the exceedingly zealous views of rabid gun activists who believe that the solution to every conflict is to shoot their way out of it. I am convinced that ordinary citizens that insist on concealed carry for protection are directly parallel to 40 year old male virgins that carry condoms. They will probably never use them, but they entertain a fantasy that their moment can come at any time.

It would seem that the NRA would be better served by representing the vast majority of gun owners who enjoy ownership for hunting, target shooting and domain protection. Instead, they feast on the fringe implementation of paranoid fantasies to justify their cause. The American Civil War is over. It's time we quit treating our nation like a war zone.

Comments

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Well, one carries because he was likely saved by a guy with a gun several years back in another state. Many others frequently travel to dangerous areas of Detroit or Flint. Some have the permit so they don't get in trouble for how they carry and transport their weapons while hunting.

Likely? That sounds awfully flimsy to me. Sounds like these guys are just looking for excuses to carry (much like the 40 year old virgin with condoms).

You live in Englewood? Or perhaps Humboldt Park? You ever seen anyone shot where you live?

I was born in the Homboldt Park area. A close cousin was raised there. No. I have never seen anyone shot, although I have been illegally threatened with a shotgun. That still hasn’t inspired me to look for any lame excuse to carry.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

Likely in the sense that he was in a bar that happened to have a man shooting people indiscriminately until he was stopped by someone who retrieved his weapon from the gun check.

Sounds like these guys are just looking for excuses to carry (much like the 40 year old virgin with condoms).

I'm not sure why wanting to protect yourself is labeled as an excuse.

I was born in the Homboldt Park area.

If that is you in the icon... that was long ago, and a different place from what it is today. So what is it about you growing up in the Chicago "area" that gives you special judgmental powers, since you never seem to have actually experienced any gun violence? You obviously don't live in a bad area. Hell, I lived in a bad area on Chicago's southside for less than a year and had to call 911 due to shootings four times that I remember off-hand.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Hell, I lived in a bad area on Chicago's southside for less than a year and had to call 911 due to shootings four times that I remember off-hand.

And yet you're still alive. Imagine that. And all without shooting back. Despite your bravado, you still aren't citing any cases of concealed carry gun defense.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/Ohio-CHL-holders-acting-in-self-defense

I mean, obviously a biased source, but the pizza one in particular struck me as clear self-defense with a CCW. If even a tenth of those are legitimate, that's a lot of cases of CCW being used to prevent serious assaults.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I mean, obviously a biased source, but the pizza one in particular struck me as clear self-defense with a CCW.

You're right. Obviously a biased source that cherry picked stories that would have the best appeal. Any one of those could have gone extremely badly, especially the if the robber pulled the trigger on the shotgun. Apparently the solution to a shooting gallery is to create a bigger shooting gallery. All of these indicate that CCW owners believe they can shoot their way out of anything.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

So, you ask for evidence of CCW use that actually defends someone, and when you're given evidence of someone pulling a gun when their assailant had a shotgun to their head and was demanding more money than they had, you say the guy being robbed was irresponsible? How about "Bank Customer," who was held down and threatened with rape? "Parking Lot Ambush," which dissuaded the robbers with merely pulling out the weapon?

I for one am all for more restrictive gun laws, and getting rid of "stand your ground" rules in favor of an affirmative duty to retreat if reasonably possible. But I accept that even under my standards, most of those tidbits are legitimate uses of firearms in self-defense.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

So, you ask for evidence of CCW use that actually defends someone, and when you're given evidence of someone pulling a gun when their assailant had a shotgun to their head and was demanding more money than they had, you say the guy being robbed was irresponsible?

I'm saying this particular incident was cherry picked because it made a good story. Had the assailant pulled the trigger at the first sign of a gun being pulled or while retreating, you could pretty much bet that this story wouldn't be listed. The same with the rest of them.

Bank customer could have done the same thing with pepper spray. The parking lot ambush could have gone badly as well.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

And what about being threatened in ones home makes the situation less likely to go badly?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

And what about being threatened in ones home makes the situation less likely to go badly?

The element of surprise on the side of the resident is highly more likely, considering most burglaries assume the resident is not home. Also, home invasions tend not to be close quarter attacks.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'll repeat...

So what is it about you growing up in the Chicago "area" that gives you special judgmental powers?

You'll notice I'm not making broad judgments about the intentions of millions of Americans, that's you.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

I'm simply responding to your faulty premise that you live in a warlike urban zone while everybody else sits back comfortably in security. And yes, you are making broad judgments about our society in general that it is unfit for habitation without being lethally armed. This notion feeds specifically into the paranoid delusional fantasy that I mentioned in the OP.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm simply responding to your faulty premise that you live in a warlike urban zone while everybody else sits back comfortably in security.

Ha, seriously? My only premise was that you don't have any authority on whats justified for people to protect themselves against crimes based upon where you live, because you obviously don't live anywhere near the areas that have high crime rates (not that you would have any authority if you did).

And yes, you are making broad judgments about our society in general that it is unfit for habitation without being lethally armed.

I've made no such judgments. The only things I've stated here are that your characterizations of people who do have concealed carry permits are woefully inaccurate, and that your assertion that you live in the Chicago "area" and feel no need to protect yourself is a whole lot of silly.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Ha, seriously? My only premise was that you don't have any authority on whats justified for people to protect themselves against crimes based upon where you live, because you obviously don't live anywhere near the areas that have high crime rates (not that you would have any authority if you did).

This is coming from a guy that purposely walked into a gun infested bar and was surprised that somebody was shooting the place up. You don’t impress me as someone who is a bundle of good judgment. Thank you for relating this story to validate my impression of people who believe in a CCW.

I don’t need you to give me the “authority” to do anything. Chicago has a persistent gang problem and that is recognized as being responsible for the vast majority of shootings. It doesn’t take a PhD in “bad neighborhoods” to know that shooting a gang member wouldn’t be the end of your problems. It would only be the beginning.

I've made no such judgments. The only things I've stated here are that your characterizations of people who do have concealed carry permits are woefully inaccurate, and that your assertion that you live in the Chicago "area" and feel no need to protect yourself is a whole lot of silly.

Thank you for that completely unsubstantiated and unsupported comment. You appear to fit the profile described in the OP of people that champion concealed carry.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

This is coming from a guy that purposely walked into a gun infested bar and was surprised that somebody was shooting the place up.

First, this wasn't me. Second, guns weren't allowed at this bar. The shooter was kicked out earlier, went home to retrieve a weapon and upon his return shot his way through the bouncer and into the bar. The man that stopped him retrieved his weapon from the gun check. A gun he checked because guns were not allowed in the bar.

You don’t impress me as someone who is a bundle of good judgment.

As someone who has displayed an amazing amount of arrogance, poor judgement upon others and poor reading comprehension, I'm not the least bit concerned as to your opinion of my "judgments," thank you.

Thank you for relating this story to validate my impression of people who believe in a CCW.
Prejudice. I'm validating your prejudice... though I would argue no matter what I said, you would be saying the same thing.

I don’t need you to give me the “authority” to do anything. Chicago has a persistent gang problem and that is recognized as being responsible for the vast majority of shootings. It doesn’t take a PhD in “bad neighborhoods” to know that shooting a gang member wouldn’t be the end of your problems. It would only be the beginning.

A very small world you live in, sir. (Most likely a Chicago suburb)

Thank you for that completely unsubstantiated and unsupported comment. You appear to fit the profile described in the OP of people that champion concealed carry.

This entire response is mindless drivel. I'm not sure why you bothered. If I was the type to categorize people who believe in x must be like y, I would have to assume from this thread that all those who are against CCWs do so based upon a superiority complex over those who "cling to their guns and religion." A position they must hold solely from their own arrogance, not any sort of logic. I don't hold such prejudice however, so I attribute such failings solely to you.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

This entire response is mindless drivel. I'm not sure why you bothered. If I was the type to categorize people who believe in x must be like y, I would have to assume from this thread that all those who are against CCWs do so based upon a superiority complex over those who "cling to their guns and religion." A position they must hold solely from their own arrogance, not any sort of logic. I don't hold such prejudice however, so I attribute such failings solely to you.

Do you always contradict yourself in the same sentence? You do believe in x must be like y. Just for shits and giggles, a couple of definitions:

ar•ro•gant

/ [ar-uh-guh nt] adjective

1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official.

2.characterized by or proceeding from arrogance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance), or a sense of superiority, self-importance, or entitlement: arrogant claims.

hom•i•cide

/ [hom-uh-sahyd, hoh-muh-] noun

1. the killing of one human being by another.

2.a person who kills another; murderer.

Despite evidence to the contrary (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) (page 12) to your hypothesis that a gun is the only response that can thwart a crime, you continue to cling to your gun. Your sense of entitlement that you believe a victim should commit homicide and be judge, jury and executioner at their discretion without outside consultation is your arrogance.

Even though methods that don’t employ a lethal weapon are 50 times more effective than a gun, your devotion to the NRA gun cult flat earth religion is unwavering. This is very much in line with the 40 year old virgin with a condom in the wallet. They occasional fulfill their delusional fantasies as well.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

This entire response has no logical flow. First you define well known definitions for no apparent reason. Next, you attribute a hypothesis to me, a hypothesis that I clearly never made, so you can essentially argue the point that you want. Then to argue said point you link to a study that does not show what you say it does, and even if it did, you would still be improperly drawing conclusions from it.


Your sense of entitlement that you believe a victim should commit homicide and be judge, jury and executioner at their discretion without outside consultation is your arrogance.

Irony too

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

This entire response has no logical flow.

Just because you can’t follow logic, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. It must have something to do with your lack of reading comprehension.

First you define well known definitions for no apparent reason.

It was apparent you had no clue what the word “arrogance” means. I threw “homicide” in there because people with a conscience avoid committing it except in the direst of circumstances.

Next, you attribute a hypothesis to me, a hypothesis that I clearly never made, so you can essentially argue the point that you want.

It was an accurate depiction of a series of statements that you have made in comments to this post. You just don’t want to hear them because the analysis goes contrary to the doctrine of your NRA Überherren.

Then to argue said point you link to a study that does not show what you say it does, and even if it did, you would still be improperly drawing conclusions from it.

Well, yes it does (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf) on page 12 Table 11. But it requires rudimentary math. Let me try to break it down for you.

Threatened or attacked with other weapon 1.3%

+ Threatened or attacked without a weapon 22.1%

+ Nonconfrontational tactics 26.1% = 49.5%

Divided by Threatened or attacked with a firearm 0.8% = 61.875 times less effective

So my estimate of 50 times less effective was definitely low.

Irony.

Apparently, you didn’t pay attention to the dictionary definition of “arrogance”.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

But it requires rudimentary math. Let me try to break it down for you.

....I would hope you would have tried to think about why I would say you are improperly drawing conclusions when I brought it up.

Your conclusion: methods that don’t employ a lethal weapon are 50 times more effective than a gun

This chart merely shows defensive behaviors. That is all. What it doesn't show is whether or not those behaviors were actually successful. If it did, we would have to include that offering no resistance was the best way to thwart crime. This is why I said the chart does not show what you think it does.

Now, if we assumed that the table shows what you said it did, you would still be improperly drawing conclusions from it. People who carry guns (legally) with them a majority of the time are a very small percentage of the population. Add to that, the use of a gun for a defense against a violent crime is not always appropriate. Taking those two facts together one would postulate that gun use would make up a fairly small subset of effective defensive strategies against violent crime and therefore one could not properly draw the conclusion that using a gun is a less effective defensive strategy, at least not from this particular data set.

I assure you, my mathematical ability is highly proficient. I also know the definitions of "arrogance" and "homicide."