New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[Gravekeeper]

You seem to be the only one who thinks the discussion is useless.

I don't think me or Wingate are budging from our positions. Do you?

So because he published findings based on research data results, he must therefore have an agenda? That's a non sequitur if ever I heard one. As for the picture, he's a Crimonologist, I wouldn't be surprised if he had a few shrunken heads floating around his house somewhere. Not to mention that has no bearing on the validity of his findings. Attempting to undermine the individual does not invalidate their peer reviewed, published findings.

Nrrr, his findings and conclusions are a point of contention ( He has additional articles simply defending his conclusions and data ) and one of many studies that seem to be all over the map. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. There is opinion in his study. I'm not debating the statistics themselves aside from how old they are. But he's drawing his own conclusions from them.

But again, I'm not debating DGU itself, I wasn't debating DGU to begin with. You brought it in.

Besides the extremely small number of such incidents that result in any actual injury just goes to prove that gun ownership is not nearly as dangerous as you claim.

Thats completely the wrong side of what I'm claiming though. I'm not claiming against a responsible gun owner fending off a burglar for instance. Its the burglar getting a gun just as easy as the home owner thats my problem. Or a gun owner opening fire in a crowd. That was the original argument. I'm not sure where we are now. >.>

Actually this is not necessarily true. Knife fighting and knife wounds are far more vicious than gunfights. A knife fight lasting only a few seconds can result in dozens of mortal wounds, a gunfight lasting a few seconds involves only a handful of bullets and even fewer hits or serious injuries.

The very incident we were originally talking about seems to disagree. Also, you'd have to be pretty damn impressive to inflict dozens of wounds with a knife in a few seconds and they'd all have to be on one target.

Not to mention that there are just as many techniques for disarming a gun wielding opponent

That require you to get close vs a ranged weapon. Plus while you're grapping with a knife, its not going to go off and hit a bystander.

Also there are many techniques for throwing off an attackers aim with a gun, ducking, weaving and zig-zagging while running make a rapidly moving target near impossible for even experienced shooters to hit, add the usual night-time gloom and obstructing objects like cars for instance, and it is actually much easier to escape a gun wielding opponent than a knife wielding opponent. After all the gun wielder has to stop and take aim while a knife wielding opponent has little reason not to chase you down at which point you are entirely relying on your own fitness level.

Ducking, weaving and zig zagging, if someone even thought to do it while running in fear, doesn't mean much at close range. If you're comparing knife to gun here, we have to assume starting at lethal range for the knife. I fear I could shoot your ass fairly easy even if you were trying to zigzag ( which requires a lot of agility on your part ). Why does a gun wielder have to stop to take aim? Sure thats more accurate, but a handgun would let you move and shoot, and at close range you don't have to be that accurate.

Really though, both scenarios have you relying entirely on your own fitness level. One would be endurance and some agility, the other agility and some endurance.

All of which doesn't mention the simple fact that you can also throw a knife.

This takes some measure of skill to pull off properly.

Fighting back works better in general and the best way to do so is with a gun.

And with that we're once again back to square one, where its a simple matter of I don't understand you, and you don't understand me on this issue. Call it cultural if you will, but thats unfortunately the facts of it.

All told 2.5 Million is by no means the upper extreme as you try to indicate.

All I said the truth was its probably somewhere in the middle of the respective studies. Its certainly now 108k ( thats lunancy, I wouldn't even use that as the minimum ). So its likely somewhere between 2.5 and 1.5. But again, DGU as defined in that study is a different topic that you introduced.

Actually yes I can, the issue hasn't ultimately changed that much since the 70s or 80s, statistical spreads and societal trends have not changed very much on this issue. Gun ownership has simply slowly risen while crime rates have slowly fallen. Correllation does not equate causation but it can certainly imply it.

You don't think events, politics and population growth in the interm could have thrown things off even a tad? And yes, correllation does not equal causation seeing as crime rates elsewhere have fallen too without any corrosponding increase in gun ownership.

I don't think Wingates is frustrated with you at all, and neither am I, and actually he does well understand why you disagree.

No offence, but you must be reading a different thread, honestly.

Actually that is an invalid argument as I could simply say that 7/10 feel equally or less safe invalidating the need for any legal change. You cannot apply the middle ground and of those with concerns on the issue those who would feel less safe significantly outnumber those who would feel more
safe.

Even if you ignore the opinion of the middle, you're still talking 9%, which doesn't include whatever the margin of error was. But none of that matters as fear shouldn't drive policy in either direction. Like I said at the very beginning of this discussion.

As for fearing guns, well that is irrational by its very deffinition. A healthy respect is always good but that does not equate fear. There is no reason to fear a gun as long as you handle it properly just like anything.

Perhaps I was not specific enough, I fear people who do not have said healthy respect ( or the capacity for said healthy respect ) and I do not see said healthy respect that often ( present company excluded of course ).

Do you fear cars? More people die in automobile accidents every year than from gunshots by a significant margin, yet we don't have attempts to ban cars every time someone is killed by one.

I fear cars driven by people who should not have gotten a license in the first place. Also, yet again, I never said anything about taking away all your guns and tossing them into Mount Doom.

As for the laws, well that is the nature of State's Rights.

Which is the problem, in my opinion. I'm quite sure there are states with perfectly reasonable gun control laws. But I am also quite sure there's, well, Arizona. -.-

This is very much not true. Anyone carying a gun around in public legally must have a concealed carry permit. These permits are not easy to acquire, involve a great deal of expense, background checks, and often training in the weapon's proper use.

But again, it depends on what State you're in how tight or how loose said laws are.

Sorry to cut short, but its time for me to return to the sale mine that is my job. ><

[crashhelmet]

NO, NOT EVEN A LITTLE! I'm so tired of hearing this one >_<

*deep breath*
Vigilantees are people who circumvent the justice system to administer justice i.e. vengence against criminals, actively looking to start trouble where none existed and often looking to maim or kill their targets. Their actions are illegal.

CCP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense.

No... there's no logical reason that they would. A Vigilante is someone who seeks out "criminals" on their own time outside the Justice System generally intending to kill them.

An armed citizen responding to a violent threat is a brave individual putting their own life on the line to protect others and/or themselves. The objective is to protect, not to kill and they work with not against the Justice System.

They are not tackling the gunmen like the people did in Tucson. They are breaking the law to stop the crime. That is Vigilantism. That is why even when people have tried to use the "Stand Your Ground" law in their defense, it's been highly scrutinized as to whether or not they were at risk when they shot or not.

Further edit...
"CP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense." Having a CCP does not make you a Law Enforcment Officer. having a Gun does not make you a Law Enforcement Officer.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't think me or Wingate are budging from our positions. Do you?

As I said before, there's more to it than changing minds.

Nrrr, his findings and conclusions are a point of contention ( He has additional articles simply defending his conclusions and data ) and one of many studies that seem to be all over the map. The truth is likely somewhere in the middle. There is opinion in his study. I'm not debating the statistics themselves aside from how old they are. But he's drawing his own conclusions from them.

Isn't that what researchers do? and, as a criminologist, isn't that his specialty? He's obviously using his personal barometer to interpret what he sees, there's really no other option. Point being that he has been very up front about the limitations of his conclusions and there's little reason to believe that he has let his bias override his rationale and logic.

But again, I'm not debating DGU itself, I wasn't debating DGU to begin with. You brought it in.

DGU is kindof impossible not to bring into these debates, they're a substantial part of the purpose of all firearms and the primary et al use of handguns (which are designed to be used defensively. the saying goes "A pistol is what you use to fight your way to a rifle.")

Thats completely the wrong side of what I'm claiming though. I'm not claiming against a responsible gun owner fending off a burglar for instance. Its the burglar getting a gun just as easy as the home owner thats my problem. Or a gun owner opening fire in a crowd. That was the original argument. I'm not sure where we are now. >.>

Again, it's all very interconnected, and the prevalence of DGUs kinda has to be weighed against theft rates and consequences and ASS.

The very incident we were originally talking about seems to disagree. Also, you'd have to be pretty damn impressive to inflict dozens of wounds with a knife in a few seconds and they'd all have to be on one target.

Melee combat is by definition far more brutal than a firefight as they're far more in-your-face and involve the infliction of dozens and dozens of wounds to both parties before either gives in. It doesn't seem like it in theory but anyone can stab an opponent they're grappling with far, far faster than they can shoot and hit a target that's even a few feet away and probably moving. Melee is far more frantic and in many ways quite a bit more horrifying than exchanging bullets and oddly enough inflict far more damage than typical firefights (most people who're shot are shot once or twice and most people who are stabbed in a struggle are stabbed or cut many many times and the wound channels can me massive even compared to bullets.)

That require you to get close vs a ranged weapon. Plus while you're grapping with a knife, its not going to go off and hit a bystander.

Actually, to disarm you have to be just as in your face either way, which works to your advantage because violent crime almost always occurs regardless of weapon pretty close up. There are plenty of complications both ways and by the time you get to the end of it, bare-hands defense can work but it's most useful as a method of last resort compared to other forms of defense in terms of effectiveness.
As for going off and hitting bystanders, the chances of that happening are extreme to say the least and basically impossible if the disarming party has an idea of what they're doing.

Ducking, weaving and zig zagging, if someone even thought to do it while running in fear, doesn't mean much at close range. If you're comparing knife to gun here, we have to assume starting at lethal range for the knife. I fear I could shoot your ass fairly easy even if you were trying to zigzag ( which requires a lot of agility on your part ). Why does a gun wielder have to stop to take aim? Sure thats more accurate, but a handgun would let you move and shoot, and at close range you don't have to be that accurate.

This all makes a lot of sense on paper, but in practical application the more obscure variables tend to add up.
First and foremost, reaction times mean a lot in situations like this, the time it takes for the person threatening you to realize that you're bolting, consider his or her options, decide on a course of action and then take it are very probably enough that, by the time they start shooting you're going to be anything but stationary, close, or simple to hit. This is the same thing that's going to save your ass when it comes to fleeing a knife-wielder because you get some free ground.
The idea that most people don't think under stress is widespread but highly without basis. It's true that higher thought capacity is limited, but the fight or flight response actually encourages simple self-preservation based thought and many people act surprisingly intelligently in life-threatening situations. It's not high-strategy but the concept of getting out of sight isn't and exactly the sort of thing that people's instinct leads them to do.
Whilst firing and running is possible accuracy plummets far below even stationary point shooting and even at what would be short ranges the chance of hitting your target are very long indeed. It's basically impractical to the point of being almost useless. To the point where even gang-bangers seem to grasp the concept (if you watch video you'll see that even they instinctively stop or slow down when they want to hit their targets.)

Really though, both scenarios have you relying entirely on your own fitness level. One would be endurance and some agility, the other agility and some endurance.

Yeah, which leads me to think that the single most important thing contributing to your escape int he event that you choose flight is the level of dedication of the aggressor.

And with that we're once again back to square one, where its a simple matter of I don't understand you, and you don't understand me on this issue. Call it cultural if you will, but thats unfortunately the facts of it.

I dunno, I'm starting to understand you more.

All I said the truth was its probably somewhere in the middle of the respective studies. Its certainly now 108k ( thats lunancy, I wouldn't even use that as the minimum ). So its likely somewhere between 2.5 and 1.5. But again, DGU as defined in that study is a different topic that you introduced.

The point we're trying to make, for clarification's sake, is that the really outlandish numbers that are floating about out there go as high as 5 million and shit. 2.5 isn't on the high end of the middle which is 1.5 to 2.5.

You don't think events, politics and population growth in the interm could have thrown things off even a tad? And yes, correllation does not equal causation seeing as crime rates elsewhere have fallen too without any corrosponding increase in gun ownership.

A tad and enough to substantially alter what the data means are two very different beasts and while plenty of political stuff has happened, it's pretty equally spread between the two sides with a lack of overall ground being gained by either on average.
There is some information to suggest that higher rates of gun ownership do correspond with somewhat more severe drops in crime, which isn't a slam dunk, but it is decidedly not corresponding the other way as some people have claimed.

No offence, but you must be reading a different thread, honestly.

Not really, internet communication is fractal and nebulous by it's very nature, I'm not so much frustrated as dispassionate. This is by and large neither as ludicrous as the stuff that frustrates and angers me nor as clear and productive as the stuff that encourages me, more something in the middle.

Even if you ignore the opinion of the middle, you're still talking 9%, which doesn't include whatever the margin of error was. But none of that matters as fear shouldn't drive policy in either direction. Like I said at the very beginning of this discussion.

Margin of error was something like 1.5%-3% either way so really not much. 9 is pretty commanding all things considered. Point being (I seem to say that alot :P) that it doesn't matter that more felt as safe or safer without guns because that's a non sequitur combination.

Perhaps I was not specific enough, I fear people who do not have said healthy respect ( or the capacity for said healthy respect ) and I do not see said healthy respect that often ( present company excluded of course ).

Maybe it's the degree to which Vash and myself are plugged into the gun community, but the vast, vast majority of people we've had the pleasure of interacting with have had more than enough respect for the dangers of firearms than not. This is skewed incredibly by the amount of media attention that nuts of all stripes receive and the degree to which most pro-gun people tend to refrain from volunteering that fact absent some coaxing.

I fear cars driven by people who should not have gotten a license in the first place. Also, yet again, I never said anything about taking away all your guns and tossing them into Mount Doom.

Again, I believe that you're not against gun ownership but most of your arguments have been focused on the negative effects you fear derive from them and the degree to which they influence your opinions on the various topics. It kinda follows despite your assurance to the opposite that you intend for something to be done about it, Vash and I are simply employing hyperbole.

Which is the problem, in my opinion. I'm quite sure there are states with perfectly reasonable gun control laws. But I am also quite sure there's, well, Arizona. -.-

Different strokes for different folks, many rural states have laws like this because guns are such a casual and omnipresent component of many people's lives. Looser restrictions work for them because it's almost required for the day-to-day activities of a large portion of the population to go through without gunking everything up and causing a lot of people a lot of distress to say nothing of taxing law enforcement.

But again, it depends on what State you're in how tight or how loose said laws are.

Sorry to cut short, but its time for me to return to the sale mine that is my job. ><

That's cool, no problem. If it weren't for the fact that my in-person classes were all canceled I would be busy right now, but that's a whole different debate.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

They are not tackling the gunmen like the people did in Tucson. They are breaking the law to stop the crime. That is Vigilantism. That is why even when people have tried to use the "Stand Your Ground" law in their defense, it's been highly scrutinized as to whether or not they were at risk when they shot or not.

Again, they are not breaking the law to stop the crime. Homicide and assault laws allow for self defense which includes the defense of others. Unless they're carrying the gun illegally, they aren't breaking any laws by stopping the gunman with it and even then they would still be using the gun legally despite carrying it illegally.
The reason why this scrutiny occurs is most likely the result of personal motivations against the Castle Doctrine and not any actual breaking of it. This is not equivalent to making those actions illegal.

Further edit...
"CP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense." Having a CCP does not make you a Law Enforcment Officer. having a Gun does not make you a Law Enforcement Officer.

Providing for personal safety and the safety of others is not the exclusive prerogative of law enforcement. they number far, far too few for that to be even remotely realistic.

In cases like the Appalatian Law School shooting, armed resistance captured the shooter alive when students retrieved firearms from their cars and closed to engage, risking their lives and chances of success by attempting capture before firing. The media, in a feat of enormous failure of integrity utterly failed to report this fact, ignoring it instead.

Or take for example the shooting at Pearl Highschool Mississippi where the Assistant principle tracked down the shooter, shooting and killing him before he could escape to continue his shooting spree at the local junior highschool.

link:http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...esistance.html

In both cases people with access to firearms used them to end the violence and thus, save lives. Unfortunately, they had to retrieve them from other places to do so, wasting precious seconds and likely causing more people to come to harm and possibly die. Had they been allowed to carry their weapons with them they would have been able to react sooner and therefore helped more.

[Vash113]

They are not tackling the gunmen like the people did in Tucson. They are breaking the law to stop the crime. That is Vigilantism. That is why even when people have tried to use the "Stand Your Ground" law in their defense, it's been highly scrutinized as to whether or not they were at risk when they shot or not.

I don't know where you have gotten that idea but civilians using armed force to stop violent attackers are not breaking any laws, not a single one.

Further edit...
"CP holders responding to violent crime against themselves or others or active-shooters are seeking to end violence to save lives, their motivation is to stop bad things from happening, not cause them, and their objective is not to kill merely to stop. Their actions are legal under the provisions for self-defense." Having a CCP does not make you a Law Enforcment Officer. having a Gun does not make you a Law Enforcement Officer.

No one said having a CCP makes you a law enforcement officer. It does however come with a civic duty to protect yourself and others and is entirely legal. Unfortunately many attempts have been made to sue and/or prosecute individuals who have defended themselves and/or others with firearms, fortunately they are pretty well always thrown out. Most of the time when they aren't the result is a fine based on rediculous things like magazine capacity and ammunition type but that does not make the actions of the individual in stopping an armed attacker a crime nor does it make them a vigilante.

Honestly such a comparison is outrageously insulting and serious defamation of character to all those who have risked their lives to protect others.

As an example I point you to the University of Texas in Austin during the 1996 shooting. During that event armed civilians used hunting rifles to pin down the shooter, Charles Whitman, and prevent him from taking careful aim and forcing him to use water spouts in the clock tower observation deck he was using. This allowed officers to safely extract wounded from the University gardens and gave them cover and a suitable distraction to make it to the barricade Whitman errected at the top of the tower stairs, shoot and kill him. In point of fact Ramiro Martinez, one of the officers who participated in stopping Whitman's rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim.

In fact one of the civilians, Allen Crum, was part of the four man ad-hoc "strike team" so to speak, along with three other officers including Martinez, who made it to the observation deck and brought down Whitman. Allen Crum's name is also on the Heroes Tower erected as part of a precinct house to recognize the police officers and civilians, instrumental in stopping the massacre.

You should seriously reconsider lumping civilian heroes in the same category as vigilante murderers.

[Gravekeeper]

Yay, salt mine. >.>

As I said before, there's more to it than changing minds.

True, though I mean this discussion itself is fairly inconsequenal. The myriad of problems that contribute to the issue are immense. For example, the very fact there are places in the US where you feel you need a gun for self defence is a problem itself that just taking away guns isn't going to resolve.

If I could attempt to sum up where my perspective comes from though, I would say that you have to realise that you have the right to bear arms in your country, whereas in mine it is a privledge. That has resulted in a much different culture.

Point being that he has been very up front about the limitations of his conclusions and there's little reason to believe that he has let his bias override his rationale and logic.

I have no doubt he believes fully in his work. I'm probably being a bit too hard on Kleck, I'll admit. As while I disagree with some of the conclusions he draws I do accept that he means well. I still think we need a recent study to get a good picture, however. Though I stand by smucking Lott around. <cough>

But again, DGU wasn't really part of the intial discussion. Defending home and family is a different category all together. I know its pretty easy to segway over to it, but my views on DGU differ from my views on gun use in an active shooter scenario in a crowded enviroment.

Contrary to popular belief I am, as I said, not arguing for the Mount Doom solution. That ignores way way too many of the underlaying problems that have lead reasons, whether legtimate or not, to own a gun for one's own safety. Besides, there were guns in my house till the age of 14. 4 to be exact from handgun to shotgun. They were all used exclusively for target shooting. But not DGU. To say I was flogged about just how great a responsibility even being around them was is an understatement.

Melee combat is by definition far more brutal than a firefight as they're far more in-your-face and involve the infliction of dozens and dozens of wounds to both parties before either gives in.

Its not so much a matter of damage as it is effenciency. It takes time and effort to defeat a single target in melee combat. A knife, slightly better. A gun, well a good shot is going to clear a room. Which again, is where I start to have a problem. Crazy guy with a knife, sure, got a chance. Crazy guy with a gun, not so much. Crazy guy with a gun with other people returning fire, oh shi-

Melee is far more frantic and in many ways quite a bit more horrifying than exchanging bullets and oddly enough inflict far more damage than typical firefights (most people who're shot are shot once or twice and most people who are stabbed in a struggle are stabbed or cut many many times and the wound channels can me massive even compared to bullets.)

I think this is a matter of lethality and aggression. You're not going to shoot someone over and over because you're mentally aware of the lethality. By contrast, few people are mentally aware lethality is even possible with melee. Bit ironic really, on one hand people assume they can kill easily, on the other, people assume they couldn't possible kill.

Someone whose crazy aggressive though is going to curbstomp or fill you full of lead way beyond what is logical.

Actually, to disarm you have to be just as in your face either way, which works to your advantage because violent crime almost always occurs regardless of weapon pretty close up.

I have successfully defended myself vs a knife. But not successfully vs a handgun. Because of range. ( Range sucks. ). I don't mean I was shot. I mean I was stuck at that range where I was too far to a have shot at grappling, but too close to have any chance of not being shot if I bolted. Though the thought of wishing I had a gun in that scenario never crossed my mind even at the time. I recall telling myself to stay calm, make no sudden movements and talk my way out of it. Which I did. Else I'd likely not be here or I'd have a few more sexy scars.

First and foremost, reaction times mean a lot in situations like this, the time it takes for the person threatening you to realize that you're bolting, consider his or her options, decide on a course of action and then take it are very probably enough that, by the time they start shooting you're going to be anything but stationary, close, or simple to hit. This is the same thing that's going to save your ass when it comes to fleeing a knife-wielder because you get some free ground.

Intiative is a bitch. I didn't have intiative when it happened to me. Though frankly someone with a gun trained on you *is* going to be watching for any sign of movement. I know I would. With a knife, there might be some surprise that you're turning to run instead of fighting.

The idea that most people don't think under stress is widespread but highly without basis. It's true that higher thought capacity is limited, but the fight or flight response actually encourages simple self-preservation based thought and many people act surprisingly intelligently in life-threatening situations.

I, personally, become 100% calm and start trying to think my way out of it. However, if it were a chaotic situation such as a crowd, where I'm suddenly dealing with mob think, then things get more difficult.

Whilst firing and running is possible accuracy plummets far below even stationary point shooting and even at what would be short ranges the chance of hitting your target are very long indeed. It's basically impractical to the point of being almost useless.

Yes and no, it depends how damn fast the target can run really. Thing is you don't need any sort of square hit to make someone stop running. Even a glancing shot might stagger them. Depending how calm your attack is you could be unlucky as they may just calmly lline up the shot and not bother chasing you at all. In which case its between his reaction time and your speed + any possible cover.

To the point where even gang-bangers seem to grasp the concept (if you watch video you'll see that even they instinctively stop or slow down when they want to hit their targets.)

Yes, well, they hold a handgun sideways too so wanting to hit their targets is about the most they can hope for half the time. <cough>

Yeah, which leads me to think that the single most important thing contributing to your escape int he event that you choose flight is the level of dedication of the aggressor.

vs your fitness, unfortunately.

I dunno, I'm starting to understand you more.

Yes, well, don't say anything to screw up my international man of mystery status, the chicks dig it.

The point we're trying to make, for clarification's sake, is that the really outlandish numbers that are floating about out there go as high as 5 million and shit. 2.5 isn't on the high end of the middle which is 1.5 to 2.5.

I don't recall seeing one that hit 5 mil ( thats just as out there as 108k. ). I'd peg it between 1.5 and 2.5 somewhere.

A tad and enough to substantially alter what the data means are two very different beasts and while plenty of political stuff has happened, it's pretty equally spread between the two sides with a lack of overall ground being gained by either on average.

I was thinking something like 9/11 undoubtably caused a ripple, for example.

There is some information to suggest that higher rates of gun ownership do correspond with somewhat more severe drops in crime, which isn't a slam dunk, but it is decidedly not corresponding the other way as some people have claimed.

In a somewhat ideal scenario, you would have a cause where the aggressor cannot easily obtain a gun and thus must naturally fear the non-aggressor who can and likely does. Unfortunately, ideal scenarios, even somewhat ideal ones, are not the norm. Again, it would come back to just how determined the aggressor is. If he has a gun too, it's up to how aggressive or uncaring he is as to whether or not you have one.

Not really, internet communication is fractal and nebulous by it's very nature, I'm not so much frustrated as dispassionate. This is by and large neither as ludicrous as the stuff that frustrates and angers me nor as clear and productive as the stuff that encourages me, more something in the middle.

True. While I may not agree, I should take a moment to point out that I do appreciate that both you and Vash are actually discussing things. Normally I just get covered in spittle and froth with the occasional threat of being shot. >.>

Margin of error was something like 1.5%-3% either way so really not much. 9 is pretty commanding all things considered. Point being (I seem to say that alot :P) that it doesn't matter that more felt as safe or safer without guns because that's a non sequitur combination.

My point is more that its just not that big enough a difference to make a sweeping statement on. Plus, ultimately, feelings don't really matter to be honest. We'd be in pretty scary shape if everything operated on feelings.

Maybe it's the degree to which Vash and myself are plugged into the gun community, but the vast, vast majority of people we've had the pleasure of interacting with have had more than enough respect for the dangers of firearms than not. This is skewed incredibly by the amount of media attention that nuts of all stripes receive and the degree to which most pro-gun people tend to refrain from volunteering that fact absent some coaxing.

Which again, comes back to what I was saying before. Its not the responsible, respectful gun owner that I have a problem with. It's that he's not the only one that can just go buy a gun. Which comes back to the issue of States rights, unfortunately. Which is another one thats a bit of "Wha?" from a Canadian perspective.

Again, I believe that you're not against gun ownership but most of your arguments have been focused on the negative effects you fear derive from them and the degree to which they influence your opinions on the various topics. It kinda follows despite your assurance to the opposite that you intend for something to be done about it, Vash and I are simply employing hyperbole.

Well, I will clearly state as I did at the very beginning that I don't think anything should be done in response, gun control wise, to the Arizona shooting. Kneejerk legislation never does any good and is largely meaningless grandstanding. I'm not convinced additional gun control law would have avoided this particular tragedy. What would have helped would be if someone somewhere over the years had bothered to make a note somewhere that said "Hey this guy is fucking insane and has been for years, don't sell him anything" for the store to see when he walked in to buy one.

Different strokes for different folks, many rural states have laws like this because guns are such a casual and omnipresent component of many people's lives. Looser restrictions work for them because it's almost required for the day-to-day activities of a large portion of the population to go through without gunking everything up and causing a lot of people a lot of distress to say nothing of taxing law enforcement.

Its no different here for rural areas. Well, the key difference is handguns are extremely restricted here as they were originally used the most in crimes ( but their use in crimes has dropped severely in Canada since they became restricted ). Long guns are more accepted because they tend to have far more practical applications than handguns.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I'm going to pare down this response a bit because I've got to catch some sleep, maybe I'll flesh it out tommorow:

For example, the very fact there are places in the US where you feel you need a gun for self defence is a problem itself that just taking away guns isn't going to resolve.

I think the most accurate term would not be 'need a gun' so much as 'could use' a gun. 'Need' implies that the person(s) believe they will be victimized whilst 'could use' more accurately defines the concept, which is that in emergent circumstances guns are a viable and powerful option. In my experience there's more of a tone of realism to it than first appearances imply.

If I could attempt to sum up where my perspective comes from though, I would say that you have to realise that you have the right to bear arms in your country, whereas in mine it is a privledge. That has resulted in a much different culture.

Or the other way around come to think of it, either way, fair, but I fail to see how it has bearing on Us domestic policy.

Though I stand by smucking Lott around. <cough>

As well you should, too many academics are petty regardless of specialty and accomplishment. That said, doesn't really address the issue of the one quote of his we referenced.

But again, DGU wasn't really part of the intial discussion. Defending home and family is a different category all together. I know its pretty easy to segway over to it, but my views on DGU differ from my views on gun use in an active shooter scenario in a crowded enviroment.

I get that you want to treat them as separate, it makes good sense because they are different circumstances. Problem being that DGU is still the main reason for carrying in those same public places to say nothing of the fact that banning carry in public places makes carry to/from very impractical, something that bears considering.
I also get the concept of your reservations as to ASS gun use, but as I've pointed out before, those reservations however valid in theory haven't translated to reality.

Its not so much a matter of damage as it is effenciency. It takes time and effort to defeat a single target in melee combat. A knife, slightly better. A gun, well a good shot is going to clear a room.

TBO instances of mass murder with edged weapons aren't exactly unknown, they tend to involve heavier implements than street crime and once you get into the order of axes and machetes one good swing is very difficult to avoid, arrest or deflect and does more than enough damage.

Which again, is where I start to have a problem. Crazy guy with a knife, sure, got a chance. Crazy guy with a gun, not so much. Crazy guy with a gun with other people returning fire, oh shi-

First two you have a good and decent chance respectively, inexperienced shooters that haven't been to a range in their life (like the majority of mass shooters and street criminals) have been known to expend whole mags without hitting a damn thing even with targets everywhere.
Again, as for the third, the person shooting back be they LE, Military or Civilian is demonstrably better than the lack thereof. Not only does their shooting back pose little to no risk to you, but at worst distracts and disrupts the aggressor, possibly drives them away and in many cases eliminates them entirely.

I think this is a matter of lethality and aggression. You're not going to shoot someone over and over because you're mentally aware of the lethality. By contrast, few people are mentally aware lethality is even possible with melee. Bit ironic really, on one hand people assume they can kill easily, on the other, people assume they couldn't possible kill.

This holds true for people on the receiving end. People tend to give up if they even *think* they've been shot semi-seriously or at all but victims of physical attack in general seem to be oblivious to more or less comparable wounds. It's been noted by those with experience in the field that the number one reason people die from getting shot is that they give up.

I have successfully defended myself vs a knife. But not successfully vs a handgun. Because of range. ( Range sucks. ). I don't mean I was shot. I mean I was stuck at that range where I was too far to a have shot at grappling, but too close to have any chance of not being shot if I bolted. Though the thought of wishing I had a gun in that scenario never crossed my mind even at the time. I recall telling myself to stay calm, make no sudden movements and talk my way out of it. Which I did. Else I'd likely not be here or I'd have a few more sexy scars.

All good and well, no problems whatever works.
Plenty of people have also tried talking and ended up dead.
Same goes for virtually every option imaginable, which is why it's important to have as many as possible and work to ensure that you have enough forewarning to use them.

Intiative is a bitch. I didn't have intiative when it happened to me. Though frankly someone with a gun trained on you *is* going to be watching for any sign of movement. I know I would. With a knife, there might be some surprise that you're turning to run instead of fighting.

I dunno, seems to me there's just as much chance for a gun using criminal to be complacent and a knife user to be focused and determined.
Either way, best to see it coming if possible.

I, personally, become 100% calm and start trying to think my way out of it. However, if it were a chaotic situation such as a crowd, where I'm suddenly dealing with mob think, then things get more difficult.

It's not exactly slam-dunk hard data, but there seems to be a strong tendency for people to keep their heads when they're prepared. When you've got nothing panic is basically inevitable, but it looks more and more that the will to act and even some small level of preparedness goes a long way to cut through the mob think.

Yes and no, it depends how damn fast the target can run really. Thing is you don't need any sort of square hit to make someone stop running. Even a glancing shot might stagger them. Depending how calm your attack is you could be unlucky as they may just calmly lline up the shot and not bother chasing you at all. In which case its between his reaction time and your speed + any possible cover.

That is if they notice it, while people tend to have a bias against believing they'll survive or can function when shot there's still a lot of instances in which the adrenaline and other factors drown that out. Again, there's way for every course of action to go south if circumstances aren't favorable, so the more options the merrier.

Yes, well, they hold a handgun sideways too so wanting to hit their targets is about the most they can hope for half the time. <cough>

Whilst popular among the wannabes, it's probably wise to acknowledge that more than a few are serious and not exactly new at this, they may have a reputation for being incompetent but while acknowledging your enemies weaknesses and take advantage of them it's important not to underestimate them.

vs your fitness, unfortunately.

Fortunately for those guys and gals we send to the Olympics. According to that one commercial a few years ago there's at least one accomplished young lady from Texas who has to run away from cannibals on a regular basis :P

Yes, well, don't say anything to screw up my international man of mystery status, the chicks dig it.

Don't worry, I'll send you a high-collar duster and you'll be squared for life.

I don't recall seeing one that hit 5 mil ( thats just as out there as 108k. ). I'd peg it between 1.5 and 2.5 somewhere.

I seem to recall it was some low-rent thing out of, I'm tempted to say Vermont. You think Lott had small sample sizes, you ain't seen nothing.

I was thinking something like 9/11 undoubtably caused a ripple, for example.

Most definitely, but in basically all directions. There are just as many people who reacted by demanding tighter restrictions as there were who wanted to arm up. Either way I doubt it changed anyone's minds, these things rarely do. Rather, they tend to make everyone more *them* for a while.

In a somewhat ideal scenario, you would have a cause where the aggressor cannot easily obtain a gun and thus must naturally fear the non-aggressor who can and likely does. Unfortunately, ideal scenarios, even somewhat ideal ones, are not the norm. Again, it would come back to just how determined the aggressor is. If he has a gun too, it's up to how aggressive or uncaring he is as to whether or not you have one.

Kinda applies across the board. If neither could get guns and they had a knife or really whatever it's still a dice roll when it comes to what they're about. Probably the reason self-defense advocates don't care what the BG is armed with because not only do you not get to choose, you can't choose any of the other factors either. You can choose your level and style of preparedness though and among those with a more proactive outlook it's really no surprise that they see it as ideal and visa versa.

True. While I may not agree, I should take a moment to point out that I do appreciate that both you and Vash are actually discussing things. Normally I just get covered in spittle and froth with the occasional threat of being shot. >.>

I usually get horrified looks and shrieks and oddly also the occasional threat of being shot, jailed or both by the cops, all this from people who are just convinced their so much more 'enlightened'. (and always also exhibiting at least one hippy-esque trait, probably why I don't like them )

My point is more that its just not that big enough a difference to make a sweeping statement on. Plus, ultimately, feelings don't really matter to be honest. We'd be in pretty scary shape if everything operated on feelings.

Really the biggest reason why we included that one is again, it's opposite and not as well based counterpart as used exhaustively by anti-gunners. Every time it comes to guns they go to a college or a bank or some shit in a liberal city and ask "would you feel safer if people had guns?"
Well no shit they're going to say no, you knew that wen you chose them, but not only are you wrong, it doesn't freaking matter!
If me and you for instance are standing in line in a bank and some shithead comes tearing in there shooting the place up I can't honestly say I give a shit if you feel safe with the idea of me having a gun or using it, I'm gonna fuck that guy up.

Which again, comes back to what I was saying before. Its not the responsible, respectful gun owner that I have a problem with. It's that he's not the only one that can just go buy a gun. Which comes back to the issue of States rights, unfortunately. Which is another one thats a bit of "Wha?" from a Canadian perspective.

Of all the states the most lenient is probably Utah, which is no surprise as the lifestyle that everyone for some reason associates with Texas is actually far more prevalent in Utah. It's also one of the several epicenters for practical and competition shooting practice and training facilities in the country, probably all the open space and lessened likelihood of some hippy airhead will wander along, freak and cause a scene.

Well, I will clearly state as I did at the very beginning that I don't think anything should be done in response, gun control wise, to the Arizona shooting. Kneejerk legislation never does any good and is largely meaningless grandstanding. I'm not convinced additional gun control law would have avoided this particular tragedy. What would have helped would be if someone somewhere over the years had bothered to make a note somewhere that said "Hey this guy is fucking insane and has been for years, don't sell him anything" for the store to see when he walked in to buy one.

The legislation necessary to patch that flaw, since mentally ill persons are not permitted under federal law to own firearms, unfortunately is lept over by anti-gunners, who really should be the first in line for it.

Its no different here for rural areas. Well, the key difference is handguns are extremely restricted here as they were originally used the most in crimes ( but their use in crimes has dropped severely in Canada since they became restricted ). Long guns are more accepted because they tend to have far more practical applications than handguns.

Maybe it's the evolution from cowboy culture where handguns were the norm, but country types who want or need a weapon for tooling around the countryside or wilderness have a seemingly unique appreciation for the portability and utility of a handgun over a rifle. For example; if you need to protect yourself from bears and other predators, an S&W 500 is both effective (massively effective) and actually practical to carry.

[Mikkel]

The Arizona shooting was a tragedy. But this guy was a nut job that just cracked. He probably would have managed to get a gun and shoot people no matter how many laws get passed.

Or he'd find some other ways of hurting people. Holland has strict gun laws, that doesn't save them from crazy people attacking.
There are certainly no need to make panicked law changes.

[Gravekeeper]

I think the most accurate term would not be 'need a gun' so much as 'could use' a gun. 'Need' implies that the person(s) believe they will be victimized whilst 'could use' more accurately defines the concept, which is that in emergent circumstances guns are a viable and powerful option. In my experience there's more of a tone of realism to it than first appearances imply.

Well, I didn't mean it that implicitedly, though again the truth is probably a little from column A and a little from column B.

or the other way around come to think of it, either way, fair, but I fail to see how it has bearing on Us domestic policy.

It doesn't, I was just trying to outline where I'm coming from.

That said, doesn't really address the issue of the one quote of his we referenced.

Which? ( sorry, salt mines. Brain mushy. )

I also get the concept of your reservations as to ASS gun use, but as I've pointed out before, those reservations however valid in theory haven't translated to reality.

Perhaps they haven't in the US, I'll give you that. Though again, there's so many more underlaying problems to it in the US. You can't just jump straight to "ban all guns" and expect that to work in any way shape or form.

TBO instances of mass murder with edged weapons aren't exactly unknown, they tend to involve heavier implements than street crime and once you get into the order of axes and machetes one good swing is very difficult to avoid, arrest or deflect and does more than enough damage.

Well, fact of the matter is shitty people will do shitty things regardless of what they can get their hands on. It's making sure you keep the more dangerous ones out of said shitty people's hands. But once again, thats a very complex problem for which simply "omigawd ban guns!" isn't going to fix.

First two you have a good and decent chance respectively, inexperienced shooters that haven't been to a range in their life (like the majority of mass shooters and street criminals) have been known to expend whole mags without hitting a damn thing even with targets everywhere.

That's actually an interesting point, seeing as the Arizona shooter had the foresight to walk right up before he opened fire on people. Unfortunate, however, that he recognized any weakness in his possible aim.

Again, as for the third, the person shooting back be they LE, Military or Civilian is demonstrably better than the lack thereof. Not only does their shooting back pose little to no risk to you, but at worst distracts and disrupts the aggressor, possibly drives them away and in many cases eliminates them entirely.

But this is back to the original argument, which admittedly didn't get us too far, heh. There are just so many things that can go wrong vs how many things need to go right.

This holds true for people on the receiving end. People tend to give up if they even *think* they've been shot semi-seriously or at all but victims of physical attack in general seem to be oblivious to more or less comparable wounds. It's been noted by those with experience in the field that the number one reason people die from getting shot is that they give up.

Conversely, running on adreneline, you get cases were people don't even realise they've been shot at first. Granted, that really depends on what they were shot with.

All good and well, no problems whatever works.
Plenty of people have also tried talking and ended up dead.
Same goes for virtually every option imaginable, which is why it's important to have as many as possible and work to ensure that you have enough forewarning to use them.

I lucked out because I wasn't the target. A dumbass classmate of mine and his older brother had farked over some gang from out of town. They were looking for him when they rolled up on me.

I dunno, seems to me there's just as much chance for a gun using criminal to be complacent and a knife user to be focused and determined.
Either way, best to see it coming if possible.

Yeah, but I haven't figured out a move that can block bullets yet ( it would be nice if there was one. >.> ). The knife however I was able to stop.

It's not exactly slam-dunk hard data, but there seems to be a strong tendency for people to keep their heads when they're prepared. When you've got nothing panic is basically inevitable, but it looks more and more that the will to act and even some small level of preparedness goes a long way to cut through the mob think.

Individually, I think most people while even if they freak the hell out, will find a logical course of action ( even if its just run and call 911 ) and stick to it. In a group, people can be bloody idiots though even if an individual in the group is calm, they may end up struggling against the crowd or having the crowd disrupt whatever they're trying to do.

That is if they notice it, while people tend to have a bias against believing they'll survive or can function when shot there's still a lot of instances in which the adrenaline and other factors drown that out. Again, there's way for every course of action to go south if circumstances aren't favorable, so the more options the merrier.

Plus fun factors like hydrostatic shock.

Whilst popular among the wannabes, it's probably wise to acknowledge that more than a few are serious and not exactly new at this, they may have a reputation for being incompetent but while acknowledging your enemies weaknesses and take advantage of them it's important not to underestimate them.

Well yeah. I'd just like to see a study on how many lives gangsta style weapon posture has ended up *saving* due to the inaccuracy of it.

Don't worry, I'll send you a high-collar duster and you'll be squared for life.

Excellent.

Most definitely, but in basically all directions. There are just as many people who reacted by demanding tighter restrictions as there were who wanted to arm up. Either way I doubt it changed anyone's minds, these things rarely do. Rather, they tend to make everyone more *them* for a while.

Hmm, true. What followed was essentially a political polarization of extremes too. Though at the same time, I doubt the "less' side had any real affect in curbing the "more" side's aquisitions.

I usually get horrified looks and shrieks and oddly also the occasional threat of being shot, jailed or both by the cops, all this from people who are just convinced their so much more 'enlightened'. (and always also exhibiting at least one hippy-esque trait, probably why I don't like them )

Both sides have their extremes, but extremes accomplish nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Really the biggest reason why we included that one is again, it's opposite and not as well based counterpart as used exhaustively by anti-gunners. Every time it comes to guns they go to a college or a bank or some shit in a liberal city and ask "would you feel safer if people had guns?"

You'd really need a nationwide, comprehensive study done. It varies so much from State to State you wouldn't get that accurate a picture without a sample size that covered every state, and covered rural to urban.

Of all the states the most lenient is probably Utah, which is no surprise as the lifestyle that everyone for some reason associates with Texas is actually far more prevalent in Utah.

Also, Mormons? -.-

The legislation necessary to patch that flaw, since mentally ill persons are not permitted under federal law to own firearms, unfortunately is lept over by anti-gunners, who really should be the first in line for it.

Its not even remotely an issue so simple you could just leap over it like that. Be nice if the issue was that simple.

Maybe it's the evolution from cowboy culture where handguns were the norm, but country types who want or need a weapon for tooling around the countryside or wilderness have a seemingly unique appreciation for the portability and utility of a handgun over a rifle. For example; if you need to protect yourself from bears and other predators, an S&W 500 is both effective (massively effective) and actually practical to carry.

Yeah, see, we evolved from a culture that needed to shoot furry things and pelt them. From a canoe. Also most hand guns of that particular era were manufactured in the US. I don't think it drifted too far north as our frontier was a tad different ( and involved a lot of beaver shooting ).

[Andara Bledin]

(and always also exhibiting at least one hippy-esque trait, probably why I don't like them )

I don't know who these people you speak of are, but they sure as shit ain't hippies. Hippy wannabes, probably. My parents were actual hippies, and we went out target shooting regularly. I learned how to fire a bow and arrow and an array of firearms before I was 10.

^-.-^

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't know who these people you speak of are, but they sure as shit ain't hippies. Hippy wannabes, probably. My parents were actual hippies, and we went out target shooting regularly. I learned how to fire a bow and arrow and an array of firearms before I was 10.

^-.-^

I'm referring to the Vietnam protest type airhead hippy as opposed to an actual close to earth hippy. You'know the kind that think that if they smoke weed bang on drums and dance around like fools the world will suddenly be ponies and rainbows.

[crashhelmet]

I don't know where you have gotten that idea but civilians using armed force to stop violent attackers are not breaking any laws, not a single one.

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

You should seriously reconsider lumping civilian heroes in the same category as vigilante murderers.

You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

But you know what.... I'm tired of arguing about this. It's like talking to the bulkhead. Provide me with a recent ruling where a judge said to a civilian "It was your duty to use your civilian owned weapon to stop the ordeal" or even "I'm sentencing you to jail because you had a weapon and chose not to get involved." and I will admit I'm wrong and concede.

Fair enough?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Fair enough?

No, because you're entirely missing the point. There's more to life and how you live it than legal and illegal. Doing the right thing is a civic duty, not a legal one as has been ruled many times. Like calling 911 or helping someone who's been in a car accident, there's no law that says you have to do it but it's your civic duty to help. that said:

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

It's only excessive force if the level of force you use is substantially above that needed to handle the situation (breaking a guys arms and legs because he took a swing at you, for example)
Using lethal force in response to a lethal threat, however, does not constitute excessive force. And it's important to differentiate between being charged and breaking the law. They do not equal each other, people who break laws aren't always charged and people who are charged haven't necessarily broken laws. That's why our court system holds defendants as being innocent until proven guilty.

You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

What makes them more of a hero than the ones who stop crimes with guns? Do guns magically make anything thereto connected evil? or does heroic equate to suicidal in you're mind?

People who throw themselves in harms way without the right tools and training are heroes, I'm not disputing that, but what you fail to realize is that people who throw themselves into harms way with the right tools and training are also heroes, albeit with a healthy dose of foresight.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Who are you talking to here? Because it's certainly got nothing to do with anything Vash or I have proposed.

Stopping a violent crime with the threat and if need be use of lethal force is something police officers and civilians do every day, what makes you think that the shiny badge that cops happen to have makes it any different? If civilians using guns to stop crime are "Vigilantee Cowboys" then logically speaking, so are cops.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

For the nth time, the law of the land provides for self-defense as a justification for the use of lethal force, therefore a civilian shooting a gunman laying waste to a mall is doing so just as legally as a cop doing the same.

But you know what.... I'm tired of arguing about this. It's like talking to the bulkhead. Provide me with a recent ruling where a judge said to a civilian "It was your duty to use your civilian owned weapon to stop the ordeal" or even "I'm sentencing you to jail because you had a weapon and chose not to get involved." and I will admit I'm wrong and concede.

You'know, it's kinda funny how you're just as adamant that you're right and despite the fact that you've conveniently skipped over all of the examples and facts we've provided we're still somehow the unreasonable ones

So if you'll be so kind as to come up with one example or fact to support your position I'll consider entertaining you're assertions. So far you've had none, and we've presented you with three separate occasions where civilians used lethal force to end killing sprees entirely lawfully, none of them were jailed in the largest case they were responsible for the positive outcome to a greater degree to the cops that were there.

Come up with an instance in which someone shot a mass murderer and was jailed for it and we'll debate.

[Vash113]

If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

Actually that's not the case, defending yourself or others is not even remotely close to "Excessive Force," the very assertion that it somehow might be is beyond outrageous. If you've been jailed for defending yourself that's grounds to sue the department and whatever dumb DA thought it was a good idea.

As for you spending three weekends in jail, I'd say it's a pretty clear indication you weren't breaking any laws otherwise you'd have spent a LOT longer in jail than that.

As for the legal side of things here's a few court cases you should look up before you start throwing around claims of excessive force or vigilantism again, first is Runyan v. State (57 Ind. 80), a case which is among the earliest cases that strongly supports an individual's right to self-defense and establishes the lawful use of self-defense actions up to and including the justifiable use of lethal force against an attacker.

In the Runyan case the court decided that: "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable."

A more extreme and related incident is the US Supreme Court Case of John Bad Elk v. U.S. (177 U.S. 529). In this case a police officer was killed by John Elk while attempting to illegally arrest him, the Supreme Court acquitted John Bad Elk of the charges.

Further supporting legal cases are Miller v. State (74 Ind. 1), Jones v. State (26 Tex. App. I), Beaverts v. State (4 Tex. App. 1 75), and Skidmore v. State (43 Tex. 93, 903).

Not to mention the three cases Wingates and I already brought up above that you completely ignored for some strange reason. In the case I mentioned, involving the University of Texas shooting, the civilian Allen Crum, who assisted law enforcement officers in engaging and killing Whitman was not charged for "Excessive Force," completely contrary to such a notion his name was included on the Heroes Tower adorning a Police Precinct House!

As further evidence I point you to the NRA News Channel Hero of the Day video segments. Each one describing an event where one or more armed citizen(s) legally defended themselves from violent attackers. There are 197 videos currently. That's more than 197 people who have legally used firearms defensively right there.

You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

Those actions are heroic, but they are not one iota different from anyone else who risks their life to protect others, whether they use guns or not. Your seeming belief that the mere use of a gun in defending oneself or others makes someone a criminal is simply and utterly unfounded.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Well first of all I think you are entirely doing a disservice to the "Old West" and "Cowboy Culture" while ignoring the fact that the grand majority of all Wild West heroes and personalities were in actuality law enforcement officers. Heck even the Shoot Out at the OK Corral was between U.S. Marshals and men illegally carrying firearms. Even back in the Wild West it was illegal to carry firearms openly in most towns and it was also illegal to take the law into your own hands.

I am greatly disappointed when people show the ignorance to believe the old west was some kind of rough and tumble no mans land of utter and total lawlessness. In reality the Wild West as depicted in the movies never really existed, entities like the U.S. Marshals, Texas Rangers and Sheriffs existed to enforce the law, even at the furthest bounds of "civilization" so to speak.

You know who assisted them then as they still do today? Law abiding citizens with guns.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way I should also note that you still have not shown any proof that civilians protecting themselves and others from armed madmen with guns are committing a crime or are vigilantes in any way. You've made the rude and defaming claim several times but have provided no actual proof despite Wingates and I pointing out quite a bit of evidence to the complete opposite.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

Oh of course people are still subject to the law of the land, now show how someone acting in the defense of themselves or others is breaking said laws.

Also, lets not forget, that law enforcement and the legal system are not necessarily there to protect us per say, they are there to capture and prosecute criminals for crimes after they have been committed. If law enforcement officers get the chance to protect you from a crime in progress that's a bonus, not the expected norm.

Your protection is the onus of nobody but yourself or those who choose to risk themselves to protect you.

But you know what.... I'm tired of arguing about this. It's like talking to the bulkhead. Provide me with a recent ruling where a judge said to a civilian "It was your duty to use your civilian owned weapon to stop the ordeal" or even "I'm sentencing you to jail because you had a weapon and chose not to get involved." and I will admit I'm wrong and concede.

Fair enough?

Unfortunately you seem to be missing the point entirely. No-one has said there is any kind of legal obligation to use force to stop a crime in progress. It is a civic duty to protect yourself and others if you have the skill and/or means to do so, but a civic duty is not the same as a legal obligation.

In short, you are wrong, whether you concede or not isn't my concern at all. We have proven as much in multiple posts now with legal precedent and historical examples while having seen not one shred of evidence in return. If you won't even acknowledge that evidence then there's little we can do to help you.

While you accuse and disparage us with statements like: "It's like talking to a bulkhead" you really have no basis for such claims. We are entirely reasonable and will listen to evidence fairly when it is shown and will change our opinions if presented substantial evidence.

It is therefore ironic that we must face such accusations despite our side being the only ones displaying any substantial proof or evidence for our arguments thus far.

Or he'd find some other ways of hurting people. Holland has strict gun laws, that doesn't save them from crazy people attacking.
There are certainly no need to make panicked law changes.

That is a very good point, thanks for bringing it up.

[Hyena Dandy]

Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash113 View Post
I don't know where you have gotten that idea but civilians using armed force to stop violent attackers are not breaking any laws, not a single one.
If I use my martial arts training to defend myself or someone else, I'm going to jail. Believe me. I've spent 3 separate weekends there as a result of it. They call it "Excessive Force," even if my life or health was potentially in danger. The onus is on me to defend myself in court or pray the DA decides not to press charges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash113 View Post
You should seriously reconsider lumping civilian heroes in the same category as vigilante murderers.
You're right. There's a difference between the two. Civilian Heroes are like the guys that tackled the shooter in Tucson, or the ones that run into a burning building to help save people until the FD shows up. The ones that take a bullet to protect someone else. Those people are Civilian Heroes.

Vigilante Murderers are the ones that think they're living in the Old West and can become "The Law" any time they want to. The ones still stuck in that "Cowboy Culture." The ones that think their possession of a firearm makes them everyone's Superman, ready to save the day.

Take it from me, anybody that does a "good deed" can be considered a hero. That does not always make them right though. They are still subject to the laws of the land that are supposed to govern and protect our people.

I'm a little confused here, but I'm sure you could explain, and I'm probably just misinterpreting you. But it sounds like what you're saying is that if you use a gun to do a good deed, that makes you a criminal, but if you don't, that makes you a hero.

I am not in favor of reaching for a gun first. But it seems to me you're going too far in the other direction as it seems (although I may be misinterpreting your position, and if I am, forgive me) that you're saying that the use of guns is NEVER justified.

And I don't understand your requirement that it be proven that there's a law on the books saying you're obligated to use a gun if you have it.




And as for a little philosophical tangent, I feel that good and right are intertwined. If a person does a good thing, and that's illegal, the person is right. Its the laws are wrong.