But guns are illegal in Chicago.
The Chicago Tribune reports on this story from Zion, IL in the upper East corner of the state.
Clad in a black ski mask and gloves, Davis forced open the back door of a home in the 1700 block of Jethro Avenue, Malcolm said. This was shortly after the couple in the house heard a knock at the front door and asked who was there but didn't open the door.
The 55-year-old wife heard the doorjamb shatter, grabbed a 9 mm handgun from her bedroom and ran to the kitchen, Malcolm said.
She fired twice and both rounds struck Davis, who was found by police on the kitchen floor still wearing the mask, Malcolm said.
...
Davis was on juvenile probation for a 2005 aggravated battery charge involving a weapon, Malcolm said.
Chicago Democrats are in essence saying, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF against armed thugs breaking into your home trying to rob you or rape you or kill you. Gun bans rarely disarm violent criminals, but almost always disarm victims. ALL law-abiding and able Americans should have the right, just like this 55-year-old woman, to protect themselves from armed intruders.
The intruder was on probation (and a minor) and thus it was illegal for him to posess a gun. Those gun laws didn't stop him, did it?
What do Chicago Democrats and all gun ban advocates suggest this woman should have done? Could you look this 55-year-old woman in the eye and tell her she should have been locked up and put in a cage for just owning a handgun as they will do in Chicago? Could you look this woman in the eye and tell her she should have just accepted whatever this intruder was going to do to her even if it meant her rape or death? Could you look her in the eye and tell her that her life is expendable and her life is less important than a ban on handguns?
Posted at JeffTrigg.com also.
73 comments:
There is a happy medium between owning an assault weapon (if you are not military or a collector), armor piercing bullets, rubber guns, and some reasonable restrictions and concerns about gun shows CONTRASTED TO:
Understanding a healthy gun culture and hunting and outdoors culture that is fairly devoid of violence and many accidents ALSO
reasonable gun ownership for self defense
It is funny that the hypocrites like Daley and Burke have multiple bodyguards for them and their families that their sons and daughters have chauffers and armed police and alderman want police in their offices but no one else can have a weapon
WHAT about the Arab storekeeper in a low income African American neighborhood doing a night deposit
or the Korean dry cleaner with a lot of cash on him
rely on the Chicago Police? LOL
What about some Mexican veteran trained in weapons who lives alone and is a senior when the gang idiots break in?
The Daley precinct captains, and investigators have weapons
the HDO gang bangers have them
and crooked cops have guns
BUT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, RESERVE MILITARY, VETERANS, EVEN RETIRED COPS SHOULD NOT HAVE WEAPONS
IT IS STUPID
My stance is that if you aren't convicted of a crime or prove yourself to be negligent or irresponsible with the use of a firearm, then you cannot possess one. It's that simple to me. I think the gun control movement is misguided in that they choose to take guns away from the law abiding people. Gun control needs to work on those criminals who will use a gun to commit a crime or is proven to be irresponsible with a gun.
In this case though I would have hoped that common sense would have prevailed with the police officers and the prosecution. And if she was to be prosecuted that this woman has a good lawyer to represent her.
And, let's not forget that aldermen have the right to carry guns.
A 16 year old boy is dead.
A couple lives so much in fear that they believe they must have a 9mm handgun in their house.
That's the result of the gun culture we have in the US.
Look, I don't think the lady in this article should be "locked up," and I doubt she will be. But I also don't think she had the right or even the need to have a loaded gun in her house.
It's a nice fantasy, fueled by our movies and TV shows, that only an armed individual can protect her property against evil intruders. But that's not the real world.
In the real world, most people who own guns for self-defense are not properly trained in using a handgun in confrontational situations. In fact, it's far more likely that a gun owner will simply think that she is safe because of the gun, and put herself and others in danger.
There's no indication in the newspaper article that the couple was in immediate physical danger. In fact, no details of the confrontation between her and the 16 year old are presented.
I wouldn't say that the woman should be "locked up and put in a cage" for her actions in defending against a trespass. But the fact remains that she shot and killed someone, and that it is highly likely that no one would have been harmed if she did not have a 9mm gun in her house.
Oh, and if you really want to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals, enact stricter laws regulating the initial sale of guns. Almost every gun that ends up in the hands of criminals was originally sold legally to a "law abiding citizen."
a 16 year-old boy is dead
As sad as this is, better that than the 55 year-old innocent woman. The probablity that this kid would have eventually killed some one is quite high.
If you lament the loss of human potential, then I'm sure you would also support the conversion of our education system to one where this youth would have had access to a voucher that would have gotten him in a better school. (instead of a bureaucratized jobs program for the mediocre)
If you wouldn't support such a policy, why should you be taken seriously?
It's a nice fantasy, fueled by our movies and TV shows, that only an armed individual can protect her property against evil intruders. But that's not the real world.
Speaking of being taken seriously...
The facts of the story alone indicate that it most certainly IS the real world.
Should be put 200,000 more police on the streets? Maybe we can move all these 55 year olds to group homes with armed protection? Maybe we can just conficate every gun in America (have you seen the crime/death rates in the EU lately)
A modicum of common sense shows who is and who isn't in the real world here.
The right to self-defense is "self-evident" for most people, and guns are perfect way to equalize the balance between predatory 16 year-olds and aging 55 year-olds. (one could easily make the case that it is "Women's rights" issue as well)
As for your point about initial point of sale restrictions, I could agree to that. Just like a rational person would agree to severe punishment for anyone who uses guns illegally in any first offense.
The mind boggles at the "progressive's" knee jerk reaction to ban "things" (guns, cigarettes, speech/PC) instead of behavior.
Each time an incident like this occurs, the free-weaponry advocates pull out the same fallacious arguments. I'm calling b******t on Mr. Trigg and those who put forth similar, misguided arguments:
* Um, Zion IS NOT CHICAGO. Chicago Democrats like Daley and Burke have nothing to do with ordinances passed in suburban jurisdictions. Please, before starting an argument at least get your facts straight. Nice example here of combining the EQUIVOCATION and ASSOCIATION fallacies, especially since Chicago is such a bogeyman to those downstate.
* 'Could you look this 55-year-old woman in the eye and tell her she should have been locked up [...]? [...]' Nice STRAWMAN ARGUMENT here (with a tug on the heartstrings for some extra flourish). I defy someone to point out who from either the government or the anti-gun lobby is trying to lower the boom on the shooter here. Indeed, the article quotes the police chief as saying "With all the information we have right now, we don't anticipate any charges." If she recieves any punishment for her violation of local ordinances, it's most likely to be some sort of fine or community service---certainly a small price to pay for doing the right thing by the wrong method, no?
* '[politicians] are in essence saying, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF...' Kids, this is an example of the FALSE DICHOTOMY argument. The ordinances are not preventing self-defense, they only constrain the *means* by which you may do so. Complete gun bans clearly violate the federal second amendment; most such bans apply merely to handguns and other classes of weaponry. The shooter here squeezed off two shots, both of which properly hit the target; sounds like she knows here way around a gun, can anyone really argue that she couldn't have done the same thing with a rifle or shotgun or whatever else might be allowed by the ordinance?
* Of course the worst is simply the AD HOC arguments that fly around related to 'law-abiding citizens'. If you want to argue that banning certain types of weapons is stupid or ineffective, I'll concede the point. But a citizen who defies that law is not law-abiding, regardless of their justification. True law-abiding citizens either follow the law and work within the system to change bad laws, or else accept the consequences of their actions when they violate them. The shooter in this case either knew, or should have known, her weapon was in violation of local ordinance, and she made the conscious decision that she needed to do so to do the Right Thing; that turned out to be the 'proper' choice for the situation at hand, but neither that nor any aspects of the intruder change the fact she violated a law.
The whole ethos behind such arguments seems to be a misunderstanding of the interaction between law and society. The law doesn't dictate behavior, individuals' choices do; the law is merely a statement of society's view of how things should work. Like anything dreamed up by people, the rules and regulations of law can't anticipate every situation and thus sometimes result in unintended 'criminals'...that is why prosecutors can decline to press charges, juries can nullify, and governors can pardon...and the public can lobby legislatures to revise laws.
----
Extreme Wisdom, it's not really all that mind-boggling that legislatures (um, not 'progressives', by the way) ban things rather than behavior. The former can be precisely defined in statute and objectively (dis)proved in a court of law, while the latter are more subject to interpretation. (Traffic laws are perfect examples: is there really *that* much difference between driving 65mph vs. 66mph on an Interstate?) Arguably a focus on behavior would be ideal, but to do so we would have to hand over state power and jurisprudence to the discretion of police officers, public officials, and judges. In my view that would be vastly more dangerous to our freedom than the occasional conflict between following the law and Doing The Right Thing At The Moment.
There's no indication in the newspaper article that the couple was in immediate physical danger.
Um, there was a person in their kitchen wearing a mask and holding a gun. Not in immediate physical danger? That is your fantasy.
You can call it a "gun culture" all you like, but people have been killing people for no good reason since the dawn of humankind, and they always will. The fantasy that the killing would stop if we just banned all guns in the world is completely misguided. We have instead a survival culture and this woman has the right to defend herself to survive. You say she has no right to have a gun for her survival, and you are wrong just like your fantasy that she was not in immediate physical danger.
"Highly likely no one would have been harmed if she didn't have a 9mm handgun"? What, was the guy delivering flowers? What do you suppose she would tell you if you told her that? Probably get real.
If you want to argue that banning certain types of weapons is stupid or ineffective, I'll concede the point.
So this indicates that we have something to work with regarding a rational solution.
But a citizen who defies that law is not law-abiding, regardless of their justification. True law-abiding citizens either follow the law and work within the system to change bad laws, or else accept the consequences of their actions when they violate them.
At some level, we are on the same page. If owning a gun becomes an act of civil disobedience, so be it. For my part, I'd rather suffer an "illegal ownership" prosecution than be dead. But let's look at the rest of your argument.
If you use a gun in self-defense, even in Chicago, you probably won't be prosecuted. Is this the right way to do things? Why not simply legalize self-defense on its face.
Why should a Chicagoan have less access to the right to defend one's self (which transcends Constitutions and statutes, IMO) than a woman in Zion.
Just like so many of our laws, the 14th Amendment "Equal Protection" clause is selectively (and often poltically and/or arbirtrarily) enforced.
it's not really all that mind-boggling that legislatures (um, not 'progressives', by the way) ban things rather than behavior. The former can be precisely defined in statute and objectively (dis)proved in a court of law, while the latter are more subject to interpretation.
There should be a "blog law" or "man law" about using more than one "um" in a post. In any event, its novelty wore off around 2002 or so.
As to the merits of your argument, you sort of make my point. People get killed and the "legislatures" outlaw the "gun" because it is easy, not because it is good policy.
Hence, we are at the point where we restrict the rights of law abiding citizens instead of punishing the behavior of bad actors. That's more "objective?" Objectively wrong, perhaps.
In fact, we already HAVE handed state power to our police, courts & officials, and they are doing a bang up job of subjective enforcement (of their own behavior too).
I too would prefer objective tests and objective rules. One rational one would be that when you defend yourself from harm, you are always doing the "right thing at the moment," and you have an objective affirmative defense against any and all state or local laws.
Ian, it's an easy comparison to get. If this had happened in Chicago or if Chicago laws had been applied everywhere. And you can't say Chicago Democrats haven't tried to enact their laws statewide. That is a valid comparison even if it is inconvenient for you.
A question can not be a strawman argument. It's a question and a valid one. No one may be trying to lock her up specifically, but plenty of people would like to and are trying to enact and have enacted laws that would put her behind bars. The question is valid no matter how you try to distract us with a lecture on why government grants us our individual rights.
...can anyone really argue that she couldn't have done the same thing with a rifle or shotgun or whatever else might be allowed by the ordinance?
Absolutely, yes. Which is easier to use in a confined space such as a doorway? Which can be ready to use faster from the moment of sensing danger to moment it has to be used? If as you suggest, there is absolutely no difference between what someone can do with a handgun versus a rifle or shotgun, then what is the justification for outlawing handguns if there is no difference? You can't have it both ways as that would prove your argument to be misguided and thus b&&&$#&t.
I love the logic here.
One person prevents a gun crime using a gun: Therefore, all guns should be legal.
Why don't I see the proud response for the typical hangun use in a house: Spousal abuse or suicide. Those facts seem to get brushed aside by the gun nuts.
Finally, we all know that the primary use of handguns is to rob people. That is just a fact.
That's why the bad guys love people like Trigg. Because of Trigg, the bad guys can walk waround with their handguns and nothing at all can be done.
Nice work, Trigg. The armed robbers of Illinois thank you for your assistance.
'If this had happened in Chicago or if Chicago laws had been applied everywhere.'
But it didn't, and they aren't. Equivocating an incident to a situation that doesn't exist based on facts not in evidence calls into question the credibility of any related argumentation.
The argument presented here (yes, it is an implicit argument even if you claim to just be 'asking questions') is trying to make a case out of nothing, and tie it into unrelated upstate-vs.-downstate, city-vs.-suburbs, Republican-vs.-Democrat dynamics. If the good citizens of Illinois find it appropriate to change the gun laws, they should do so based on the merits of the proposed changes, not out of dislike for Mayor Daley or his political tactics. Red herrings and ad hominem sideshows make for great political theater and stir up passions, but they make for bad law.
I'm not trying to have it both ways, I concede that I don't know enough about guns or the gun industry to truly know whether restricting handguns or whatever is an effective way to ensure that they mostly end up in the hands of responsible owners. If it doesn't, then certainly there's justification for repealing the law. But if it *does* actually have that benefit, then to repeal it based on the details of this incident might trade some measure of broader public safety for the convenience of a few individuals. That one homeowner's violation of a law is pardonable on its particular merits doesn't mean that a similar violation won't result in tragedy elsewhere.
My point is mainly that a single incident that results in some tension between 'law' and 'justice' doesn't mean that the law itself is problematic or flawed. When that incident can be quickly disposed of, administratively, without any lasting effect on either the individuals or the state legal framework, then spinning it up into a bigger deal is unnecessary.
Extreme wisdom, I'll let most of my initial post speak for itself. However, I will second Skeeter's point. Just because in this one case the homeowner successfully defended herself (arguably; someone got killed regardless) does not mean that gun control laws, including handgun bans, do not serve a purpose such as preventing suicide and accidental deaths. Guns are fired and used with those results far more often than they are used to fend off an intruder.
One big quibble, Extreme, is your challenge about school vouchers. You're mixing apples and oranges here; show me any reputable study that links school vouchers with lower rates of illegal gun possession. Moreover, some of us believe that school vouchers will further divide good schools from bad schools, as private schools and well-funded public schools end up cherry-picking the best behaved and brightest students, leaving the remaining kids who are most at-risk to flounder in failing schools. But, education policy is a separate issue.
And Jeff, just because there is an intruder in your house does not necessarily place you at physical risk. The kid could have been in the house to steal things, not to shoot and harm the couple. We don't know the details: did the woman point the gun at the kid and he resisted? Doesn't sound like it; it sounds like she sneaked up on him and shot him. Burglars, even armed burglars, often steal things without inflicting physical harm on people. And most law enforcement officials, including the National Crime Prevention Council, advise avoiding a confrontation with a burglar.
No one here is blaming the 55-year old woman, and no one here is excusing the criminal acts of the kid. But for every case like this, there's many more where an innocent person gets shot. Remember the exchange student who was shot because he knocked on the wrong door for a Halloween party?
the other anonymous: Are you a Wilmette or Winnetka resident like the Handgun lobbying guy?
I know plenty of good honest law abiding citizens who can't carry guns. I live in a so called low income neighborhood. I SHOULD BE DEPRIVE OF SELF PROTECTION--I SERVED IN THE GULF (I).
The State's Attorney gets a lot of people on gun charges. LOTS
So, she is in danger of going to jail, and it is the law.
Do you want the chaos and denial of rights of taking all guns away?
Do you think that will end violence or even guns?
Re: Anon & Skeeter,
One of the reasons stories like this make y'all so defensive is that they highlight the absurdity of the anti-gun lobby's position.
You can bash Jeff all you want about his rhetorical questions, but the fact is that under the surface of the anti-gun crowd is the belief that people ought not have the right to own a gun, and not the right to defend themselves.
All the protestations in the world can't gainsay the eloquent facts of this story.
As an aside, what a sad state this nation has come to when we listen to "national councils of blah blah blah."
It's akin to turning our children over to government schools, which are proven incompentent and proven over priced.
Other Anon asked:
show me any reputable study that links school vouchers with lower rates of illegal gun possession.
With a big enough budget, I'm sure I could cook one up. It is certainly more reasonable of a leap than the idea that we give another dime to the current entrenched bureaucracy in the vain hope that it is "for the children."
Leaving the issue of vouchers aside for that "education debate", the fact is that well educated kids tend not to break into people's houses.
Take the Zion per pupil expenditure and turn it over to the parents and the number of lost souls like this poor kid would be reduced.
A 16 year old got killed.
So.
Just think of the misery he would have caused others.
For once, why can't people like the kid call on the anti-gun folks?
That would change their minds in a hurry.
Wow, nothing like a blog about politics to make the vast middle ground of ideas and sober reviews of facts vanish into thin air.
I would like to point out again, probably also in vain, that not once in the original story was there any mention of imminent problems for the couple whose home was invaded. The police chief quite explicitly stated that no charges (probably of the homicide/manslaughter/wrongful death category) were likely, and there is no mention *at all* about whether the couple violated any gun laws. All the consternation from the pro-gun/libertarian folks about what might happen to them, and what this means, has been due to their projecting their views of current Illinois gun laws onto what amounts to a non-story.
Can we get back to a little bit of reality, people? Just for a little while? Please?
Yes, there are people who would like to see all legal guns go away. Yes, there are people who think that anyone should have access to any gun at any time. Both these extreme views are in the realm of fantasyland: neither one will solve anything, and neither one has any realistic chance of becoming reality. Staunch proponents of both views need to get over themselves and realize that it's not a binary proposition, that those who push for one direction aren't necessarily intent upon going all the way to one extreme or the other (and certainly don't view the debate as something inextricably linked to overhauls of our educational and taxing systems). Most of us are here in the middle, wanting there simply to be some clear controls in place that help deter miscreants from getting weapons while still allowing responsible people to defend themselves when necessary.
Military and police forces operate under rules of engagement, and breaking the ROE in the course of completing a mission comes with consequences that are mitigated, but not completely absolved, by the success of the mission or whether the situation resulted in a conflict between what was legal and what was necessary. The same principles should apply to citizenry, if we want an orderly society and the rule of law to have any meaning.
The woman has single handedly decreased the crime rate by a considerable amount.
Criminals are not idiots. Word gets around.
I'll bet there are a lot of people who are going to have second thoughts before they break into someone's home.
A lot of the anti-gun crowd seems to think that the violence prone areas are against guns.
Think again.
I take you back to the Jane Byrne one month photo op living as mayor of the great city in Cabrini-Green.
There was a move to sweep the place clean of firearms.
You never heard such a ruckus.
Don't think the loving relatives don't want their gang banger kids to have guns.
They complain. But they don't really want to disarm them.
All this talk about prevention at sale.
How can any intelligent person believe that that would solve anything.
The only real solution is to give mandatory, non-probationable, sentences, preferably 10 years, for illegal use of firearms.
Word get around. That would really make a dent.
Of course, that wont happen either because of the bleeding hearts who would never put up with sentences that actually are a deterrent.
You can't please the crowd that lights candles for people being executed for brutally murdering innocent human beings.
Fisrt of all, there is no "A 16 year old boy dies.....SO", yall people is so blind to the fact that he was loved and the fact that he died when he did makes it even worse. I knew gerrell, and i dont think its right that yall comin on here sayin that mess, its like yall spitin on his. and if yall knew the whole story yall would see that it wasn't his fault. He and another boi went to the house together,( the boi with gerrell was the one who set the whole thing up, let say that that other was cuzins with the people who lived there. It may have been gerrell's fault for going bout, the fact that the other boi ran away like a little punk made gerrell's death even more bougus than it already is. So if yall wanna come in here and comment if u got sumthin bad to say keep any part of his name or anything to do with him out of it
Extreme:
Defensive?
No.
I just want to know why you all are not busy taking credit for the typical use of a hangun.
When a depressed teenager kills himself with his father's gun -- Trigg should post something and embrace the freedom to own guns.
When an angry drunken husband shoots his wife in your typical domestic dispute, which gets out of hand because a gun is in the house -- Trigg should post something and embrace that shooting.
When some poor guy is walking down the street and a bad guy puts a gun in his back -- Trigg should embrace that.
That is the reality of the ownership of handguns in America.
That is what you have caused.
Embrace it. You asked for it and you have it. Take the credit. You deserve it.
The criminals and suicide victims and abusing spouses of Illinois thank you for your fine efforts to keep handguns on the streets.
Nice work.
skeeter -
Plenty of depressed kids kill themselves by busting open their father's Gillette and slitting their wrists.
Plenty of poor guys walking down the street get guns put in their backs by "bad people" everyday. There isn't one bit of evidence to suggest that Chicago's gun ban has decreased such instances.
I've also scene no evidence to suggest that handgun ownership has gone up in relation to the crime rate, or that the crime rate has gone down as a result of Chicago's gun ban. The reality you speak of is not the result of the ownership of handguns in America. It is the result of far greater & deeper social problems that gun control advocates couldn't care less about: fatherless children; the removal of religious morals as the centerpiece of community/society, with nothing to take it's place; etc.
Jeff is 100% right: handguns will be on the streets regardless of how many prohibitions you create (and any law enforcement officer not officially speaking on behalf of the Blagojevich or Daley Administrations will tell you that). The only question is, who is going to be holding them? ONLY the criminals and police? Or the criminals, police, AND responsible, law abiding citizens who want the ability to protect themselves?
Skeeter, this woman is better off dead, right? She deserved to die, right Skeeter? Skeeter is God, everybody, and he says this woman should be dead.
Jeff,
Again, you are speculating that the woman was in any sort of immiment danger; this sounds like an armed burglary, not as if the kid was about to shoot and kill the couple.
Regardless, the real problem I have is the glorification of this form of preventing crime. A kid died. To me, that's not a great way of enforcing crime. (Btw, anonymous @ 8:06PM seems to think that's absolutely honky-dory that the kid was killed.)
I'd much rather see crime prevention that doesn't involve violence. Now, some folks don't think that's possible. We should have that debate.
But if the underlying thought process is represented by anonymous@8:06PM (i.e., who cares if we allow civilians to shoot and kill because the person was probably a bad person anyway), we won't have a constructive debate.
Trigg,
And the beaten spouse deserves it too.
Right?
And the guy who gets a gun put into his back.
And the bank teller.
And the person who just happens to be walking down the street.
If you are going to take credit for saving the life of this woman, then be consistent and take responsibility for the rest of the people who use guns.
By the way -- there are stats showing a strong correlation between gun ownership and spousal abuse. We all know that. The difference is that it doesn't bother Trigg and EW. As long as he can fondle a hard piece of metal, he's a happy boy. Screw the innocent victims. Trigg wants his guns.
the other anon, funny how it is you will only criticize me but none of the speculation and assumptions skeeter is making. Aren't you speculating the woman was in no danger? Is that a luxury she could afford? A masked man with a gun in her kitchen and you want her to believe she was in no harm?
Do you not realize that whether or not she was in immediate danger is NOT FOR YOU OR I TO DECIDE. When she was faced with a masked gunman in her kitchen, that was for her to decide. Quickly. It is her right to proctect herself. Skeeter doesn't believe she has that right. If you want to pretend you are fence sitting, do a better with skeeter's ridiculous arguments that have no relevance.
Pills are used more often for suicide attempts, where is Skeeter calling for a complete ban on those. More kids drown in backyard pools than from guns, where is Skeeter calling for a ban on those. Blah blah blah, those are completely different subjects than whether or not this woman has the right to protect herself and whether or not anti-2nd Amendment people want her locked in cage for defending herself and for owning a handgun to begin with. But it doesn't look like any anti-gunners want to acknowledge that.
skeeter I don't own a gun. Haven't held one since high school some 18 years ago.
Skeeter, the beaten spouse deserves to be able to own a gun to defend herself against her abuser when he violates an OOP and breaks into her home and kills after she makes three phone calls to the police.
The guy with the gun in his back is little different than the guy with a knife in his back. same with the bank teller and the guy walking down the street. I'm not taking credit for anything, good or bad, that has to do with how people use guns.
Unfortunately for you, banning guns hasn't and won't prevent ANY of the situations you bring up. BUT banning guns will prevent 55 year old rural women from being able to defend themselves against masked gunmen.
You assume no one is capable of owning a gun responsibly and you want to control everyone because of that belief. I assume everyone is responsible until proven otherwise. Freedom versus control/authoritarianism, I pick freedom every time. It's not up to me to decide for other people, they should be free to do it themselves. You want to decide what is best for them by holding a gun to their head to force them to comply.
Now go ahead rip away, I'm done on this topic for today.
skeeter - do you think that the second amendment should be repealed?
GOP,
No.
I believe in reasonable restrictions, just like we have on the First Amendment.
Trigg:
You seem happy to take credit for the little old lady, but don't take the blame for the crime victims.
But we both know that if you want free and easy access to guns, there will be a lot more innocent victims of gun violence.
That is a direct result of the policies that you advocate.
Want more guns on the street? Fine. Live with more victims of gun violence.
Well done.
By the way Trigg:
Your pool/pill example is ridiculous and we both know it. So don't waste our time with that one.
When a pool, used exactly as it is designed to be used and when used with all due care kills somebody, then we can ban pools. And cars. And whatever other ridiculous example you think up.
Guns are designed to damage a body. When used properly and with all due care, that is the result.
But you want everybody to have one.
Whoa there skeeter....
What sort of "reasonable restrictions."
Maybe I'm missing something, but has Jeff actually said anything here that advocates gun laws that could be considered "unreasonable?" You are the one who inaccurately stated his position as being that "all guns should be legal." He never said that. He said that "ALL law-abiding and able Americans should have the right, just like this 55-year-old woman, to protect themselves from armed intruders"
So the question for you is: what is so unreasonable about that? What is so unreasonable about allowing people who have a clean criminal record from being able to own a gun for the protection of themselves, their families, and their properties?
Please. A direct answer to that specific question. No twisting it around, or drawing up assumptions about what my position is or is not on other questions. No strawmen. Just an answer to that question.
Interesting response.
In fact, you are the one's who claim that I have said she should not be able to defend herself, and then Trigg and others had their weird rambling digressions that basically claim that all gun restrictions will cause havoc.
She is free to defend herself with a shot gun. I wouldn't contest that.
I have no problem with that.
I just don't want her to have a handgun, since the use of handguns leads to increases in crime and abuse.
Now you are going to respond that, well, maybe somebody could rob a bank with a shot gun, or kill a spouse with one, or stick somebody up with one. Don't bother with that argument. It is of course true. What matters, though, is that it is far less likely.
Handguns are the culprit. It is a heck of a lot easier to use one for an illegal or improper purpose than to use other weapons.
Banning hanguns would not solve all of our problems. But it would be a reasonable and moderate step in the right direction.
Skeeter said:
"Finally, we all know that the primary use of handguns is to rob people. That is just a fact."
Pardon me for being a little late to the discussion, but don't COPS and the MILITARY carry handguns, aka sidearms? Do they do so because their primary use is to "rob people"?
I don't think so.
Police (and the military) carry handguns because--get this, Skeeter-- handguns are the most effective self-defense tools available.
The arguments against handguns are simply about denying law abiding citizens of the most effective self-defense tools known to man.
They make about as much sense as laws against body armor.
PRIMARY, Colt, PRIMARY.
On a daily basis, how many times is a handgun fired by a PO to defend something?
On a daily basis, how many times a day is a handgun used to rob somebody?
I stand on my former comment.
skeeter -
Why did you claim that Jeff's position is that "all guns should be legal," when it so clearly is not? If you think I am wrong, and that your interpretation of Jeff's position was accurate, please back it up with something that he actually said.
I wholeheartedly disagree with your contention that “the use of handguns leads to increases in crime and abuse.” The ownership of handguns has been widespread in this nation for well over a century and a half. And the crime rates have only (relatively) recently hit the tragic heights that they have. As I said before, there are factors far more fundamental - and whose correction would be more widely beneficial – contributing to the rise in crime. Suggesting that handguns will somehow cause previously law-abiding to become violent and homicidal is ridiculous. If you believe this is the case, I’d really like to see what stats you’re basing that on.
By the way Colt --
If you want REAL defense, allow people to drive tanks, and own tatical nuclear weapons.
Somebody driving and/or holding one of those things is probably not going to be the victim of a robbery with a handgun.
That would be outstanding for self-defense.
Of course, the person would be a danger to all of the rest of us, but that doesn't bother you, does it Colt?
By the way, Colt: We both know that handguns are used for self-defense perhaps ten times a year nationally.
How often are they used for spousal abuse? Suicide? Bank robbery? Muggings?
But you still embrace guns.
I just hope that you get what you deserve. I hope that somebody like you who loves guns will appreciate it when the bad guy sticks one in your ear. Then you can have a nice discussion with that person about the virtues of gun ownership.
GOP,
Want facts?
Let's start with this one:
According to a 1998 study by the peer-reviewed medical publication Journal of Trauma, guns kept in the home for self-protection are twenty-two times more likely to kill a family member than be used in self-defense.
Or how about this:
From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.
Or how about this:
In 1998, more than one thousand two hundred children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm
That would seem to be a basis for some reasonable restrictions.
skeeter -
In light of your idea of "reasonable restrictions," can you tell me if those stats are broken down by shotgun vs. handgun. And is there anyway to really know whether or not the incidents that involved a handgun would have been less likely to occur if the only firearm available was a shot-gun?
GOP,
Let me see if I can get a breakdown.
In the meantime, let's try logic.
It is easier to conceal a handgun or a shot gun?
It is easier to walk into a bank with a handgun or shotgun?
It is easier to walk down the street without attracting undue notice with the goal of robbing someone carrying a handgun or a shot gun?
That is the issue with the gun nuts.
They refuse to accept reasonable restrictions.
BTW, I am for reasonable restrictions. I just have a different definition.
I don't think that minors, felons, or people with a history of domestic violence complaints or mental illness should be allowed to own guns. I think all guns should be registered to the state. And I support the Illinois FOID system. I support strict and vigorous enforcement of all the gun laws currently on the books on the state level.
And I'll point out to you that the majority of gun related crimes in this state occur in the municipalities that have enacted gun restrictions which go above and beyond what the state has enacted.
Skeeter said:
"We both know that handguns are used for self-defense perhaps ten times a year nationally." Really? I don't think so.
Please cite the source for your amazing statistic. (Don't use the excuse that "80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.")
Skeeter, why do cops carry sidearms? To make hits on donut shops?
Use your logic. Why not require them to carry shotguns?
Face it. Cops demand, and get from the public, handguns because handguns are the premier self-defense tool. Carrying something less effective puts them at a disadvantage and endangers their lives.
And why should cops be the only ones with handguns? Don't Mayor Daley's bodyguards carry handguns? Why? Are they going to make a hit on a fast food joint for Hizonner? No, they are protecting him. And why does he deserve better protection than the folks who labor to pay his salary?
No, handguns are not the problem. People love being protected by them. The problem is the criminal who thinks he will get away with his proposed crime. Too bad the 16 year old at issue learned too late.
You're right, I don't worry about tanks and nukes any more than I worry about F-16s or submarines. Nukes are secret, and the rest are too expensive for private citizens to operate.
Skeeter, I believe that you have the same rights that I enjoy. You really ought to go out and buy yourself at least one handgun; you'd enjoy it. They are fine examples of workmanship. Many models have more than one safety. Check out the Springfield Armory XD series--they even come with high capacity magazines and speed loaders to help keep them full of nice shiny bullets.
And, Skeeter, my heartfelt thanks to you for as a taxpayer. Uncle Sam gives me several guns (I'm military). Some fully automatic, and all with high capacity magazines. Nice equipment.
I also own several firearms myself, including handguns. Any homey who'd try to stick a heater in my ear would be outgunned. I give them credit for being smart enough to avoid a "hard target".
For all we know, Skeeter has a gun. Hypocrites are all around us.
September 23, 2000
Web posted at: 6:15 p.m. EDT (2215 GMT)
In a Washington Post profile, Rowan was once called "the most visible black journalist in the country."
Rowan, who had advocated strict handgun control, found himself in the center of a gun controversy during the 1980s when he was arrested and charged with using an unregistered weapon to wound a teen-ager who intruded into his backyard.
Rowan argued that he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family. The jury deadlocked and the judge hearing the case declared a mistrial.
Colt,
You shouldn't own a gun since you are clearly too stupid.
A guy sticks a gun in your ear and you are going to quickly turn around and return fire?
I almost feel bad for the robber.
It will take him a while to scrub your brains out of his clothes.
By the way (and at the risk of using logic with somebody clearly incapable of logical thought):
The United States Air Force owns, and regularly uses, fighter jets.
Should I also be allowed to own a fighter jet?
Or is it reasonable to say that the police and military should have access to some things, and the general public should not?
A final note:
I see nothing hypocritical about Rowan's activity.
The gun nuts keep working to make sure the bad guys have guns. If he wants to make the decision that due to the actions of the guns nuts he needs one, then fine.
I expect him to follow the law. He would be a hypocrite if he didn't follow the law.
We all are at greater danger because the gun nuts/criminal lobby keeps guns on the streets.
From "I'm Handgun Control International"
Carl Rowan, one of the country's foremost gun control advocates, supported the idea, "If you have a gun you should go to jail- period." One night, Rowan heard people trespassing on his property. He produced an unregistered .22 pistol, fired a warning shot in their direction, and hit one of them in the wrist. Rowan was not convicted or jailed for possessing a gun despite Washington DC's strict gun laws, or for firing it at a person who was committing, at worst, a misdemeanor.
Most states do not permit you to fire a gun at someone who is not threatening someone's life. While a burglar in your house is assumed by many states to be such a threat, a trespasser in your yard is not. Only in medieval times was the lord of the manor allowed to shoot or hang peasants for trespassing, poaching, and so on.
Carl Rowan, an affluent member of the liberal elite, apparently believes (like Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, whose power and influence enabled her to get a concealed pistol permit, and Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, whose bodyguard was detained but not prosecuted for bringing a machine pistol into the Capitol) that gun laws are for the little people, the peasants, the commoners- not for the royalty, the lords and ladies of the manor, the country-club liberal aristocrats, which is apparently their perception of themselves.
"Uncle Sam gives me several guns (I'm military)."
- Colt45
"Colt, You shouldn't own a gun since you are clearly too stupid."
- skeeter
Gee, skeet. Wonder where conservatives get this crazy notion that liberals like Rangel and Kerry really do think that the members of today's U.S. armed forces are uneducated rubes.
I mean, for Pete's sake! At least have the brain to say something like: 'Colt, there's no way you could be military, because our military doesn't produce people as clearly stupid as you.'
Then again, I suppose it's entirely plausible that you missed Colt's claim to be a military man, because you clearly don't really read people's comments before you respond to them. Otherwise, how else do you explain your assertion that Jeff's position is that all guns should be legal, when in no place does he say anything even remotely close to that.
Personally, if I didn't have a gun in the house in that situation I would have:
1) Stabbed him with a kitchen knife
2) Hit him with a hammer
3) Sliced him open with a Sword
4) Beat him with a bat
Pick an option. I would NOT have:
1) asked him nicely to leave
2) beg him to leave MY home
3) allow to him pillage MY home
To all those who are saying she should not have a gun - keep this in mind.
The criminals out there don't care what laws you enact regarding guns. They WILL get them anyway, even if you ban them all. Make it so legal owners can only have shotguns or rifles. Then the criminals will STILL have handguns.
The only people the laws affect, are the law-abiding gun owners. The ones who will register their weapons in states that require it. That will keep the low-capacity magazines that some states require. The ones who will take off their guns to go into the stores that prohibit firearms.
The criminal element does not CARE about your laws. They will not respect a "No Firearms" sign. They will NOT stick to low-capacity magazines. They will not stick to semi-automatic weapons. They will continue to do as they please regardless of the laws.
And to "the Other Anonymous"
I quote from you:
"A 16 year old boy is dead.
A couple lives so much in fear that they believe they must have a 9mm handgun in their house.
That's the result of the gun culture we have in the US."
Let's correct that a little shall we?
You say "A 16 year old boy is dead."
I say A 16 year old criminal is dead.
You say "A couple lives so much in fear that they believe they must have a 9mm handgun in their house."
I say I bet they are damn glad they had a 9mm handgun in their house.
You say "That's the result of the gun culture we have in the US."
I say I damn well hope so. A criminal dead, and a law-abiding couple unharmed. That is a damn good thing to come out of the gun culture we have in the US.
Thank you and be blessed.
GOP,
That nitwit thought that if a bad guy puts a gun in his ear, he could respond by shooting the guy (I believe the intent of his post was that actually he would use a bigger gun than the gun put in his ear, but the post wasn't entirely clear. He also might have meant that he had MORE guns, rather than bigger guns).
I didn't address his military service, since I just assumed that he made that up.
You are right though. I should have added the line saying that there is no way that somebody like Colt served, or if he did, he must have been discharged as a head case.
* * *
I will get back to you with the Trigg analysis. To start, I don't see where Trigg has either disagreed with people taking a pro-gun extremist view (all guns legal) or taking the position that any guns should be taken off the street.
Also, knowing Trigg's general positions (no government, ever) it would be consistent with his prior positions to take a pro-gun extremist positions.
We can both work on this issue. If you have evidence that Trigg believes in some gun regulations, let me know. If I can find evidence that he formerly stated his no restrictions position, I will post it.
But I'm pretty sure I'm right on this. Trigg believes in no gun restrictions.
Trigg also can correct me if I'm wrong and if he does, I'm happy to retract statements to the contrary.
Neocode:
I love your lowest common denom analysis.
Here's some more, according to you:
Some people sell drugs. Ergo, all people should be allowed to sell drugs. If we can't stop all drug sales, we should just open it up to everybody.
Many people drive over the speed limit. As a result, we should abolish all speed limits.
Here's a better idea: How about Americans decide that we should enforce the law?
I love this little saying:
"Guns kill people, like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat."
skeeter,
Jeff said that "law-abiding and able Americans should have the right....to protect themselves from armed intruders."
I assume he makes a point of saying 'law-abiding' Americans instead of 'all' Americans for a reason. I take this to mean that Jeff supports a RESTRICTION on gun ownership to exclude non-law abiding Americans - which sounds "reasonable" to me.
Skeeter,
I'm not quite sure how you figure I meant that if you cannot stop crime then you should allow all people to do as they please based off my statement.
My point was, that you will find that law-abiding gun owners will NOT be using them for violence, and will NOT be using them to rob people or hold up stores.
There is a reason they are called "law-abiding".
Using your logic of since some people speed that all speed limits should be abolished, you could say that anyone over the age of 21 who can drink legally, and who can drive legally will drink and drive. You are assuming a criminal behavior WILL happen based on the fact that it COULD happen.
If it was your house that the 16 yr old criminal entered, wearing a ski mask and carrying a loaded rifle, what would you have done? How would you have handled that situation? Call the police? Sure, that works. They will be there in 15 minutes. Long after he has shot you, grabbed what he wants and splits.
If there was no harm intended, why did he have a loaded weapon, conceal his identity and force his way in through the back door? That is not someone who wants to sit and have milk and cookies. There is a harmful intent that can be assumed based on his actions.
And for those who want to protest the fact that the boy was shot and killed, it's called personal responsibility. If you CHOOSE to commit a crime, you take the consequences. Those consequences can include prison, or death. He CHOSE to take the risk, and he paid the ultimate price.
The kid could have have done any one or more of the following:
1. Robbed
2. Raped
3. Killed
Why shouldn't he be dead for trying any of them in someone's home.
For the bleeding hearts, it's too bad it doesn't happen at your house instead of some innocent person who wants to do something about it.
Everyone is overlooking the emotional pain that the woman is going through.
The kid's death means nothing compared to the lady's distress.
Skeeter, don't be so dismissive of those you can't refute. I am a US Army officer, having won a Bronze Star in Afghanistan.
The facts you can't refute are that handguns are the most effective self-defense tools ever invented; that police use them because they are such good self defense tools; that Mayor Daley and all politicians and celebrities, liberal and otherwise, love to surround themselves with bodyguards carrying handguns; and that denying them to the law abiding general deprives them of the most effeective self-defense tools ever made.
Skeeter, two other points.
Don't stay up late tonight, but private citizens do own fighter planes. Jet planes, prop planes, even helicopters, are all in civilian hands and flown every day. Of course, BATF regulates all Class III firearms.
And last, I do give homeys credit for brains. I said they'd be outgunned (which they would be). If you look like an unarmed victim, they'll notice and act appropriately. Since I don't look like an unarmed victim, they know that, too. I've never put myself in a position to let a thug put a piece in my ear, but if he does, and he expects a compliant victim, he will be surprised.
If you want to surrender to any armed punk who threatens you, then please don't volunteer for military service.
Army Reservists can get a felony for having a concealed weapon going to practice at a range on their own time.
Chicago does not want retired Police having weapons.
It is a crime to have a handgun in Chicago.
You have ridiculous registering requirements for hunting rifles. Very strict laws that harass law abiding people.
LET DALEY, AND HIS DAUGHTER, AND ALDERMAN BURKE AND HIS POSSE
AND THE ALDERMAN, AND THE LIBERAL STARS GIVE UP THEIR WEAPONS
If handguns were not good protection: the Police, private security of the liberal actors, the alderman, and our gun grabbing hypocrite of a Mayor (who has Police at taxpayer expense bodyguards for all his family including his late saintly elderly mom and his kids)--WHERE IS MY PROTECTION!!!!!!!! The Daley Police may be the ones robbing you or torturing you.
Let me get this right, Colt.
You believe that an armed bad guy is going to sneak up behind you, start to put that gun into your ear, then notice your weapon and back off?
Is that really what you believe?
Please tell me that you are making up the stories of service. I respect our military, and would be very disappointed to learn that you somehow got in.
Ryan,
Why would a reservist want to violate the law by carrying a concealed weapon?
I thought that the idea behind deterence was that the weapon is visible.
By the way -- Daley doesn't have a weapon. His security is provided by the City. Police have handguns because the government has a lot of weapons that individuals are not allowed to own.
Finally -- the ALL CAPS and the "!!!!!" makes you look pretty ridiculous. There is a difference between a debate and a childish outburst.
I would support a law that says anybody immature enough to write in ALL CAPS should be barred from owning any weapons. Guns should be reserved for calm and rational adults.
skeeter,
stop parsing in BS and deal with Colt's point:
As a member of the service, he is allowed by law to have handgun for his own personal protection. Is he any more entitled to such self-protection than any other citizens? I would say, no. The rationale for him being allowed to have one and others not is that he has been through training for safe and proper handling of small arms. So why not - instead of having a sweeping law disarming law-abiding citizens of their right to protect themselves - require that anyone who wants to own a handgun undergo such training, administered, perhaps by a law enforcement agency. Sure, some of the more extreme wings of 'gun lobby' would still have a problem with that requirement, but it would probably be a decent compromise in the eyes of most Americans.
See, skeeter, as you know, my father is a police officer. I grew up in a house with guns, and my brother and I never shot each other, or ourselves - because we had been shown from an early age how to respect guns. Most accidental shootings in the home happen because kids' natural curiousities are not dealt with in a safe and responsible way by their parents. And I'd still submit to you that any homicidal spouse or suicidal teen wouldn't be any less likely to pull the trigger of shot-gun than they would a handgun. So your 'shotguns (which are far deadlier and less precise) are safer and more acceptable than handguns' half-measure is way off-base. The important thing is the education and training level of the gun owner, not the make/model of the gun itself.
Your idea of "reasonable restrictions" is anything by reasonable.
Interesting.
I thought Colt's point was that he was such an expert with a weapon that, when somebody puts a gun in his ear, he has the talent to quickly draw his gun, turn, and fire, all without getting his brains blown out first.
Let's accept his claim that he is a vet and is trained to handle a weapon (and I must say that his posts read more like the fantasy ramblings of a high school kid than a vet).
Based upon his own posts, it appears that even somebody with a high level of training would be inclined to handle a gun in a way that would get himself, and possibly others around him, killed.
You mentioned that your father was a PO. You know that I respect Chicago POs. However, we all saw what happened recently in NY where the POs shot 50 times at an unarmed individual (for the record -- I have no objection to the first few shots, but 50?) and we have seen similar circumstances in Chicago (my favorite Chicago story is the two POs that fired about 20 rounds at what they thought was a car-jacking in progress. The odds of hitting bad guy and victim was 50/50, so the decision to fire probaby wasn't the best. It didn't matter. These two didn't put a single bullet into the vehicle). Even with police training and with police on duty, guns can be extremely dangerous and are subject to abuse. If we cannot train a NY or Chicago PO to consistently use the weapon properly, I sure don't trust some local NRA training to do the same.
When it comes to handguns, even people who claim to have a high level of training may well do things that could only be regarded as completely insane.
skeeter,
I suggested training administered by a law enforcement agency, not the NRA.
My point is that, you are right in that the number of instances where guns are properly used for self-defense is far outweighed by the instances of accidental shootings. But when it comes to police officers, properly trained in small arms safety and subject to criminal background checks before hire, the stats are reversed. So why is it not "reasonable" to suggest that private citizens be allowed to own handguns if they go through the same safety courses and are subject to the same background checks as police officers?
GOP,
You accuse me of not reading posts. Now read my post above since I addressed the point in detail.
I don't trust the NRA or local police to train non-POs in weapons safety because I barely trust them to train POs in weapons safety.
Even when a PO goes through the academy and has weapons training, there still are many instance of improper use by POs. That is reality. Without the time in the academy to supplement the weapons training there is no way that I trust somebody to operate a handgun safely.
And as a I noted "Colt" claims to have military weapons training and I suspect we both agree that Colt should not be allowed any weapon. Either "Colt" is a liar or his training failed him.
skeeter,
neither of us are going to change the other's mind here.
You fundamentally don't trust your fellow citizens with handguns, period. That to me is a sweeping, draconian position - far from a "reasonable restriction." I think it's perfectly reasonable to allow citizens who are properly trained and licensed (FOID) to own registered handguns for their own protection. I don't think we're going to get past that.
But I'd like to return to a point that was made earlier: that the jurisdictions with the strictest gun-control laws typically have the highest crime rates. Now, I'm not suggesting that it's a chicken and the egg debate, but the fact still remains: banning handguns in Chicago has done little-to-nothing to prevent the continuation - even escalation - of handgun violence. And I don't accept the assumption that if law-abiding citizens were legally allowed to own handguns, the escalation would increase dramatically.
Criminals are going to get guns. You are right that every gun illegally on the street was, at some point, purchased legally. But all you are proposing we do is move the point at which the legal weapon gets transfered illegally. If you ban sales in Illinois, they'll just go to Indiana (many - if not most - do already). If you had a national law, you'd see handguns pouring in across the border along with drugs and immigrants. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: gun control laws that disarm law-abiding citizens do little accept change the demographics of those walking around with guns. Instead of it being a mix of "good guys" and "bad guys," it's only "bad guys." If you're fine with that reality, then so be it - good day to you, sir.
But we should be concerning ourselves with the reasons kids are committing suicide, or are fascinated with violence and blood, or why spouses are getting to the point of murderously violent abuse to begin with. Cars don't kill people, drunk people with keys do. Knives don't kill people, the gang banger who doesn't think he has a future doing anything else but selling drugs kills people. Guns don't kill people, untrained, irresponsible gun owners kill people. We can remove the "untrained, irresponsible" part of that, and, yes, there will still be tragidies. But they will be fewer and farther between. And criminals will think twice about which houses to break into, which "poor guy" on the street to target for a stick-up, or which bank to rob. Think those are just NRA talking points? Ask the average street criminal where he'd rather go breaking into houses, sticking people up, or robbing banks: Texas, or Chicago. You'd be hard pressed to find one who'd say Texas.
GOP:
You think Texas is a safe place? You ever been to Texas?
It is a chicken and egg debate.
Chicago has more poverty than the rest of the state.
Chicago's unemployment rate is probably higher.
Education levels are probably lower.
I suspect that all those factors, rather than a ban on handguns, is the reason for the difference in rates.
I also don't think that allowing handguns would somehow decrease the rate.
The problem that Chicago faces with the handgun ban is that neighboring areas do allow the guns. The other problem is that the NRA has barred effective laws to retain records on guns sales, making it nearly impossible to trace the sale of guns.
I don't trust most people with handguns. I don't trust most Americans with fighter jets. I don't trust most people with nuclear weapons. I believe that we need to draw a line and say that as a nation, we should allow the government access to certain things, but not necessarily every individual.
And I think we both would acknowledge that "Colt" is prime example of the reasons that we should have some reasonable restrictions on guns. If that guy is trained to handle guns, I can't imagine how dangerous somebody would be without any training.
A person can say black is white and carry on the argument indefinitely.
That's what Skeeter is doing.
Let's keep it simple.
Somebody killing themselves or an accident in the home are risks that they voluntarily took. Whatever occurs is their affair. Has nothing to do with Skeeter or anyone else.
People do not voluntarily take the risk of some criminal doing them harm.
With proper screening, why should they be denied a firearm to defend themselves?
Due respect, skeeter. But at least Colt isn't arguing that it's just as dangerous to allow civilians to have handguns as it is to allow them to have fighter jets and nuclear weapons. Yes, we need to draw the line somewhere, but let's not pretend that it's completely unreasonable to think that fighter jets and handguns might be on different sides of it.
And stop ragging on Colt. Just because he shoots his mouth off on an anonymous blog doesn't mean he'd shoot his gun off in an irresponsible manner.
And I'm not saying that the NRA isn't a bit too hard-line at times. But I don't really blame them. In modern politics, compromise is seen as weakness; and if you give the opposition an inch, they're liable to run a mile. Speaking of which.....
Personally, I'm more than a little disturbed by your "I don't trust people" montra. What else should we start deciding that Americans can't be trusted with? What if you're a really stupid person who has no idea what the issues are or what the candidates stand for? Should you not be allowed to vote? What if your beliefs or ideas are so offensive that they stir people to violent anger? Should your speech still be protected? What if you are a clearly guilty man who will rape and/or murder again if let free? Should your right to a fair trial or protection against illegal search be ignored in the interests of public safety? Why do liberals and the ACLU think that the government shouldn't come within 1000 miles of violating anyone's constitutional rights.....except the second one?
I am not arguing that they are "as dangerous" as much as I am arguing that they are "both dangerous."
I would be happy to admit that a fighter jet in the hands of Colt would be even more dangerous than a handgun.
But I would also state that Colt shouldn't have either one.
I rag on Colt for a reason. He made a comment that I consider interesting. He is of the opinion that if he has a weapon, then he could do something about a person sticking a gun in his ear. I suspect that a lot of gun owners feel that way, and I consider that to be a sign that even people who claim to respect guns should not have access to a hangun.
The "I don't trust people" mantra is pretty America. We make distinctions all the time. We have speed limits. We have employment safety rules. Goverment creates rules because we don't trust people to do the right thing unless a law is in place. The alternative is to abolish all law and just trust people.
I believe it was Learned Hand who said "It shouldn't be of concern that the law comes down to a matter of degree. All law does, once it is civilized."
We routinely decide that people should be trusted to undertake certain activities and not others. That is a sign of civilization.
Anon:
If a wife is shot by her husband in a drunken rage, that is a "risk she voluntarily took on"? If a small child kills a playmate because they found an unsecured hangun, that is a "risk they voluntarily took on"?
Nice attitude.
Yes, they voluntarily took on the possibility of that happening.
The husband could just as easily have stabbed her, beaten her or run over her.
The accidental death presumably occured because of the negligence of the owner. The owner will pay a price for the negligence.
People pay a price for civil and criminal negligence.
It can be for negligence in not covering their pools, not removing ice from sidewalks, killing people in auto accidents, selling cigarettes, you name it.
In my area of western illinois and iowa quad cities i have maybe heard of 2 or 3 cases of a gun being actually used in a domestic disturbance.
We even had a chiropractor use a chain saw to cut up his wife.
This carrying on about restrictions on firearms is just irrational.
skeeter, if you are not making an equitable comparison between nukes/fighter jets and handguns, then why did you bring them up? Colt was arguing that military and police use handguns because they are a good tool for personal protection, and private citizens should be entitled to the same freedom to protect themselves with this highly effective personal protection tool. Where do the fighter jets and nukes - weapons used to fight large scale military battles - fit into this?
BTW, OSHA rules have dramatically reduced the number of workplace related deaths over the past century. And in many cases, it's because the rules simply call for greater training, awarness, and satefy procedures - not a ban on doing the jobs previously done with the tools previously used. But tighter gun-control laws have not significantly reduced gun related crime. Why? Because they are being enacted as a response to social problems that have arisen independant of the proliferation of gun ownership.
What's interesting to me about the statistics on gun related incidents is their definition of gun "use." Sure, guns are fired more often in crimes than in self-defense. But what about the number of guns that are only fired at ranges? Or never even fired at all - they just sit in someone's safe providing them with what he or she bought it for: peace of mind? Most legally purchased and owned guns fall into that category, you know. So when you say that the chances of a gun in the house killing a family member are greater than those of it killing an intruder, I think it's unfair to not consider the vast majority of guns in the house that never kill anyone.
Actually, anon, it is the child that pays the price for the negligence of the parent.
You refuse to see that the innocents are the victims, but then you lecture me about being "rational."
You wouldn't recognize a rational thought if it stuck a gun in your ear.
GOP,
You really need to read the posts.
I said government can and should bar private ownership of both. That is significant, because you people keep trying to say that there should be no restrictions on weapons. A fighter jet is a weapon which we all agree should not be in private hands. Just like a handgun. Why is the comparison so confusing?
Regarding your second point. We regulate them for the same reason that we regulate other dangerous items: Because they are dangerous.
Some people are talented at using high powered explosives. Most high powered explosives are not used in crimes. Should we allow complete and unfettered access to high powered explosives?
skeeter,
Were exactly have I said that "there should be no restrictions on weapons?"
How many times do I have to say that I support reasonable restrictions? How many times do I have to spell out what I think that means before you'll start engaging ME and MY positions instead of the imaginary stereotypical Republican you seem to think I am?
On that note, I reject the premise of your strawman question, because I have not, am not, and would not say that we should allow "complete and unfettered access" to handguns.
If you aren't going to engage me on what I'm actually saying, please tell me now. I'll stop wasting my time.
BTW, I am so confused about your comparison because you bringing fighter jets and nukes into a debate about handguns. If anyone other than YOU had made that, or a similarly hyperbolic the comparison, you'd be the first person to point it out and ridicule that person. Of that, I have argued enough times with you to be confident.
btw, skeet
If you think "we all agree" that handguns "should not be in private hands," then you need to get out of Chicago and learn more about the rest of the country. Because "we all" certainly do not agree that handguns should be for military and police only.
Skeeter, you still haven't adressed my main point.
You said "Finally, we all know that the primary use of handguns is to rob people. That is just a fact." I dispute this by pointing out that handguns are the most effective personal protection tools ever made--so effectice, in fact, that police officers demand them, and the public supplies them. This is also undisputed.
You worry about private citizens with fighter jets. I point out that fighter jets are in private citizens hands right now, and have been for decades. Just go to any airshow, or Oshkosh, and check it out. In those decades, none of your fears have come true. Save yourself the ulcer.
By the way, I am a rated miltary aviator. Since I'm in the Army that means I fly helicopters that the taxpayers (thank you again) generously supply for my use.
Lest you worry about my reaction time with a gun in my ear, I never said I'd immediately shoot back. There is such a thing as an OODA loop (google the term). Observe, orient, decide and act. Calm assesment, thought and formulation of a plan, followed by violent execution, is the only course of action. And if someone points a gun in my ear, my course of action will include using deadly force.
If your first thought is to immediately start shooting wildly, then you are probably smart not to have a gun. But I am a free man, and will not surrender my rights to a punk with a gun.
And yes, if someone puts a gun in my ear, someone will get killed. Merely pointing a weapon at a person is assault, and evidence of intent to commit great bodily harm. Sticking a gun in a person's ear is clear evidence of intent to murder; no further justification is needed for the use of deadly force. Ask any cop.
A lot more could be said, let me end by saying that I spent a year overseas knowing that I was protecting many people back home who I'm sure disagreed with me on many issues. But it is distressing to imagine that some would sit in comfort back home, denigrate the military, and work to deny my rights. Sad, but true.
But I'll still be out there on the front line of freedom. And you will still cower in fear of imaginary killers flying fighter jets.
Post a Comment