« Keeping Perspective | Main | The Armageddon Next Time »

August 20, 2009

Comments

He didn't need a gun: he needed to bring his security detail with him.

Plus, based on the description the Mayor gave, he would not have pulled out a gun since he was not aware it was an attack until he was already being beaten. Guns are stand off weapons that have limited utility when you are already being beaten with a pipe.

The last two sentences are logically incorrect. Nothing says that that assumption must be made simultaneously.

It sounds like you give no weight to Balko's point. If someone in that position had been armed and pulled out a gun, I think it's much more likely an assailant, armed only w/ a lead pipe, would retreat upon seeing it.

As one of the commenters at Teh Sadly put it, every moment is a teachable moment, and the lesson is always “You should’ve had a gun.”

It sounds like you give no weight to Balko's point. If someone in that position had been armed and pulled out a gun, I think it's much more likely an assailant, armed only w/ a lead pipe, would retreat upon seeing it.

And come back with a gun (probably with the initiative). (And that definitely has a non-zero chance of happening)

I think folks are oversimplifying things here, and this is one area where oversimplifying things isn't useful.

bmc, you're presuming that with more guns around, the assailant would only have been armed with a lead pipe in the first place.

I'm actually kinda pro-gun myself, but I don't pretend that I live in a world where if the good guys all have guns, the bad guys won't.

publius, you really must have a masochistic streak.

entirely aside from the merits of the case, there is surely no louder troll-whistle on the internet than a post like this.

oh well. so much for this thread.

"I'm actually kinda pro-gun myself, but I don't pretend that I live in a world where if the good guys all have guns, the bad guys won't."

The problem is actually with the converse assumption, which is the one Publius is making: That if the good guys refrain from having guns, this will somehow lead to the bad guys not having them.

I mean, the Mayor didn't have a lead pipe in his pocket, did he? If the reasoning doesn't work with pipes, why should it work with guns?

Where were the lictors he should be entitled to as a high public official? A number of well-trained guys with axes and sticks should have a pretty decent deterrent effect.

"entirely aside from the merits of the case, there is surely no louder troll-whistle on the internet than a post like this."

I've written up quite a few variants that are supperior. It could have been a mayor of a starbase defending a woman's right to abort a Vulcan-Klingon hyrid and forced to decide whether to call on Captain Kirk or Captain Picard to aid him, thus determining which would be the better captain, while the woman needed the abortion in order to chair the historical conference on whether Earth had made the correct decision on whether or not to allow the cisgendered the right bear arms if the species had no arms to bear arms with, while Klingons with ridges battled it out for superiority with those who do not, and Vulcan feminists discussed the feminist implications of Pon Far and child marriages, as well as whether Vulcan pornography was logically freely agreed to, or degrading and only made for the entertaiment of Ferengi. Meanwhile, should Federation justices be influenced by the rulings of other interstellar systems, and while they're considering that, do they drink coffee, tea, or bloodwine, or is beer superior, and if so which brand, and was justice done when both Israelis and Palestinians were given their own planets, but it turned out they both had indigenous populations of their own?

Did the pipe have stembolts? What's the mayor's position on the right to carry pipes? If the pipes are actually an alien race that look like pipes, can they marry?

It's more like billy goat bait, it's been laid by a troll.

If someone in that position had been armed and pulled out a gun, I think it's much more likely an assailant, armed only w/ a lead pipe, would retreat upon seeing it.

I suppose you've done a study that proves this, only to lose the raw data in a computer crash, right? John Lott, is that you?

But would the computer crash have been less likely if he'd used a Mac or a PC?

I think the ultimate argument of gun rights people is that if everyone has a gun, it is the same as if no one has a gun. (And since some people already have guns, like criminals and police, it only makes sense to ARM EVERYONE ELSE.)

Having been to a gun show, where everyone did indeed have a gun, I have to say, people are very polite.

Brett, please show anywhere where publius is making that assumption. Never did and I am sure never will.

there is no individual right to carry lead pipes. especially when they aren't lead pipes, but rather, expandable metal batons.

I'm with jrudkis and Johnny Pez. The mayor should've had his detail at a heavily attended event. And as a current Big City dweller, I'm with Milw's mayor. As a former rural/small-town dweller, I'm willing to accept looser gun controls with regard to semi-automatic weapons. I don't use or see the need for them, but I can accept different rules for different population areas. Per Johnny Pez, the gun rights folks can't think outside of universals. Everywhere and all the time just doesn't work for everyone in places where people concentrate. - TL

If the pipe had been a blowpipe, would it count as an 'arm' in the sense of the 2nd amendment? I also (pretend to) believe that the 2nd actually protects only the right to ursine upper extremities. Those would also be highly effective means of defense.
Would a wheelchair with a fixed firearm be protected? And what about loaded crutches (as in Forsyth's The Jackal*)?

*a single loader, therefore not under any assault weapons ban (the ammo might be a different thing).

A significant plank of the gun-rights crowd is that criminals will always have access to guns, so gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Their default position is that all criminals will be armed regardless of the gun control laws, unless the criminal chooses to de-arm to a lead pipe.

Jeez, and I was just shopping around for expandable metal batons. Maybe I should just procure a small vial of antimatter, just to turn it up to 11.

A significant plank of the gun-rights crowd is that criminals will always have access to guns, so gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Their default position is that all criminals will be armed regardless of the gun control laws, unless the criminal chooses to de-arm to a lead pipe.

Well, yeah, but that doesn't have much to do with the situation here....

Different circumstances, different argument.

So, speaking of troll bait, how about Shah Rukh Khan getting arrested at Newark Airport on India's Independence Day, and being detained for a couple of hours until he could call the Indian Consulate and get alarmed diplomatic help to get him out of there? (Khan says he was locked up in a room with about 20 other people, and the excuse the airport gave him was "we just lost your luggage".)

On Bollywood blogs his fans are proposing that all white men named Pitt or Cruise ought to be arrested when they try to enter India. Just to be fair.

Just to add extra layers of irony, Khan was entering the US to promote his movie on racial profiling in the US, called My Name Is Khan.

I think a key weakness in the gun supporters' assumption that arms control only removes guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens is the fact that many (most?) violent crimes are crimes of opportunity, not premeditated crimes. Do you think this guy was using a lead pipe because that was the best weapon he could think of as he planned this crime? Doubt it...it was what was on hand. If handguns were more prevalent, then it's more likely that he would have had ready access to a gun instead of a lead pipe, which would have been bad for all involved.

Also of interest in heavily populated areas is the fact that there is no such thing as a stray pipe, or a drive-by piping, or being caught in the cross-beating.

John Lott, is that you?

Since we are on the topic of good yarns, what about the Obama-Holder-Clinton whopper about the 90% of guns recovered in Mexico?

I am troubled by improper use of statistics on both sides. But concealed carry has not increased (according to one side) (or has not increased significantly (the other) crime. It isn't going to increase crime if I have a hand gun. It will only deter and only if absolutely necessary. And that is why I'm waiting for my permit to issue (why does it take so long in California?!!!).

I'm confused by the comments suggesting that the problem was that the mayor didn't have his security detail with him. Are you assuming that everybody else in town gets a security detail, too? Or that nobody but mayors (or other "high public officials") would intervene in similar circumstances?

Or is it just that you are trying to be snarky because the particular individual (whether mayor or not) was in favor of gun control and got beaten up? Like nobody who owns/carries a gun ever gets attacked....

That if the good guys refrain from having guns, this will somehow lead to the bad guys not having them.

I'm worried about the "good guys", myself. Bad guy pulls a gun, a few honest citizens around him pull theirs and tell him to back down, bad guy backs down, problem solved, right?

Or possibly, bad guy pulls gun, good guy (who was thinking about where to get lunch and what's on TV tonight) gawps for ten seconds, fumbles with holster for another ten seconds, pulls gun, fires several shots wildly in the general direction of where bad guy was twenty seconds ago, hitting an old lady in the leg, who then gets shot in the back by another concerned citizen who just saw this guy shoot an old lady.

Given the normal state of the human condition, please tell me which scenario is more likely.

ericblair:

From here:
http://www.connectmidmissouri.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=331460

Sheriff White argued that armed civilians on campus have the potential to end the threat quickly. And he stunned the room with this assertion.

"In actual shootings, citizens do far better than law enforcement on hit potential,” said White. “They hit their targets and they don't hit other people. I wish I could say the same for cops. We train more, they do better."

----
Carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, and private citizens do not enjoy the immunity and legal support of the police. While there are certainly a rare few who legally carry without any thought to training or legal liability/responsibility, most who carry know that should they draw and fire their weapon, that they are legally responsible for every single bullet (as the saying goes, outside the range, every round has a lawsuit attached). It causes us to take extra pains to think long and hard about what we would do, and learn the laws governing gun use, and train to make sure that we will hit what we aim at.

Search the news, see how often private citizens (who are not committing a felony) accidentally hit innocent bystanders while defending themselves. It's a non event.

Otherwise, gun rights supporters DO NOT want everyone armed, we just want those who wish to be legally armed, who can legally own and carry a firearm, to be allowed to do so without having to navigate a patchwork of laws that shift and change from town to city to village to county.

Heller has not been incoporated into the states as of yet, but if it is, then the right to bear arms and to defend oneself will be considered a civil right throughout the country.

Whether or not this will happen is an important issue in this debate in spite of the visceral responses we have on both sides of the issue. (And, ironically, there is a split on the issue of incorporation within each side of the debate.)

As has been pointed out in other messages in this thread, this is becoming a public policy issue that has multiple viewpoints, but if it is a civil rights issue, can there be more than one approach?

There was with the Voting Rights act of 1965 in which there were restrictions and (some say) unequal treatment of voters in specific areas of the country.
Right now there is a debate about the efficacy of the 1965 law which has been rubber stamped each time it came up for renewal. The viewpoints on such policies/laws can change as the culture changes.

Is anyone here willing to look at the issue of guns/gun control as a civil rights issue instead of the usual knee-jerk responsive way? Or to put it another way, what are the public policy issues that will become important if the Second Amendment individual right to own a weapon/self defense as outlined in Heller becomes incorporated?

A minor correction. Initial reports were of a pipe of some sort, but the weapon was actually a tire iron.

Any argument that assumes the mayor will be armed must simultaneously assume that the attacker will be armed too. You have to start with this premise, and then we can have a reasonable debate from there.

My experience with gun rights advocates is that they do start from the assumption that the assailant will be armed with a gun -- whether or not the potential victim is, and whether or not there's strict gun control in that area, they still assume this.

Whether it's reasonable to start from that assumption is a matter of debate, but I think it unfairly characterizes them to say that they're not making that assumption.

"Search the news, see how often private citizens (who are not committing a felony) accidentally hit innocent bystanders while defending themselves. It's a non event."

How often do private citizens draw their weapons and fire at criminals and hit them, while defending themselves? I'd be interested in stats on that, and then we can compare proportions.

Gary:

All that potential flame bait, and not a single mention of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the Prime Directive? Tsk, tsk.

Madrocketscientist:
we just want those who wish to be legally armed, who can legally own and carry a firearm, to be allowed to do so without having to navigate a patchwork of laws that shift and change from town to city to village to county.

In other words, you oppose federalism. Got it.

*ducks*

"I'm confused by the comments suggesting that the problem was that the mayor didn't have his security detail with him. Are you assuming that everybody else in town gets a security detail, too? Or that nobody but mayors (or other "high public officials") would intervene in similar circumstances?

Or is it just that you are trying to be snarky because the particular individual (whether mayor or not) was in favor of gun control and got beaten up? Like nobody who owns/carries a gun ever gets attacked....

"

I was being a bit snarky, because I think that when people who are against my ability to defend myself have armed guards, they are being a bit hypocritical.

But I don't think having a gun in that situation would have helped, because you really have to have time and distance to pull a weapon. Most studies I have seen indicate that when an attacker is within 20 feet of you, chances are they can close the distance before you can draw, aim, and fire. And if you are not expecting an attack (ie, already alert to the possibility), you are very unlikely to react in time.

Just like with bear attacks, the gun you carry protects your buddy, not you: by the time you know to draw it, the bear is on top of you.

"Most studies I have seen indicate that when an attacker is within 20 feet of you, chances are they can close the distance before you can draw, aim, and fire."

I submit the amendment: "unless you're being attacked on tv or in a movie."

Subamendment: unless it's the hero who is the attacker, in which case the original statement is perfectly correct.

"All that potential flame bait, and not a single mention of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the Prime Directive? Tsk, tsk."

Since it was completely ignored until after the Organians had taken covertly taken over the Federation, who cares if it was wise?

Search the news, see how often private citizens (who are not committing a felony) accidentally hit innocent bystanders while defending themselves. It's a non event.

I actually did a little Googling and was somewhat astounded to find that the number of instances of legal defensive gun use in the US ranges, depending on who's counting, from hundreds of thousands to about 2.5 million per year.

2.5 million!?!?!

It's a crazy world out there.

Perhaps oddly for a lefty, I have no particular problem with responsible people owning and carrying firearms. All I ask is that you get some training and don't point the damned thing my way.

All of that said, I have to wonder how the situation in question would have been improved if the Mayor was carrying a firearm.

Would he have been able to get the weapon ready to use before he was attacked?

If he had, would the world be a better place, net/net, had he shot his attacker dead?

To this question:

Bad guy pulls a gun, a few honest citizens around him pull theirs and tell him to back down, bad guy backs down, problem solved, right?

What about:

Bad guy pulls gun, good guy pulls his, police officer arrives. Which is the good guy?

Or, bad guy pulls gun, good guy pulls his, another good citizen arrives and pulls his. Which is the good guy?

Or, good guy arrives at a scene where someone holding a gun stands over someone else they just shot. Congratulate the shooter for saving the day, or point your gun and tell them to drop their weapon until you figure out what happened?

Firearms raise the stakes. The Mayor will get over his beating. You don't get over being dead.

"Search the news, see how often private citizens (who are not committing a felony) accidentally hit innocent bystanders while defending themselves. It's a non event."

Why would whether or not they're committing a felony be a relevant factor if we're only talking about accidentally hitting innocent bystanders while defending themsevles? Are felons worse shots, and thus shouldn't count?

Is that why we shouldn't count drug dealer shootings that hit innocent bystanders as cases where being mutually armed, and known to be mutually armed, don't, in fact, always work out to deterring either uses of guns or hitting innocent bystanders?

FWIW, we heard a case on my grand jury panel last week in which two juvenile offenders, one of them armed, broke into a home in which the homeowner was awakened, found them in the kitchen, and discharged his .12 gauge shotgun as the armed one reached into his waistband. Luckily for him, this was an older gentleman who had suffered a stroke, and it was dark, so he just got a couple of pellets to the head.

Other than that, of probably 400+ cases of murder, aggravated robbery, felonious assault and other crimes involving firearms that we've heard, not one has involved a victim or citizen defending him- or herself with a firearm. And Ohio has pretty liberal concealed-carry laws.

I'm astounded that some have suggested 'the mayor should have had his security detail with him'. Doesn't this kind of miss the point that the mayor was defending a woman under attack and was wilfully assaulted by the woman's assailant?

This is not an act of stupidity on the mayor's part. His act is one of bravery. One guy is trying to help a woman being attacked. The other guy is attacking a woman and beating mayors with metal bars. On what planet is it ever, ever sensible to say 'he should've had his security detail'? I mean, what the ?

On gun control, I'm Australian so thankfully I have no right to bear arms, and no-one else does either. That's the way I like it.

Timely! Man confronted by homeowner while taking pictures of homeowner's property, homeowner gets irate, maybe smacks man's car window, man pulls gun on unarmed citizen!

An Idaho Republican Party leader who helped oust the state GOP chairman in 2008 faces charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after an altercation escalated while he photographed a home with a delinquent mortgage . . .

McAffee works for a contractor hired by Wells Fargo & Co. to document the condition of homes where mortgages are past due or in foreclosure. A Wells Fargo spokesman condemned McAffee's behavior, calling it "horrific and absolutely inexcusable." . . .

According to police in the Boise suburb of Meridian, resident Robert Lutes called officers just before 5:30 p.m. Tuesday to report McAffee had pointed a .357 Magnum handgun at him during a verbal confrontation. McAffee acknowledged he pointed the gun at Lutes, according to the police account.

"I'm unarmed, I'm an old man," Lutes, 51, told The Associated Press on Thursday. "I'm trying to find out why he's taking pictures of my house. I said, 'Knock on my door, let me know what you want.' Then, I think he's reaching for his business card and he pulls out a concealed weapon and I think he's going to blow my head off."

Lutes said the gun was beneath a cloth on the floor of the passenger side of McAffee's vehicle . . .

But Ryan Davidson, another Paul supporter who has gained attention by pushing pro-marijuana voter initiatives in the central Idaho town of Hailey, said McAffee told him a different version of the altercation in a phone call from jail:

Lutes confronted McAffee, becoming increasingly hostile, Davidson said. When Lutes struck McAffee's Ford Escort with his hand, McAffee brandished the weapon to de-escalate the conflict, Davidson said . . .

So, granting that pulling a gun on an unarmed man will quickly end an argument -- although I'd refer to it more as "escalating the conflict" rather than "de-escalating the conflict" -- let's see Brett justify McAffee's activity here.

When Lutes struck McAffee's Ford Escort with his hand

Who among us hasn't smashed a car window by punching it with our bare hands? I see 51 year old guys do that every day.

Russell:

The 2.5 million figure is A) an estimation based on survey results, the value varies from 400K to 2.5M depending on which study you read, and B) covers any and all situations where a gun was used in self defense but not necessarily fired, i.e. the bad guy ran away or surrendered at the sight of an armed defender without a shot fired.

As for bad guy vs good guy vs cop, when the cop arrives, everyone disarms exactly as the cops instructs, everyone gets handcuffed, and the police sort it out afterward.

bad guy vs good guy vs good guy, how many permit holders do you think are out there? Also, rule of thumb for anyone who carries, if the situation is such that you feel the need to draw your weapon, the only reason you should have for not firing is the bad guy has thrown his weapon away and surrendered, or he is in full retreat and not shooting at you as he runs. Even the cops don't mess around with staring down a gun barrel, that only happens on TV. So in short, the likelihood of you holding a bad guy at gun point while staring down his barrel long enough for another permit holder, who was not a witness to previous events, to arrive and draw his own weapon is pretty low.

Gary Farber:

I was trying to imply that the cases I was referring to were cases where a citizen was exercising his/her legal right to self-defense. Clumsy phrasing on my part.

As for drug dealers or gang bangers, most of them are already legally prohibited from owning a firearm (due to age or criminal past), and they are generally engaging in illegal activity. Even if they could legally carry, being in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime is a crime in and of itself. Criminals generally don't care where their shots go, private citizens do. Good guys try to aim, and do simple things like use frangible ammo, and practice.

"I'm unarmed, I'm an old man," Lutes, 51

"I'm an old man?" 51?

I'm going to go have myself a good cry.

when I lived in Az & Vermont, I usually carried a small .38 in my pocket. No one ever saw it, no one knew it was there. Now I live in Ca, where only the criminals & politically connected can carry a discreet handgun.
I much prefer Az & Vt, as I cant help but notice the level of violent crime- and robberies at gunpoint- are not i the least diminished by MY pocketing a revolver being a criminal act. Id like to append this bit:

"Nothing we discover about Lott can take away the fact that years of experience with liberalized concealed carry have provided little or no evidence of increased firearms-using crime as a result. The Violence Policy Center's report License to Kill, which details every single recorded crime committed by anyone who obtained a concealed-carry permit in Texas from 1996 to 2001 in an attempt to show that the policy had bad results, in fact demonstrates the contrary. (Someone ought to tell the VPC that it's not necessary to have a concealed weapon, or even a permit for a concealed weapon, in order to drive drunk, so that the finding that some permit holders were arrested for DUI tells you precisely nothing about the merits of the policy.)
That finding seems to me to be a very strong argument for "shall-issue" laws: they give some people a right they value, at very little apparent cost to anyone else. Not everyone will be convinced by that argument; for example, it's at least conceivable that concealed-carry laws increase the level of fear without increasing the actual rate of armed assault. If I were writing a law about concealed carry, I'd like to tighten up a little on who gets to have a gun, and I'd like a law against possessing a loaded firearm (concealed or not) while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants. Still, the case seems like a strong one even without the Lott claim to back it up."

"when I lived in Az & Vermont, I usually carried a small .38 in my pocket. No one ever saw it, no one knew it was there. Now I live in Ca, where only the criminals & politically connected can carry a discreet handgun. I much prefer Az & Vt, as I cant help but notice the level of violent crime- and robberies at gunpoint- are not i the least diminished by MY pocketing a revolver being a criminal act."

If you don't mind my asking, how long did you live in Arizona and Vermont, and how many times did you deter crimes with your gun? Also, how many situations have you been in while living in California where you would have drawn your gun to use it to deter, prevent, or respond, to a crime?

Thanks for your response, should you choose to respond.

"it's at least conceivable that concealed-carry laws increase the level of fear without increasing the actual rate of armed assault."

Yes, it's entirely conceivable. But why should we humor phobics by restricting the rights of people who aren't actually threatening them?

" If I were writing a law about concealed carry, I'd like to tighten up a little on who gets to have a gun,"

Why? You've already established the lack of evidence this is needed.

"and I'd like a law against possessing a loaded firearm (concealed or not) while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants"

I'm unaware of any state concealed carry law which DOESN'T involve such a provision. Perhaps you should establish that something is actually legal, before advocating a new law to prohibit it?

Nothing we discover about Lott can take away the fact that years of experience with liberalized concealed carry have provided little or no evidence of increased firearms-using crime as a result.

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is that we also haven't seen any evidence of liberalized concealed carry leading to a DECREASE in violent crime, which was Lott's entire thesis in the first goddamned place.

At best, liberalized concealed carry appears to have no affect on crime rates whatsoever. And I'm fine with that, and I believe in a fundamental right to self-defense which includes a right to arm oneself. But I don't for a minute believe that the same law that's practical in East Bumblefart, Idaho is practical in Manhattan or Chicago.

"If you don't mind my asking, how long did you live in Arizona and Vermont, and how many times did you deter crimes with your gun? Also, how many situations have you been in while living in California where you would have drawn your gun to use it to deter, prevent, or respond, to a crime?"
3 and 18 years. As I said, when I carried, it was in my pocket. Never needed to remove it from my pocket.
Im 6'4, 250 lbs, and a war vet. I got a good eye for trouble, and avoid it. The fact that I never needed it is irrelevant. Plenty of people during that time came face to face with serious trouble, unasked for, Im not one.
I certainly liked the notion my mate- a gal, 5'3, 120 lbs- had a revolver in HER pocket at various times. No, she never needed it. So?
The use of a firearm to deter trouble, w/o a shot being fired, dosnt end up in police bloters, or Josh Sugarmans propaganda mill. I recall a very slight gay friend, Kenny, up in rural Wi, who stopped the nightly harrassment- escalating from slurs to rocks thru the window, who stepped out on his front step during such an attack, holding his 30-30.
Squal of tires, never bothered again.
YOU are willing to decide for him, or my wife or othe people in general what THEY may do to defend themselves. I lack the arrogance to make such decisions for people.
I had printed up a bunch of signs whic ay- There Are No Firearms In This House- for anti gun people to place in thier ront windows. Not one such has chosen to announce to the world that status- not one.
Because the question of weather or not a household is armed is a deterrent they are quite willing to hide behind.
Perhaps this response will make the cut, my last didnt.....


I lack the arrogance to make such decisions for people.

Really? So there's no problem with me moving in next door to you and making chemical weapons in my kitchen? Or would rejecting that be too arrogant?

Is there any form of weaponry that I might possess when I move in next door whose rejection wouldn't count as arrogant?

Chemical weapons? you cant stick to the question at hand, but have only laughable straw men to confabulate? lifes too short.
why dont you try- try- to respond to my point?

"YOU are willing to decide for him, or my wife or othe people in general what THEY may do to defend themselves."

I am? Gee, I'd appreciate it if you'd quote where I said something to support that claim.

What do you know about my position on gun laws? Cite?

The use of a firearm to deter trouble, w/o a shot being fired, dosnt end up in police bloters, or Josh Sugarmans propaganda mill.

They should end up in police blotters. People who deter an attempted crime without providing a report to the police including a complete description of the perpetrator are doing the community a disservice. These people don't just retire after being deterred once, you know.

Oh, and this -- I had printed up a bunch of signs whic ay- There Are No Firearms In This House- for anti gun people to place in thier ront windows. Not one such has chosen to announce to the world that status- not one. -- is a popular trope among many gun owners, but first, I guarantee you never printed up any such signs; and second, it would have absolutely no effect on the rate of theft and burglaries, since a cursory examination of criminal behavior would demonstrate that thieves are less likely to enter a home they believe to be occupied. You can have all the firearms you want at home, and a big sign announcing such to the world, but they'll do nothing to defend against a burglary if nobody is home to brandish or fire them.

"You can have all the firearms you want at home, and a big sign announcing such to the world, but they'll do nothing to defend against a burglary if nobody is home to brandish or fire them."
It might have an impact on your risk of a home invasion which don't seem to be that uncommon. Home invasions involving guns are not unheard of either.

It might have an impact on your risk of a home invasion

Yes, I should think so. Apparently, burglars like to take guns like they like to take any other portable and valuable item, so putting such a sign in your window would be like putting a sign up saying "Hey, I have valuable jewellery in the house!"

My, my, my- you dont like what my life tells me is so, so Im a liar? A revolver i my pockets is the same as brewing up chemical warfare poisons in my kitchen? I must be in Progdom....Uh, no, I have a small pile of those signs. . Quite easy, kinko's, etc. Im sure you can print up your own. At the rate those who would criminalize gun owners have taken them, I have a lifetime supply....thats A.
B-
out here, the big thing is "hot" breakins. As when someone is home. Oddly enough, all the breakin/rapes occur when someone is home, too. Unless its diff out your way.....you are free to decide for yourself what you want to do here. You ARENT free to decide for someone else.
Feel free to not own a firearm, truly. Dont like them, they scare you, you think you might shoot someone who annoys you- dont own one. Please.
Freedom of choice, and all that.
Fla and other states which made concealed carry permits something other than a perk for the well connected have, as you know, showed a marked drop in "street crime"- muggings, and such. To the point- this is over a decade ago, now- rental cars became a target, as folks in rental cars are usually from out of town, and unarmed. Was it Avis or Hertz who starte putting NRA stickers on thier rentals bumpers? Funny a sign was seen by them as a deterrant. And no, Im not going to do your research for you.
I dont waltz with somebodies strawlady just because shes there. You brung her, you dance with her. I gotta do some business with grownups.

Well, I can see I don't need to waste my time on a contemptuous, nigh-illiterate doof who states up front that he doesn't intend to provide any cites and can't keep track of to whom it is he's speaking. Next!

CharlesWT, yes, home invasions happen. In a four month stint on the county grand jury -- and this is in Cuyahoga County, the most populous in Ohio, with nearly 2 million people -- I have heard of less than a dozen. Only three with firearms, and only two involving strangers. This is in hearing nearly 50 cases a day, twice a week.

Fla and other states which made concealed carry permits something other than a perk for the well connected have, as you know, showed a marked drop in "street crime"- muggings, and such.

This, of course, is completely untrue, but since doofus here says he isn't going to provide cites, I'm not going to get too deeply into it. Suffice to say that, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the state has seen the following year-over-year changes in robberies involving a firearm:

1999-2000 -3.5%
2000-2001 +9.5%
2001-2002 -1.2%
2002-2003 -2.9%
2003-2004 +5.4%
2004-2005 +3.8%
2005-2006 +20.2% [Editor's Note: !]
2006-2007 +24.8% [Editor's Note: !!]
2007-2008 -5.6%

Now, anyone who can make a coherent trend out of those numbers which both shows a decrease and correlates it strongly with concealed-carry is headed for a Nobel Prize.

And I can guarantee you that Cleveland -- which, as the result of an Ohio Supreme Court ruling several years ago liberalized its concealed carry laws to "shall-issue" -- has not seen a decrease in street crime. Not even close.

Was it Avis or Hertz who starte putting NRA stickers on thier rentals bumpers?

It was neither, because it never happened, although it was suggested by a number of right-wing commentators.

Mutt, I'm still waiting for you to respond to my request that you quote where I said anything at all to support your asertion that to me that "YOU are willing to decide for him, or my wife or othe people in general what THEY may do to defend themselves."

"I gotta do some business with grownups."

It would be grownup of you to support your accusations. It wouldn't be so grownup to make false accusations, and refuse to respond to requests to support them, or even, you know, withdraw them, with an apology, if it turns out you made a completely unsupportable, and rather offensive, claim about someone else.

Meanwhile, gee, I'd appreciate it if you'd quote where I said something to support your above-quoted claim, and I ask you again: what do you know about my position on gun laws? Cite? What's your basis, from what I've written, to make such an accusation at me?

I'd appreciate your acting like a grownup about this. Thanks.

"It might have an impact on your risk of a home invasion which don't seem to be that uncommon."

How common are they? Obviously, they exist, but your links don't obviously point to any clue as to how often per year they occur. You link to a Wikipedia entry that says:

[...] Few statistics are available on home invasion as a crime, because it is not technically a crime in most states.

[...]

Since 1995, some authorities have suggested that home invasion is a minimal threat to the average person and usually involves invaders who have a personal knowledge of the home and home-owner. Both are somewhat true.[citation needed]

This seems rather uninformative on the question of how often they do or don't occur. Ditto links to random Google mentions of the words.

Mutt: "I must be in Progdom...."

Actually, you seem to largely be responding to voices in your head, rather than things written in this thread. For instance, voices in your head that you imagined were me writing something I didn't write.

I'd really appreciate a cite to my views on gun laws, since you feel qualified to comment on my views. I look forward to your doing this.

They should end up in police blotters. People who deter an attempted crime without providing a report to the police including a complete description of the perpetrator are doing the community a disservice. These people don't just retire after being deterred once, you know.

Actually, such reports do end up in Police Blotters when reported, but do not (I believe) get reported in state or national statistics, and don't always make it to online news where they'll show up in a Google search. However, I do agree with you, if a person does draw a firearm in order to stop a crime, even if a shot wasn't fired, the person should immediately call the police as soon as the are in a safe location. Not only will it make the police aware of a potential criminal(s) in the area (or add to a growing list of related complaints), but it also offers a level of protection to the CPL holder. I'd hate to draw my firearm, scare off a criminal, and then find myself at the wrong end of an anonymous "Man with a gun" report. Be the first to tell the police what happened, and it is a lot less likely to bite you in the ass later.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad