I’m a crime fiction guy. I write about guns all the time. I Google various weapons to make sure I’m getting facts straight. I’ve fired guns, too. Hell, I went to a military school, learning to handle firearms was part of the curriculum.
But I don’t like them much.
Fortunately, this election cycle, the whole gun thing hasn’t been getting that much play – not when the right has religion to fight over. It will be a curious thing, I might add, to see who gets custody of the baby Jesus. If it’s Gingrich, I hope he does better by him than he did by his own family. Or families, I guess.
The last week or so, though, the accompanying photo meme (PHOTO DELETED, AS IT TURNS OUT TO BE COPYRIGHTED. I HOPE THE GUN FANS WHO KEEP POSTING IT ON FACEBOOK SHOW AS MUCH RESPECT FOR THE PHOTOGRAPHER’S PROPERTY RIGHTS AS I DO AND STOP POSTING IT WITHOUT THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE OR ATTRIBUTION. THE PICTURE SHOWED A WOMEN IN A BUSINESS SUIT, EXCEPT UNDER HER OPEN JACKET SHE’S WEARING A CAMISOLE, NOT A BLOUSE, REACHING FOR A HANDGUN. THE COPY PROMOTES USING A GUN FOR SELF DEFENSE) keeps popping up in my Facebook feed. And lately, passing concealed carry laws seems to be all the rage. I know guys who get positively priapic at the thought, get a little chubby when they start musing on the prospect of wandering around strapped everywhere they go, just like Wyatt Earp.
So I just thought I’d do a little fact checking, and I found this article from the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. Seems they researched a few thousand shootings involving firearms kept in the home, and here’s what they found. A weapon kept in the home was 22 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide, a criminal assault or homicide (usually against a family member), or an accidental shooting (usually involving a child) than it was to be used in a self-defense shooting.
In other words, keep a gun in your house and, if it is used at all, odds are better than 20 to 1 that it will be used to kill or injure a member of your household than it will be to ward off the boogeyman you bought it to save you from.
Still, people get to do shit that’s bad for them. We get to drink. We get to eat steak. And I really don’t like too much nanny state crap. So, you want to keep a gun in your house, or several, knock yourself out. But this concealed carry stuff? There I draw the line. When you start wandering the streets strapped, you might become my problem.
I’ve spent a fair bit of time in Wichita, Kansas over the past several years. Nice town. Ancestral home of Scott Phillips. I know it’s got it’s rough neighborhoods, but the area we were in, Rock Road, Webb Road, around in there, it seems to be mostly pretty wealthy white people and churches. Lots of churches. Anyway, Kansas passed one of those concealed carry laws a couple years back. Suddenly, I started seeing all these NO GUN stickers (a picture of a pistol with that universal red circle and slash) on the doors to hotels, restaurants, shops, even on the doors to people’s homes. Lots of folks like to talk about their right to bear arms, but I guess they don’t think much about the right of other folks not to have a lot of loaded guns hiding in their home or place of business.
One night, we stopped into an Applebee’s for a late bite. And I see this guy wandering around the restaurant, got a Glock right there on his hip. Turns out he’s the manager. When he gets to our table to ask how everything is, I tell him I’m from out of town and, frankly, I’m a little nervous.
“Why?” he asks.
“This must be a high crime area.”
“Oh, no,” he says. “Wonderful neighborhood. It’s very safe. You have nothing to worry about.”
“But you must get robbed a lot,” I say.
He laughs. “Ten years in this location and we’ve never had any trouble. Just relax and enjoy your meal.”
In nodded at the automatic on his hip. “So what’s with that? Just some kind of Walter Mitty thing then?”
He wandered away, muttering something about liberals.
Sure, every so often a gun saves somebody somewhere from a horrible fate at the hands of a horrible person. But it seems for every happy story like that, there are better than twenty where a kid shoots a sibling, or what might have been just another incident of domestic violence turns into a homicide, or where someone struggling with depression sticks the barrel in his mouth because having the gun handy, it just made it that much easier to end it all.
And I know that every gun lover out there is going to tell me how that could never happen in their house. They’ll tell me about their gun safe and their trigger locks and about how they never have a loaded gun anywhere a kid could get at it. But if the gun isn’t loaded and handy when the boogeyman comes to call, then what good is it? And if it is loaded and handy, then I call bullshit on all the claims to safety. And then they’ll tell me hey, accidents happen. But car accidents kill way more people than gun accidents. You wanna outlaw cars? Yeah, but when cars aren’t getting into accidents, they’re taking people to work, kids to school, moms to grocery stores. When guns aren’t being fired, they’re just sitting there waiting to be.
Do I want the government to go house to house and take everybody’s guns away while the black helicopters hover overhead waiting to pick off patriots trying to scamper into the woods with their deer rifles? No. You want a gun in your house, fine. I hope you handle it safely. I hope it never bites you or anyone you love on the ass.
But you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t want you wandering the streets with one. Better to be judged by twelve, the gun lovers like to say, then to be carried by six. But I’d rather not be judged by you, thanks all the same. You see, that 20 to 1 business, I don’t think the causative issue there is the boundary of the home, I think it is the judgement of the gun owners. And I don’t like my odds.
Terrific post. I’m a Texan AND a liberal. Like the adage, if the gun appears in Act 1, you expect someone to shoot it by Act 3. Concealed handgun laws make life too much like a Chekhov play.
The “rather be judged by twelve than carried by six” argument has a corollary gun lovers always ignore: the guy with the gun gets to act as judge, jury, and executioner for anyone he comes across. There are no qualifications for good judgement when issuing carry permits that I am aware of.
Very well said, reflecting in succinct terms the arguments I’ve been trying to express. I will definitely save this and pass it on.
Thank you –
Cyndi
I like guns, but have no desire to own one or have one in my home.
The only pro to concealed carry I can think of is it would balance out the undeserved right of aldermen in this city to go around strapped.
Now I know what Dorthy Tillman kept under those hats.
Terrifying thought, isn’t it? Combine that with some alderman having a tendency to hire gang members as drivers and aides, and… Yeah.
“Concealed handgun laws make life too much like a Chekhov play.”
Ha! Perfect.
I own a gun because I like shooting it. It is locked and unloaded. I cannot imagine a home invasion in my anonymous building. And frankly, if you invade my home, I have failed in defending it.
I am torn about Concealed Carry. I do NOT like open carry (what that idiot restaurant manager was doing) because if i wanted his Glock I would twirl a tablecloth into a garrote and strangle him from behind when he went to take a piss. Concealed, with background and psychiatric checks… maybe. The statistics are better, for that. But with the new ease in getting permits, we are seeing many abuses of this particular right.
Guns are talismans to many people. They live in fear, and it assuages it. The best defensive weapon is situational awareness. If you find yourself in a dark alley surrounded by thugs trying to protect your family… what the hell did you lead them down a dark alley for? You do not have a right to live in a fictional reality where your moral authority protects you from violence. This is not Utopia. nor is it the old West.
I’ll recommend the excellent Marc MacYoung: http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/
I had a close relative commit suicide by firearm. So I understand your 20:1 statistic. I’m all for legally own REGISTERED firearms and I think anyone convicted of circumventing background checks- straw buyers, etc- should be forced to clean the bed pans of paralyzed gunshot victims as part of their prison sentence.
Great post. When it comes to defending my home, I’d far prefer to rely on the loyalty of my two dogs than on a firearm. A firearm won’t tell me when a bad guy is in the yard. It won’t wake me in the middle of the night at the sign of trouble. And it won’t sacrifice itself for my safety. It also won’t give me companionship or play with my kids.
I do a lot of insurance writing, and insurers have done some interesting stats on all of this, since they have an interest in dog ownership. Dog bits are a leading cause of homeowners claims, which is why dogs are commonly excluded from a HO policy. (Go check yours to see if Rover is excluded, BTW.) And along the way, insurers found out something interesting: homes with dogs get broken into far, far less frequently than homes that don’t have dogs. That goes even for homes where the owners are known to won a firearm. The reality is this: bad guys would much rather take their chances on a victim with a gun than a victim with a dog. That’s not an anti-gun thing: that’s just good risk management.
Fact is, most gun owners do not have the mental ability to shoot another person, which is why so many guns are taken from their owners and used against them. The U.S. military realized this problem in WWII; most people in battle simply wouldn’t shoot. Part of it was fear; part of it is at the moment of truth, they couldn’t pull the trigger. And that’s in wartime. For every person out there confident that the .45 under their pillow will save them, a fraction will have the will to do so. And of them, a fraction will have the skill and nerve to make a difference. Bottom line: as far as methods protecting your home go, firearms kind of suck.
Now, I still like using firearms. I think we should be allowed to own them. (I’d prefer that comes with mandatory safety training, like we do with operating a motor vehicle, personally.) But I think there is a deep disconnect between wishful thinking and reality when it comes to folks who carry for self-defense, especially the open-carry folks who always seem to think that a federal gun ban is right around the corner.
I agree with pretty much everything Tommy of Salami said (especially about why I can be a gun owner and *not* argue for ‘home defense’ and so there is no disconnect between my gun ownership and their being stored in a secure and safe way), and most of what you’re trying to say.
What I don’t like is how you’re trying to say it.
A gun in the home being 22 times more likely to be used to harm your family than to be used in home defense entails neither of these two things: “what might have been just another incident of domestic violence turns into a homicide, or where someone struggling with depression sticks the barrel in his mouth because having the gun handy, it just made it that much easier to end it all.”
It does mean, as you are so rightly pointing out, “home defense” arguments don’t stand up well to real world use. It’s kind of like on birth control where they give the “perfect use” and “actual use” statistics, eh?
Jamie —
That’s why I included the bit about safety. If you’ve got a gun safe or trigger lock, if you do, in fact, store your guns unloaded, with the ammunition seperate, out of the reach of children, then the accidental shootings would likely be eliminated, and crime of passion type things would be eliminated (anybody that can’t cool down by the time they unlock the gun, find the ammo and load it has bigger problems). Suicide? I dunno. But if you’re intent on killing yourself to the point where you go beyond an original impulse, unlock the gun, load it, etc., then I’m thinking you’d probably find a way anyhow. The thing is, many suicides are in part impulsive. Unfortunately, if you stick a gun in your mouth, you’re unlikely to survive the impulse.
Since, however, there still are all these homicides and accidents, obviously many home gun owners aren’t following such precautions. And, those who claim to have a gun for self-defense can’t be following such precautions – in the case of a home invasion, he bad guy isn’t going to wait fo ryou to unlock and load. My point is, keeping a gun in the home for the purpose of defense mandates keeping it unsafely. Or one of my points, anyway.
Yep, yep. I definitely got your main points there and, like I said, definitely agree.
I was going to let it go, you raise again about being more likely to die if you try to commit suicide via gun. It’s actually not true. According to the FBI Handbook on Crime Scene Forensics, nearly all suicides by violent methods require multiple tries because it turns out most people are lacking (at least some of) the nerve and (usually all of) the experience of how to do it. People who try to shoot themselves often have one or more non-fatal gunshot wounds. Same with knives, etc. You’re rather disconcertingly likely to survive the impulse, actually.
I’m one of those guys who loves his guns and the fact that I can carry one with me. In fact, one could say I cling to my guns and religion, a right-wing nut job if one is so inclined to apply that term. The thing about statistics is they are subject to interpretation, especially under ambiguous definitions (a gun kept in the home as opposed to what?). The issue here is what is a person’s right. You have the right to choose not to have a gun in your home. Respectable. However, you strip me of my right to carry one, then I got mugged while pumping gas two years ago. Fortunately I didn’t have to shoot, I can’t imagine anything worse. But when the guy saw the end of that barrel, he hit the ground on his backside and crawfished the hell out of there. It’s easy to say from a safe and quiet neighborhood that gun ownership/carry permits are extreme and unnecessary, but for those who work and live in high crime areas, especially in a rundown neighborhood that the peckerwood police force doesn’t give two shits about because of the demographics of the area, we’ve seen a lot of people in hospitals and caskets that shouldn’t have been.
How many more people will we see in hospitals and caskets because of a lack of judgement on when to shoot by people who have not been properly trained in that aspect of gun safety? How much collateral damage are we willing to accept for what will most often be an expression of machismo masquerading as the illusion of safety?
I’m not against extensive training being a requirement, paid for by the applicants. I wouldn’t make it a requirement to own a gun outright, like in the home or vehicle, but to carry one in public people should know how and when to use a gun, along with an understanding of its capabilities. As far as collateral damage, we’ve already seen what will happen in large crowds where law-abiding citizens are unarmed (Rep. Giffords, anyone?). That man didn’t shoot all those people because guns are too easily obtained. He shot all those people because the people who follow the law weren’t allowed to carry a gun. Back in ’97, a kid shot up a school 30 minutes from where I lived, about two minutes from where I live now. He was stopped by the assistant principal who pulled his own gun. So call it machismo if you must. As for me, if only idiots and criminals are the only people that own guns, I’ll be happier knowing that mine are not in their hands. But the idea that we’re safer without guns is femininity masquerading as the delusion of security.
Josh –
I suspect we could both offer anecdotal examples all night of situations where an armed citizen helped as well as where they caused harm to themselves or others (an unarmed exchange student shot in LA, a drunk with a legal concealed weapon shooting himself in the leg in a bar in VA, etc.). Or we could speculate what might have happened in a case such as the Giffords’ shootings. (In fact, Arizona allows concealed or open carry and has pretty lax gun laws. Loughner, though he had been barred from military service for excessive drug use and had a history of mental issues was still able to buy a gun in AZ. So, not only were the citizens attending the event allowed to be armed, at least one of them was (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/01/armed-hero-in-giffords-shooting-almost-shot-the-wrong-guy/18024/). That didn’t do anything to prevent the tragedy. One could argue it nearly exacerbated it.
So you remember being mugged. So do I. I also remember my seven year old coming home from a friend’s house and telling me how he saw his friend’s dad’s gun, and how it was “neat.” His friend’s dad wasn’t home. The gun was in a drawer. The guy called me up when I wouldn’t let my kid stay overnight at his house, carried on about his second amendment rights.
Yes, the second amendment grants a right to bear arms – but what the exact intended limits on that right were meant to be has been the subject of considerable legal discussion for many years. There can be no rational argument against the fact that the saturation of guns in the American population is the key reason that our murder rate is about four times that of countries where gun ownership is strictly controlled (more than 4 per 100,000 population in the US versus 1 or less in most of Western Europe and Canada).
But let’s look at the issue of rights. Suppose you own a business and you’d rather not have people carrying guns around inside, or hell, suppose you don’t want someone carrying a gun into your house. Take a look at this Q&A from the Utah Department of Public Safety:
Q. What about private businesses? Can they post signs prohibiting someone from carrying a gun into their business even though the person has a concealed firearms permit?
A. Naturally, private property owners may apply whatever restrictions they want. Whether or not these restrictions violate one’s constitutional rights is for the civil courts to decide. But the only statutory restrictions on a permit holder are secured areas such as airports and federal buildings.
In other words, I could say, “Hey, you can’t bring your gun in here,” but the guy with the gun could say “statute says I can” and might just take me to civil court for my troubles. If he doesn’t shoot me. Doesn’t that feel a little like a violation of MY rights to you?
Yes, indeed. Although I am a strong advocate of gun ownership, I am also believer in private property ownership. Even though one may have the right to carry in, say, a public park or even on the street, I do believe it is the right of a property owner to prohibit guns or anything else (alcohol, tobacco, Fords) from entering said property. The reason is, you pay for your own property. I can’t come on there and assert my constitutional rights when you paid for it and pay the taxes on it. So on that point, we agree. And if my daughter came home from a friend’s house talking about seeing her friend’s dad’s gun without him present, you can sure bet she won’t be going back.
I have used a gun to defend my home. I did not shoot it, the mere pointing of a large-caliber revolver at the dude who was trying to force his way into my home apparently jogged his memory of another appointment, for he left the premises at a very fast run.
I have lived in places where if I needed a cop, fast, a 15 minute response time was reasonable. Same thing for the firemen. I have a gun, a fire extinguisher and first aid supplies. I know how to use them.
Your mileage may vary.
One thing–dad, was it necessary to annoy the man with a gun on his hip? Pretty sure all arguments for both side have been put forth.
The nice thing about liberty, is one can decide to exercise it or not.
If there were over 23,000 State and Federal laws to limit your First Amendment rights such as there are to limit your Second Amendment rights, you probably would not have been allowed to post your opinion in the first place.
I’m fine if you use other means that lethal force to protect yourself. Frankly, it is none of my business. It is none of your business either how I choose to protect myself.
It is not called the Bill of Justification.
Are we good?
Welcome.
Actually, there all sorts of laws governing my speech — libel laws, slander laws, defamation laws, copyright laws. None of our rights are granted unfettered.
The nice thing about opinions though is that they never kill anybody.
So yeah, we’re good.
Showing a weapon will deter an unarmed assailant; I wonder if it might not cause an armed robber to move to the next step before the potential victim does.
What no one addresses here is whether we are safer as a society with laxer carry laws. The criminal may be more at risk; the potential victim less. How about the poor jerk walking down the street minding his own business, shot by someone defending himself inexpertly, or by an exchange that would not have happened had both parties not been armed, or because who’s edgy or drunk mistook his as a threat? These people have nothing to gain, but much to lose by increasing the numbers of guns on the street.
I love all these ‘what if…’ comments. It was said that the streets would run red with blood if one or another concealed carry law was passed. It hasn’t but that doesn’t stop those that want to limit my rights.
Oh, and just want to ask the blog owner. Do you have permission to use the picture at the top of the page? Are you infringing on copyright on purpose?
First, as I stated in my post, this picture kept popping up in my Facebook feed, and was not identified there as being copyrighted. If it is, I will be happy to remove it – just provide some evidence to that effect. But it is being bandied about the web rather freely, so if it is a copyrighted image, its owner isn’t showing much interest in protecting his or her rights.
Secondly, I never said the streets would run red with blood. I’m just saying that I don’t care for the idea of marginally trained at best people running around with firearms. Individual rights are always balanced against societal rights. You have a right to protect yourself, I have a right not to be recklessly endangered. We have differing views on this issue, clearly.
I’m somewhat torn; I love your post, but at the same time the accompanying picture gives me an erection…
Dan: I don’t care for the idea of marginally trained at best people running around with firearms. Individual rights are always balanced against societal rights. You have a right to protect yourself, I have a right not to be recklessly endangered. We have differing views on this issue, clearly.
That may include some police! Training and practice are a team with any complex thing I can think of. You have no idea, and didn’t ask, if he had training and the extent of that training.
As to lax laws, there is the BATFE Form NICS check for every gun sold everywhere. Loughner got a pass because the people that should have charged and convicted him for his prior acts, didn’t. He may have been
many things but legally the line called felon was never crossed and the
NICS check was satisfied.
But hey, name one law that stopped a criminal(and I don’t mean punished after the fact.)?
Now that Applebees, criminals are opportunists, and a place where a gun is obviously present doesn’t look like a easy opportunity. Net effect, crime goes elsewhere. If guns are widespread and mostly unrestricted and visible else where might be the next town or even state.
Last item,while you point at a statistic and say x, I’d add you are x^n times more likely to get run over. based on that lets ban cars. Seriously not. Cherry picking a statistic is not a proof or even evidence. Yet we have drunk drivers, multiple repeat drunk drivers, and they can still buy cars and even drive them, sometimes without licenses that they lost by driving drunk. That is how criminals are. The solution we can apply is like that applied to guns in far to many states. Only some people are allowed to have them, to get one you will
jump though hoops, spend much money and then have restrictions on when and how it may be transported. Can you imagine being told you have to prove you need a car before being allowed to get a license or buying one? After all
you might drive drunk and kill someone. After all you know how those people drive (insert sarcasm).
Be a bit more critical. I’m not saying you should own. I am saying that if you are on the side for more, and yet more laws that impact me as a law abiding citizen, we have a problem. What I read was there should be a law againest
XYZ, What you do not know or care not to mention is there are, many far to many and most ineffective, poorly crafted or worse make innocent citizens subject to onerous situations. Last I checked killing with a rock, knife, arrow , car, or gun is still murder, and still illegal, same for robbery, theft, trespass, assault, and the list goes on. In the end if your in my home and the intent is to rob me, your a criminal, the rest is details. But I ask, Do I have the right of self protection? If you say guns are not allowed, Then show what is protection if the drugged out felon wants to pound the little arthritic old lady. H and with what does she stop him. Reminder, the first few minutes are critical and the cops are how far away?
Finally all the people I know that do carry or own seem to have one thing.
They pay attention, they have no wish to use that firearm and it’s far easier to avoid those situations when possible than to blindly wander around unaware. Often the difference between victim and any other person is it wasn’t me or you.
Eck!
This is sounding more and more like the old ALL IN THE FAMILY episode, where Archie’s solution to plane hijackings is to arm all the passengers. Pass out the rods on the way in, and collect them when they get off.
Sometimes I wonder who gets more air play from conservatives: welfare queens with 13 kids driving Cadillacs, or arthritic old women menaced by drug-crazed felons. Makes me wonder how accurate she’ll be if her arthritis is that bad. Will she be able to pull the gun from her purse in a timely manner? Or should she just keep it in her hand all the time, just in case?
Dan, you’re right, you didn’t say the streets would run red with blood. Rather, you accuse those who (legally) carry concealed firearms of being “marginally trained at best”; of being trigger happy murderers: “but the guy with the gun could say “statute says I can” and might just take me to civil court for my troubles. If he doesn’t shoot me.” Oh, and of being unsafe: “My point is, keeping a gun in the home for the purpose of defense mandates keeping it unsafely.”
Oh, but wait just a minute. Most states have some type of training requirement in order to obtain a concealed handgun license (or a concealed weapons permit, depending on the state). Granted, it’s a bare minimum, but a responsible gun owner who has a CHL should train with their firearm in order to achieve and maintain proficiency. I probably have more training than most of the cops out there on the street. Because I enjoy shooting, and I enjoy training. I’m also a rifle marksmanship instructor. I’m probably more likely to hit my target than a cop is. Have you seen the police statistics for the number of shots fired vs. the number that actually hit their intended target? Get the cops to never miss their target, and then yes, you might have a point. Might.
As to the second point I highlight, please. Show me the statistics that people with a CHL are more likely to commit crimes than the average, or more likely to have a negligent discharge than the average. Until then, it’s more “blood running in the streets” hyperbole and carries just as much weight.
You know, I’ve got a loaded 1911 sitting on my desk in front of me. At night, it sits on my nightstand. It’s loaded, has a round in the chamber, is cocked, and has the safety engaged. It’s also in a leather holster with a thumb break retention strap between the hammer and slide. You know what? It’s perfectly safe. If it remains untouched, it won’t ever BE unsafe. Now, I could do something unsafe with it. But in my living situation, with just my wife and no children, it’s perfectly safe as it is. When we have people over, It’s stored differently. If there are kids coming over, it’s stored differently. But don’t tell me that having a firearm in a ready condition is, in and of itself, “unsafe”.
Three states offer permits with no training requirement. Three other states not only don’t require training, they don’t even require a permit. Many of the states that do require training do not require that applicants prove that they can actually shot straight, as they have no marksmanship or range test requirement. One state requires that an applicant fire “a single shot.” So yeah, I feel OK with saying “marginally trained.’ Checking on the training required in other states, I find that it’s way less than most states require to get a driver’s license – and every state, so far as I can tell, requires that you get in a car with an instructor and prove you know how to drive before they qill give you a license.
How do you feel about property rights? Do you think I should be allowed to prohibit you from carrying a concealed weapon in my home or business?
Oh, and if you are keeping a loaded .45 with a round chambered in your house, I pray you don’t have any kids running around. A safety is not hard to disengage. And really, a round in the chamber? You don’t think you’re going to have time to pull the slide back in your own home? You are going to take time to idenitfy your target, right? Make sure it’s someone you should be shooting? Couldn’t you be pulling the slideback while you’re doing that?
Dan, I agree that people need to take additional training. But how much training is “enough”? Do you think the grandma that keeps her deceased husbands .38 revolver to protect herself at home because the neighborhood has gone downhill in the last 30 years needs to go through a high-speed, low-drag tactical course? I don’t know that you can adequately have a “one size fits all” requirement… Do you need to train with a defensive arm? Absolutely. But how much training is “good enough”? I think that honestly needs to be left to the individual to decide. There are people like myself who love to train and take as much training as they can afford… And there’s the little old grandma that *might* have ammo in the revolver.
As far as property rights go… I absolutely respect private property owner’s rights. If a business is posted no firearms, I respect their wishes…. And take my business elsewhere. But yes. You should be able to tell me that you don’t want me to carry in your home or business. Most states have laws in place that allow you to ask someone to leave, and if they refuse, you may have them cited for trespassing. In my opinion, that is a perfectly legitimate means of dealing with the situation.
And if you read my post, no, I don’t have kids running around. And when I do have other people visiting, it *is* stored differently. Now if you’re familiar with the 1911 platform, it was designed to be carried in condition 1, “cocked and locked” as it were. And there are several distinct advantages to having a round in the chamber. One is speed. I can be on target and only needing to disengage the safety before firing much more quickly than if I need to chamber a round. A second advantage is tactical. I don’t need to give my position away to a bad guy by completing a noisy evolution that also requires me to take the sights off the target. And you better believe that I will have the target identified BEFORE I’m pointing a gun at them.
Dear Author,
Then do not buy a gun.
Stay out of my house.
There, problem solved.
The image was done by photographer and self defense guru Oleg Volk, the model is Red McCord.
Oleg Volk:
http://olegvolk.net/blog/
Red McCord:
http://www.RedMcCord.com
Red –
Thank you for the background info on the photo. I have deleted it off my site and would not have posted it had any indication that it was copyrighted been included on the several Facebook postings of it that I have seen recently. I hope that those in favor of concealed carry that keep posting it on Facebook will begin to demonstrate as much concern for the photographer’s property rights as they do to their gun rights.
From Oleg Volk’s website at http://a-human-right.com/faq.html
“May I use pictures from a-human-right.com?
Yes, please do. Reproduction of the unaltered images in electronic media or print is permitted and encouraged, provided that a by-line is given and that the images are used to promote responsible gun ownership. Please check with me first: some of the images have other conditions attached to them. If you wish to produce graphics based on my posters or photographs, make sure to obtain permission from me first. Many images have conditions attached to them. Organizations or individuals promoting restrictions on ownership and use of firearms are prohibited from using any images from this site.
If you would like to modify my images or use them as elements in more complex compositions, please email me. I try to be helpful, but I would also like to make sure that the uses are consistent with the goals of this web site.”
So the people using this on Facebook (so long as they are using it to encourage responsible gun ownership) actually *are* using the images with permission of Mr. Volk. So there is no violation of the photographer’s property rights.
Well, I could make an argument that opposing concealed carry is favoring responsible gun ownership, but I don’t think he’d see that as in keeping with the goals of his site, so I’ll leave the picture off.
Dana,
The fact that you are some many hours east of me suggests you can’t speak for this country. Its’ still feb 2 here and will be for more than an hour.
However, your hyperbole aside. Me conservative, not a match. Nor am I the Archie bunker sort. I do stand on personal freedom within the law and personal responsibility. You can’t possibly be free if you depend on others to stay in the belief your safe. And you can’t be responsible for yourself for the same reasons.
But hey what do I know, I’ve never been beaten, robbed or otherwise attacked
more than a few times. What do I know, eh?
Oh, if grabbing a gun is hard then that phone with its’ tiny numbers will be tough
especially while your waiting for help. But hey, at my age glasses to see things close are a fact of life even though I can read license plates at a good distance.
It’s interesting to note that the police are not obligated to protect persons, that
was decided by the courts.
No, people have the right to self defense. What you use and how is not for me to say. However what I choose and how is also not for you to say. Fair dinkum?
Eck!
“Sure, every so often a gun saves somebody somewhere from a horrible fate at the hands of a horrible person.” Even Clinton’s Department of justice believed that 1.5 million defensive gun uses occur every year. That’s factors of ten higher than homicides, suicides and accidental deaths per year from firearms. I guess crime stories would be much shorter and boring if they more closely mirrored real life.
1.5 million? Hmmmm . . . This study says between 65,000 and 80,000.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm
And no, crime stories generally don’t too accurately mirror real life. That’s why it’s called crime fiction. Everybody’s already got a real life, they don’t need to read one.
Department of Justice, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (1994) text: http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt
pdf: http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html Has Kleck’s insight and more info than you’d ever want to know.
Either way, its still much, much more than “every so often a gun saves somebody somewhere from a horrible fate at the hands of a horrible person.” 14k Homicides by all types (weapon, fist, vehicular, etc) in 2010. Perhaps in a fictional world, more lives are ended by firearms than are saved by them, but not in the real world with real people with real lives. 😉
By the way, I like the neato patterns left for the userpic when people post. Its a first for me and they’re kinda cool looking.
And one more thing quick before I head to the showers, the study you link to does not conclude the number you’ve quoted. It is presented along with all the other studies of that era. The number you’ve quoted was from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) which was collected by census agents while knocking on doors. Kleck does not agree with the statistical minimum.
Pondif,
I never claimed to speak for the country; that’s your straw man. What your geography has to do with “speaking for the country” eludes me. Assuming any of us “speaks for” anyone other than ourselves is a bit presumptuous. At best, if using geography as a criterion, you may speak for your locality, which I doubt is wholly representative of “the country,” since no locality is.
What the conservatives keep avoiding in this argument is how to determine who is a responsible gun owner. I have no problem with responsible gun owners; I’d just like them to be identified before they’re issues permits to carry objects that have no other purpose than to be lethal. Safety training is not sufficient if people are to be allowed to carry in public with the right to shoot anytime they feel threatened. They also need training on how to identify credible threats and how to assess what is an appropriate response.
A certain amount of common sense has to apply. There are, have been, and always will be, places where a modicum of common sense dictates staying away from. That’s a fact of life. Saying old women, young women, the infirm (whoever else you can imagine) should be able to walk down Fayette Street in Baltimore with impunity is nice, and it is something to be devoutly hoped for. It’s not practical, and saying they should come heavy just so they can go there ignores the facts.
Taking a life no matter how has a cost, personal and legal. If you think or can project that any slight will be a reason to “pull a gun” then we have no conversation as your projections have exceeded the bounds of my space and rational thought. I consider that a serious thing that says maybe your right you should not have weapons.
There is no test of what’s in a persons mind and what they may do. There is history in the form of prior arrests and convictions. But that depends on the system, police and courts to do their job. Then we use NICS to see if that person is a allowed.
Part of owning firearms for self defense is knowing and understanding that taking a life or even threatening to do so has consequences and costs.
It’s not about creditable threat assessment, the threshold has a clear and very high bar, my life vs your direct actions that threaten it. I don’t go to those places where it’s risky, that’s stupidity. But the big mall parking lot in a nice town where people get mugged because they flashed money while buying groceries or a new blouse happens, there are police reports to back that up. Or places like Massachusetts where gun even rifle ownership is very regulated we have home invasions often armed if not with guns, certainly with knives, bats, machetes. I would think that has all the qualifications of being a sufficient to be over that bar of my life is in danger.
This is not a video game where taking a life or loosing yours can be erased with the reset button. Its real, its a very personal decision to squeeze the trigger in self defense or defense of you family. But before you got that far hopefully it’s been considered by the only person that matters, if my life is threatened can I take a life? IF that makes you uncomfortable then you need to think that through.
There has been no blood in the streets like some project. Its because one
may acquire the weapon but realizes its weight in a moral scale.
Eck!
Anti carry laws have their roots in racist Court decisions after the Civil War.
If people do not like seeing people with guns on their hips they are free to avert their eyes.
Liberals have no problem with domestic violation perp Sean Penn having a CCW but freak out when African American vets ant to enjoy the same rights.
That’s why liberals flock to places like Marin where Sean Penn lives, they have the weight of the law enforce their racist desires and only let wealthy white liberals carry guns, African Americans who can not rely on the police are denied the most basic of all rights, the right to protect their life.
Hey, I’ve got a problem with Sean Penn having a CCW — first, I’ve got a problem almost anyone having a CCW; second, he’s publiclly demonstrated problems controlling his temper on more than enough occassions that I certainly wouldn’t want to be around him while he’s armed. But fine, let’s eliminate CCW altogether — cures the racism problem too.
I grew up around guns. (I was raised in one of those redneck states.) My father has been a gun enthusiast for as long as I’ve known him. He’s had his moments where this was a less than wise hobby for him. But he’s cleaned up his act considerably since then. The odd thing is, he somehow managed to keep his gun hobby separate from his anger management issues, his bouts of depression, and his other “crazies.” Anytime he touched one, he was deadly serious. (Well, there was that one time he thought it’d be funny to see me try to shoot a rifle when I was around 12, but he was still quite serious about how to hold it and where to point it.)
He used to keep the things in a glass-front case. The handguns were all in their little cases at the bottom and the rifles and shotguns were all lined up along the top. The lock was probably easily pick-able and the glass was, well, glass. At no point, though, did my sister or I ever think it was a good idea to touch any of it. I defied him about a lot of things. Never that. (Maybe it was his whole deadly-serious-shining-through-the-crazy thing that left an impression.)
He wasn’t much for hunting, but he loved to go to the range. He and the neighbor who had a healthy respect for guns would go some weekends and shoot until they ran out of home-loaded ammo. (The neighbor on the other side who thought firing rifles into the woods where the kids played was never invited as he was considered “actually crazy.”)
He still does “cowboy shoots” and random competitions and loads his own rounds from time to time. Now, he’s upgraded to a massive gun safe that looks like a bank vault. He reads up on the gun laws, castle doctrines, and all the way you read up on tax laws. He wanted my sister to get a shotgun when she lived out in the wilderness by herself because “you can scare off most people by just ratcheting it and if that doesn’t work you know you’re in danger and you don’t have to aim much” but he also made her read that Massad Ayoob book about the legal and ethical ramifications. I have no issue with him having a CCW because I know he’s not going to shoot anyone (including the family dog) unless he absolutely has to.
I’ve taken the CCW class here, but I don’t really have any interest in sending in the paperwork. I mostly did it as writing research. I’ve discovered that shooting (at the range) can be fun, but in the same way running can be fun. I don’t want to feel like I have to do either and neither is going to be all that effective at “defending” myself. I wouldn’t have a gun in the house that wasn’t locked up, unloaded. I’m not going to shoot anyone over the TV. It’s 13″. You want it, take it. If you happen to show up while I’m home, I might beat the crap out of you with my escrima stick, but I’m much more likely to sneak out back when you’re not looking and call the cops. Besides, you’re much more likely to show up when I’m not here anyway
As for when I’m out, walking around? Shooting you and accidentally hitting the woman behind you and then getting sued by your family and her family and the owners of the building I also hit? Nah, that doesn’t sound so good. I much prefer talking myself out of things. As evidenced, I could “talk” a person to tears.
Which is pretty much what I got out of the CCW class. That was a good class. (There are a lot of them, though, that are not. That are about a half hour at a gun show where guys are already salivating over deadly toys they can’t wait to stick in their pants.) And the paper work I’ll probably never send in does require a background check and fingerprints — which I had to do to get a job with the schools and then again to be a foster parent.
Pretty nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I have really enjoyed browsing your blog posts.
After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you write again very soon!