Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWe're Locked and Loaded Into Our Rambo Fantasy
On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Georgia's most famous son, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the Georgia Legislature approved a bill allowing permit holders to carry concealed firearms in public places such as restaurants that serve liquor, state parks and transit systems such as MARTA.
The bill also made it legal for any nonfelon - including those without a permit - to carry a loaded firearm beneath a car seat or other easily accessible hiding place in a vehicle.
As a practical matter, those changes won't matter much. The folks who want to drive around with a loaded pistol beneath their front seat are going to indulge in that foolishness regardless of what the law says. And armed permit holders won't suddenly start using their weapons to either save or take lives in restaurants or parks.
Nonetheless, the law does testify to the enduring power and political appeal of what you might call the Rambo fantasy. And it reveals once again how easily that delusion can frustrate passage of common-sense gun-safety laws that might save lives.
We all know how that fantasy goes, because it has become a stock story in American pop culture: Bad Guy pulls a gun and starts blowing innocent people away; Good Guy pulls his own gun and kills Bad Guy, saving lives and becoming a hero.
In real life that rarely if ever happens. But we pass laws like this anyway, almost as a way to pay homage to that cultural fantasy and to placate the dreamers who insist that the law recognize their right, however far-fetched, to someday be that hero.
You know who those folks are. They're the ones who like to claim that if they had been carrying that tragic day at Virginia Tech, a lot of those kids would still be alive today. They believe that the problem with today's society is not too many guns in too many places, but rather too few, and they see themselves as potential white knights, just waiting for a dragon to come along.
But those dragons rarely do. In 2006, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics, guns were used in a total of 10,177 homicides. Of that enormous total, just 195 homicides were categorized as justifiable, defined by the bureau as "the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen."
In percentage terms, 98.1 percent of the time a private citizen kills someone with a firearm, the killing is not justified. Yet because of the power of the Rambo fantasy, we write laws as if that remaining 1.9 percent of gun killings were the majority.
And even that 1.9 percent figure is a vast exaggeration of how many times the fantasy comes true. The FBI doesn't break the numbers down further, but I'd bet that almost all those 195 cases involved a private citizen who legally used a gun to stop a burglary or home invasion, not a crime conducted in a public place.
Having followed and participated in the gun debate, and having used guns myself for a time in my life, I'd also bet that rather than being brave souls ready to protect the rest of us, most Rambo fantasists are intimidated by the world around them.
That conclusion was crystallized for me years ago when a state legislator from suburban Atlanta announced in a gun debate that he would never dare to dine in an Atlanta restaurant unless he was carrying a firearm.
Now, frail little old ladies with walkers ate in those restaurants regularly without apparent fear, but this guy - a young man well over 6 feet tall - thought it was too dangerous unless he could carry a gun with him.
Apparently, the heft of 2 pounds of steel in a shoulder holster gives some of those people the courage they need to go out into a world that otherwise terrifies them. It gives them the bravery that nature failed to provide.
That's a big part of the reason that lax gun laws are so important to them.
Jay Bookman is deputy editorial page editor.
Copyright© 2008 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
111 Comments so far
Show AllHey copenhagen . . . . Your efforts are commendable in trying to explain life in this modern world. But when you are dealing with those that choose to "Cherry Pick" satistics and make them say what the want you a fighting a up hill battle.
For those that would like to read and educate themselves with the complete facts I suggest that you check out this site:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/search?q=Australian+Gun+Law
After you have read COMPLETE information come back and we'll continue the discussion.
Liberals need to understand that attempts at denying responsible gun owners their rights only encourages them to vote Republican. If a community with near universal gun ownership is not plagued with gun crimes, leave them alone. Get it?
Let communities with high rates of gun violence regulate gun and ammo sales as they deem fit. The possibility exists for sane compromise.
The NRA does not advocate machine guns and RPGs. Democrats should agree that responsible gun ownership be allowed.
If more Democrats were Second Amendment supporters, maybe the party would actually gain some influence, and address issues that could reduce conditions that spawn crime.
The article implies that all homicides are by law-abiding gun owners. Perhaps all stabbings are by chefs. More likely is the fact that most of those shootings are from criminals against either each other or unarmed citizens. I would deduce that the justified shootings involve store owners or people defending themselves from a home invasion. So you are right that things won't change with this law. Gun owners who carry are, on the whole, extremely law-abiding. If you want to see what gun control does, look at the rise in crime in Britain and Australia. And, I DON'T have a right to a gun. Rights are something given by government (taken away more likely). I DO have a natural right to protect myself. Irregardless of what laws are passed. My safety is not something that can be legislated away. A gun is the most efficient way of guaranteeing the safety of most people. Especially, the elderly, disabled and women.
No Rambo Fantasy to it!
Just doing the job that government refuses to do.
The best post supporting anti-gun legislation was left by "waypasthadenough" Truly pathetic; a sad sad case. Hooray for the USA!
dejeanco, follow waypasthadenough's link. "lightweight, low caliber pistols with limited rounds" have nothing to do with it. Even Rambo might feel a little worried if he saw that website. He might even flip the blanket off some cadaver and say "Yeah, well you tell this guy's mother to follow that link".
Rambo fantasy? Most handguns used for concealment are lightweight, low caliber pistols with limited rounds. Not something that Rambo would be caught with, but still enough to defend against a possible assailant. I wonder what Jay Bookman would use to defend himself and his family against an attacker. Liberal hokum?
I have my weapons because there are "Liberal" scum like jay bookman in the world. Creatures like that have almost destroyed Britain. We must begin to treat them as the cancer they are or we will be their slaves.
When guns are outlawed "Liberal" season must begin on that day.
http://www.willowtown.com/reality/blacksburg.htm
How long do you imagine you could hold off the Feds before they stopped sending in re-enforcements? Seriously?"
-- so we should just give up when the time comes? thank god we cleansed a lot of that Eurocentric attitude out of our DNA.
Big Money: "But this thing about Governments Gone Wild still utterly escapes me. Wasn't this tried in Waco, and weren't the results extremely predictable? How long do you imagine you could hold off the Feds before they stopped sending in re-enforcements? Seriously?"
You let the boys in real tree and mossy oak with their 30-06's and .308's worry about that. You need to be worried about your freedom of speech. Your Prime Minister sucks a big one. Bet you can't say that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 is about the confiscation of guns in New Orleans ala Katrina.
Voters in Florida had the ballot too, and lots of good it did them.
'The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.' -Thomas Jefferson
I may be naive, but I'm trying to understand. I've seen some "crimes" stopped in their tracks with the sudden appearance of a cell phone (video??), a video camera (video!) and a baseball bat (no video required). I've never seen a gun used that way, but I suppose if there were guns everywhere, the deterrance provided by video, or a good piece of ash, might not be such a sure thing.
But this thing about Governments Gone Wild still utterly escapes me. Wasn't this tried in Waco, and weren't the results extremely predictable? How long do you imagine you could hold off the Feds before they stopped sending in re-enforcements? Seriously?
The question it brings to mind, is, are people less inclined to give a crap that their government is galloping down the path to a fascist police state, if they have a personal arsenal designed to deal with the problem once it arrives at their doorstep? There indeed seems to be the appearance of circumstantial evidence that this may be the case. Any ideas?
As President George Clinton proclaimed unto the Parliament, "You don't need the bullet when you got the ballot. Are you with me, CC?".
The anti-U.S. American Socialists, like this author and so many of the commenters, who rail endlessly against domestic gun ownership fail to understand two critical points. First your "government", and I hope it truly will be yours through the election of Barak or even nutcase Hillary, isn't going to protect you when the evil comes crashing through the door or the window, to rape and pillage, or when it attacks you in the street, on the freeway or in the parking lot. As the gov't seeks to save more money through surveillance cameras as they've done in Britain, they steadily reduce the number of cops to the point where, they just watch the crimes happen, then send in a clean-up crew when they think it's safe. You and yours are nothing to the gov't; your just a statistic, an economic unit. The second point you don't seem to get is that you, yourselves might one day become targets of the Fascists. How are you going to defend yourselves in that event? Are you going to rely on the gov't to do that? I certainly wouldn't!
Wow. Lots of responses, many filled with well, ignorance.
To the Militia argument - this is the be all end all response. If you consider historical context while reading the document, you will realize that the 2nd Amendment was written amidst the slaughter of people fighting against British tyrants. Recognize that the British Army was a government sanctioned force that was all the while confiscating arms to prevent a larger rebel force from amassing.
With this in mind, one cannot possibly come even close to logic, when inferring that the second amendment means to keep guns ONLY in the hands of government sanctioned forces, which are prone to the influences of tyranny. To suggest that the guns were or should be kept in the 'local armory' is asinine. Finally the militia clause follows after 'the people,' having a right to keep and bear arms that 'shall not be infringed.' Tell me, where do you see an asterisk next to 'the people' meaning that in this one part of the Constitution, it refers to people serving in a police or military fashion?
It doesnt.
Now onto the rambo thing. I had a good laugh when I saw that and the several arguments relating to penis size and masculinity. Laughable but ignorant. Another poster here referred to guns as insurance - thats all they are to me. Insurance. Much like having a fire extinguisher, I like knowing that I have a loaded weapon at the ready should some miscreant attempt to harm me or a loved one in the search of his next fix. I hope it never happens, and Im not hoping to get my rocks off on deleting some fool - but its there in case I need it.
Now - the government. No, I don't realistically see us joining together to fight the military ....but considering Blackwater was patrolling the streets after the Katrina disaster and considering Possee Comitatus has been in every effect, suspended in the world of post 9/11 hysteria.....is an armed tyranny that far out of the realm of possibility??
In closing, the second amendment refers to the right of the people, you, me, that crazy cab driver down the street, as being able to keep and bear arms. We are in a sense, ALL militia members - we were tasked by Jefferson to safeguard liberty - some of us do that through activism - some of us do that by serving our communities in times of need, but make no mistake, the constitution refers and demands that we ALL do our part.
The anti gun argument distracts from effective reform. We have a violent society. The best way to stop gun violence is to make our society a more humane community.
Prison reform, universal health care, comfortable housing, secure work, and pleasant environment, efficient and inexpensive public transportation, etc. would do more to stop gun violence than all the anti gun actions of government.
Yeah, we need fewer guns on the street. But free people have a human right to own one.
mikk
Wow you Americans are crazy.
Whatever happened to CIVILIZATION??? Do you guys understand the concept???
_____________________________________
"America is the first country to have gone from barbarism to decadence without the usual intervening period of civilization." *
-- Oscar Wilde
* It's funny because it's true! 8)
Being so ridiculously scared of fire arms is like being scared of life. All the arguments that were used about armed citizens being so scared of life are the same ones that could be used about dis armed citizens being scared of firearms. Guns don't kill. People kill. If guns kill, then spoons made Dick Cheney fat. People will always kill. If you want to be disarmed, that is your right, don't take that right away from me, and by the way, I would encourage you to have a nice little rifle on hand with a couple hundred rounds of ammunition in case you ever need it. But who am I, just a crazy combat vet right? I could give a crap if you are liberal or conservative. I am independent, and I am strongly warning you that if you disarm, your other innate rights will be soon to follow!
Quite frankly, the guns I owned at one time were hardly used. I was on a farm, raised horses and on one occasion had a horse with a broken leg...I mean broken, snapped off...the vet couldn't get out for a couple of hours..soooo....
Also had a stray dog come up that was killing the cats and my smaller dogs...couldn't catch the murderous mut...sooooo
Those were the only times in 5 years I even bothered with a firearm....and then, I was cornered into it...and kept them put away to the point it took a half hour to find and get them out.
If you are going to own the things, you have to do it responsibly and keep them away from people. I have no reason to want to fool with the things except in emergency situations NOT involving humans.
The best gun is an unused one.
mikk...
Civilized?
Come on...look at our fearless leader who invades without provocation...
If you had to deal with that, would you want to melt down your gun???
Never liked guns much---but I inherited some from my WWII family ancestors and got a state permit to have them so I would never fall afoul of the laws while they sit in my house. When I took the required state training course, in walked a big burly buzz-cut State Trooper to teach the class, and his first remark was as follows. "Any day is a good day that I get to talk about or handle guns. And we're [?] just waiting for the revolution day, when we can settle up with and shoot all the liberals who are destroying this country." I raised my hand and asked how the State Police planned to recognize whom to shoot---and he laughed. "We'll know," he laughed again. So what do I do when the Right Wing Putzes start shooting?
Oh - and for those who cite the 2nd Amendment: it's clear (to me) from the language that the principal reason cited by the Framers was "a well regulated militia..." to help ensure "the security of a free state". There is no language about the right to self-defence whatsoever.
Now as an anarcho-capitalist, I firmly believe in the right to meet aggression with measured reciprocal violence: absolutely. The Swiss have mandatory rifle ownership, I am reliably informed, and mandatory weapons training. This makes invading Switzerland a non-starter - invasion of a country with half a million trained marksmen is a bad bet. But they also have one of the higher rates of suicide by gun and rising rates (from memory) of spousal homicide by firearm.
As usual, VoxClamantis provides a perfect illustration of the tension that ought to exist in the minds of anybody who approaches the issue from an intellectual standpoint. The right to live a life free from external coercion and aggression is, to my way of thinking, the paramount right: if those who would impose their will on my life are armed, it makes sense - if a decision is made not to submit - to plan for an eventual requirement to meet force with force.
That said, the armed goons I think are the biggest problem - those who represent the government - have an overwhelming force of numbers... but that didn't stop Washington and his band of terrrrrrrrrists back in the day, noe did it stop the baby Jeebus (yay verily thee thou thine and other language to make it seem mystical to the uneducated).
After all, the Romans had to send an entire cohort (600 regulars or 1200 reserves) to arrest baby Jeebus... and one of them lost an ear in the process.
Cheerio
GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
PS by "external coercion and aggression" I mean "coercion or aggression that is not provided for as a resolution to a contractual dispute." I have never signed a contract with any State and as such I do not recognise them as having any right to do anything with, for, or to me; I do not consent to submit to any law which constrains my behaviour (personal belief ensures that my behaviour does not impose force on third parties); and most certainly I do not recognise the right of any State to introduce new contractual terms or conditions without mutual consent.
Big_Money April 10th, 2008 7:01 pm
"This is what stands in the way of us "understanding" your idea of "self defense" - we see it is very dangerous, which statistics support, and delusional, which is just our opinion, I suppose."
Google Kenneshaw Georgia gun crime
25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents
Lobo Gris
Wow you Americans are crazy.
Whatever happened to CIVILIZATION??? Do you guys understand the concept???
Hey there WhoseTruth
You oughtta read that there Bah-bil afore'n y'all start dissin' baby Jeebus.
After all, it was baby Jeebus was the dude who done said "Him that hath not a sword, let him sell his garment and buy one". Pretty unambiguous stuff - typical revolutionary language.
You'll find it right there in Mark if'n y'ever read the thang.
Obviously he wasn't prepared to order his disciples to violate the ban on assault weapons that the Romans imposed in Judea at the time... otherwise he would have said "him that hath not a light infantry weapon, let him go sell his stuff and buy one".
The same dude (baby Jeebus) said "Do not think that I come to bring peace: for I come to bring a sword."
Now I'm not gonna dig out the ref'rence for y'all - if'n y'all kin read, y'all kin find it you own self.
Two things need stating: I am not a gun nut (I think government goons should be stripped of their weapons), and I think that religion is a form of mental illness.
Cheerio
GT
France
http://marketrant.blogspot.com
I think everyone should re-read COMarc's post and then ask themselves this question:
Is the "gun-control" issue distracting us from more important reforms?
Such as the dissolution of the permanent standing military and return of a citizenry based militia system?
I think this should include many "police" forces which have evolved in to paramilitaries.
COMarc, you mention adjusting the original system of posses and militias to modern living, do you have any thoughts as to how this could be done?
-matti
I believe Americans have the right to bear arms...for most of the reasons stated above...
When you disarm the citizenry, they have no way to even form a militia should it be needed.
Thing is, you can disarm people who would not do malicious things...but always, the bad guy will find a way to be armed...
When we lose our military to privatization...to Blackwater...and we are under martial law... you might appreciate being armed in some way. Or will you simply follow like sheep to the slaughter?
Its a hard question, the gun issue, but I want a way to protect myself....and no...not carrying it in my car...at home on my turf.
Hey listen, do any of you guys have the gun in a holster when...er...making out? I mean, when naked, you are vulnerable. Very. But with a shooter at your side, man, you're invincible.
Of course, your weapon might discharge if the gymnastics got too violent. Your partner wouldn't be too pleased to have another navel I guess, would she? No matter. You have the right to bear arms even when you're bare.
P.S. Was mankind a good idea? Dangerous Creation.
Hey, I wouldn't want you to be sold, I just want you to think for yourself. Sorry you can't say what you think about 'the prime.' You can come to my house some time and type away.. hehe.. Internet... it is passive, but so far, it is still a decent way to get ideas voiced that aren't on the largely elitist controlled mass media.
copenhagen - Not sarcastic. I couldn't see the sense in the other side of this debate, but with a number of your ideas, especially the one about how they are pulled so often as a deterrent, gave me some peek inside. Not that I'm sold, I just like to have some understanding of the other side of the coin, as it were.
Freedom of speech is cool, and I was thinking, the internet is cool, as this is an issue one (on my side of the debate) doesn't tend to press too hard in real life. A very passive form of defensiveness, I suppose.
But I still wouldn't type what I think about the Prime
Minister and hit "submit comment"
Paul, I agree with you once again.
The "Patriot" act is by far worse than any of the attacks on our Second Amendment which have occurred as of yet. In my humble opinion anyway.
Big Money:
Sarcastic? I do enjoy conversation with you as well. Freedom of speech is so great.
There's an authoritarian theme in American politics, and as we shift from the "right" back to the "left" (useless metaphors, both are corporate/authoritarian in actuality), the attack will be less on the First and Fourth amendments, and more on the Second amendment. The name of the game is to control people -- take away right to assemble, freedom from warrantless search, freedom to bear arms, etc. A great dialing back of our right to self-assertion, grassroots power, etc.
So after we've been assaulted by the "right", we're now supposed to warm up to losing some rights that that "left" would have us abandon. I see neither left nor right: just up and down.
Interesting indeed. Thanks copenhagen - I'm feeling a bit less narrow-minded.
Interesting discussion. Thanks for the "history lesson," CO MARC.
Enjoyed your points: SPARKPLUG, VOXCLAMANTIS, BIG MONEY & LIZARD.
Good for you, not for me.
"Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that
disobedient spirit that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent
Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that
protested a war in Vietnam. In that same spirit, I am asking you to
disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience of rogue
authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken personal
freedom.
But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put
yourself at risk. Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be
willing to be humiliated ... to endure the modern-day equivalent of
the police dogs at Montgomery and the water cannons at Selma. You must
be willing to experience discomfort. I'm not complaining, but my own
decades of social activism have taken their toll on me.
.......
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the
hallowed footsteps of the great disobedience's of history that freed
exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of
an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God's grace, built
this country. If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.
-Charlton Heston
Thought about it, and I don't mind much that I don't feel I have the "right" to say whatever I want about our Prime Minister. The comfort of Public Health Care more than makes up for it.
It's true, we have less of a right to free speech. And, much like gun ownership, it's a right that we are clearly less interested in than our friends in the US. Here I am - there are not really Canadian versions of sites like this. Some nice small sites, and lots of the stuff that gets posted here is from Toronto newspapers, but by and large, we're very passive. Ideas? Words? Implements of Self Defence? All very nice, but Civility is an obsession we kept from our British and/or French roots.
You can say whatever you want about Celine, I won't be offended.
They can outlaw scripture-based gay-bashing, we won't be offended.
But every time an innocent is gunned down, we are Outraged. It's not commonplace, and we certainly don't want it to be.
So it's illegal for churches to preach against homosexuality, eh? Cool.
You've been warned.
Canada already has the US beat with regulations on freedom of speech too from what I can tell:
"But the Boston Globe pointed this out, somewhat tongue in cheek, but accurate:
How do you like your free speech -- well chilled? Canada has no First Amendment and adheres to primitive British-style libel laws.
Here is a hilarious definition of defamation la Canadienne, from the Media Libel website: ''A defamatory statement exists if the publication tends to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of those who are commonly referred to as 'right thinking' members of society." Allow me to reiterate my widely known position: Celine Dion is the greatest singer who ever lived.
Just this year, the Canadian Parliament passed what the religious right has branded a ''Chill Bill," or ''The Bible as Hate Speech Bill," effectively preventing churches from using the Bible to preach against homosexuality. ''With the passage of Bill C-250, Canada has now embarked upon a course of criminalization of dissent," according to a statement released this spring by the Catholic Civil Rights League.
Fine, you say. Enough gay-bashing by Bible-waving Christian loonies. But remember John Ashcroft's motto: Your rights are next."
It's coming down the pipes Canada. . .
I've thought about it, copenhagen, and it seems I do trust only the government and the criminals to have guns. In Canada, a country of 30Million, we had 190 gun-related murders and homocides in 2006, and more than a quarter of those were here in Toronto. That's very few. We tend to be shocked when one happens. No-one I know who lives in the city keeps a gun handy, or has ever told a story of wishing they had. If it's a tradition or way of life thing, I must say that I feel strongly about preserving it. Whereas I was feeling quite belligerent about the whole thing, just now I feel kind of sad that anyone would ever come to feel that they need a firearm in case they need to use it against a stranger. Mind you, I still have no idea how people think they're going to be able fend off their government...
Yup, but the armed citizens will be in their element, why do you think Iraq is taking so long? We are fighting people in their homes. Many of them aren't doing anything different than you or I would do if we had troops rolling through our back yard.
Nuclear devices are not used by the infantry and therefor should not be thought of as such. If they come after you with a bomb there is nothing you can do except evaporate like a good little lemming. When they bring squads of 'special' units through with their M16s, an M16 of your own might come in handy. Then again, just the knowledge that every redneck in the south east is armed to the teeth is probably a pretty good reason for them to not do that in the FIRST place.
Having a personal firearm will soon be a moot point.
The US military has Microwave Area Denial systems. They point the dish at you, you burn. At least you feel like you're on fire. Even works through most residential and commercial walls.
EXACTLY the kind of technology you need to disperse a mob of armed citizenry out to retake the government from the thugs who stole it. And then use the Miami-style 14 pound mini spy eye urban RPV drone to follow each new 'insurgent' home, whereupon the Blackwater goons kick in their front door and haul them off to the Halliburton built 'detention facilities'.
I'll give up my thermonuclear device when they pry my cold dead finger off the button!
I completely agree with you Paul Bramscher.
I have one door to the Apt which stays locked. Firearm stays above door out of site, and when I sleep it stays under the bed out of site. When I go to work it stays in the safe. When I have children they will learn to respect guns the same way they will learn to respect cars. I will not allow toy guns because they teach violent irresponsible behavior, and I will not allow toy cars to be used in violent fashions either. This is how I was raised myself.
With a government this untrustworthy, god only knows what they'd do to a totally unarmed populace. We've seen what they've done to an intellectually "unarmed" populace, what do you think they'd do to a physically unarmed populace? The answer is clear.
That is American citizens Big Money.
The simple point of the matter is that fire arms are tools. People will kill people with sharpened pencils if the gun control crowd gets their way. Mean while, the only ones who will have guns will be the Government and criminals. Do you trust your government and criminals with that kind of power? I know I don't. Look what they did with their standing Army for crying out loud, what's next?
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/25/news/breaking/18_91_443_25_08.txt
copenhagen, do you have it with you when you sleep? Bathe? While I'm not shopping around for a new lifestyle, I am deeply curious about what it might be like...
copenhagen - wow. 2.5 million. That's almost one percent of all Americans... And, presumably more than one percent of American gun owners... Every year... That's shocking. Truly, I am stunned. Does this include Police officers, by any chance?
By the way, maybe the ones who are so scared of an accidental discharge should keep their cars off the road in case they kill a pedestrian. And the argument about a loaded firearm in a burning car? Poppy cock. I have seen lots of humvees burn to the ground with my own two eyes from IEDs, and the small arms ammunition never NEVER goes off- it simply melts and fizzles away. More for the fireman to worry about from the gas tank.
A loaded fire arm stays with me at all times in the house, and gets locked up in my safe upon my departure to work as California has draconian un-constitutional gun laws, and I am a law abiding citizen.
According to the FBI, there are over 2.5 MILLION instances EVERY YEAR of an American protecting himself or herself from a criminal by pulling a gun. That's over 80 times the number of people who are killed with a gun each year, and that's if you combine murder, criminals shot by police or in self-defense, suicides, and accidents. Even combining every single death resulting from the use of a gun, there are 80 crimes prevented for every death.
"Gun control proponents use this frightening trend of increasing violence toward women in their rhetoric espousing gun control legislation as a solution to the increase in violent crime, arguing that gun [Page 471] control will stop or reverse the trend.[19] Control rhetoric rarely mentions the empirical evidence that, although violent crime towards women has escalated, gun use in assault and robbery has decreased.[20] Further, gun control rhetoric generally ignores empirical evidence indicating that guns play a small role in the escalation of violent crimes against women.[21] For example, the data available from reported rapes reveals that only nine percent of rapists have guns at the time of attack or attempted attack.[22] Gun control rhetoric also argues that decreasing the number of guns by decreasing civilian gun availability or banning civilian gun use[23] will make "everyone" safer.[24] Control proponents commonly quote studies concluding that a handgun kept in the home is more likely to be used against family members than against an intruder.[25] They fail to disclose, however, the critiques of the methodology of these studies.[26] These studies falsely portray gun [Page 472] ownership as harmful to women--a false picture of actual gun use which may be life-threatening for women.[27] For example, a staggering number of the homicides counted by the studies are actually instances of domestic abuse.[28] Finally, control rhetoric generally ignores the evidence that crime against the physically weaker members of society (women, children, the elderly, or the disabled) increases where guns are less available.[29]
...........
The statistical evidence on defensive gun use shows that women have good reasons for seeking to use guns for self-defense. Defense with guns results in 17.4% fewer injuries to the defender than alternatives.[244] For example, in 40.3% of instances where the defender uses a knife, he or she is injured.[245] Similarly, the aggressor injures the defender 22% of the time when the defender uses some weapon other than a knife or gun, 50.8% of the time when the defender uses physical force, and 34.9% of the time when the defender uses evasion.[246][Page 498] Analysts repeatedly find that guns are the surest and safest method of protection for those who are most vulnerable to "vicious male predators." Guns are thus the most effective self-defense tools for women, the elderly, the weak, the infirm, and the physically handicapped.[247]"
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Larish1.html
Is it Checkmate for alexnosal? "Another intereting stat released by the FBI. A gun in the house has a 47 times greater chance of being used on a family member than an intruder." Game, Set and Match? Come on gun folks, shoot down this excellent illustration of how your sense of safety and power is nothing but a deadly delusion.
I understand stats like these, now please help me "understand" "self defense" in the "real world".
THANKS, alexnosal, I was looking for that stat. Seems like one that might cut through the Rambo delusion. Ha.
copenhagen, a fire extinguisher can't kill people. Not by mistake. Not if it is stolen from your house. It's not a weapon.
Please answer me this, mister safety - do you prefer to keep a gun locked in storage, unloaded, with the ammunition somewhere else, or does your idea of safety involve keeping the thing loaded and handy, so you just have to grab it, flick of the safety and pull the trigger in your imaginary indoor shootout? Please, do tell.
Thanks again, alexnosal. What you gun folks say about that stat? Seems tragic, to me.
"No one can foresee with certainty which countries will succumb to genocidal dictatorship. Germany under the Weimar Republic was a democracy in a nation with a very long history of much greater tolerance for Jews than existed in France, England, or Russia, or almost anywhere else. Zimbabwe's current gun laws were created when the nation was the British colony of Rhodesia, and the authors of those laws did not know that the laws would one day be enforced by an African Hitler bent on mass extermination.
One never knows if one will need a fire extinguisher. Many people go their whole lives without needing to use a fire extinguisher, and most people never need firearms to resist genocide. But if you don't prepare to have a life-saving tool on hand during an unexpected emergency, then you and your family may not survive."
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp
Another intereting stat released by the FBI. A gun in the house has a 47 times greater chance of being used on a family member than an intruder.
Don't worry, the UN will come in to disarm us soon.
In case you don't believe our tighter gun control laws have yielded lower odds of us getting murdered by guns, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence - or have you some explanation for this? Sadly, Japan didn't even make this chart...
copenhagen, No, no, no, Mendo hit his head squarely on the nail. he should have been wearing that helmet.
Mendo - Your safety belt is a very different thing. It cannot go off accidentally. It cannot be used to harm people should it ever get stolen. It is not inherently capable of causing any harm. Your chances of being injured by a seat belt do not skyrocket when you become an owner of one. No innocent bystander was ever killed as a result of a seat belt.
As far as criminals don't respect the law with regards to guns, the one law they respect is supply and demand. In countries where it is difficult to get guns, there are fewer guns, and there is less gun crime. Go ahead, say it isn't so, but go get some stats on gun crime in Japan vs in the US. Even compare Canada to the US. We have tighter gun control laws - we have way less gun crime.
This is what stands in the way of us "understanding" your idea of "self defense" - we see it is very dangerous, which statistics support, and delusional, which is just our opinion, I suppose.
COMarc:
This is why I made my needle to the pole comment. The UCMJ is what says we are obligated to obey lawful orders. If I am ordered to go to Iraq, and Afghanistan, which I was, I went. I would say I just had to do my best with what was handed to me. I was always a moral upstanding man, and would open my mouth if I found something to be objectionable or inhumane. 100% of the Officers and SNCOs who I worked for both times were of same mold. While they may or may not have approved of the reasoning behind the war, they were humane individuals trying to do the best they knew how in a sticky situation. I do not know anything about the prison camps as I was in the infantry, and we had nothing to do with that. Marines in the infantry are for the most part good American boys trying to do the best that they know how.
I also agree with you about the meaning of the second amendment, and what was intended.
Mendo Chuck: You hit the nail squarely on the head.
Really . . . .
That's the best you can do . . . . .
Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.
Grow up . . . . .
Mendo chuck, You should get a motorcycle helmet and wear it everywhere you go. Ya never know when something heavy might fall from the sky and hit you on the head. and do not worry about appearing ridiculous; helmets are very macho
One more thought . . . . Show me where criminals obey the laws that are passed about guns. After all are not criminals just that, people that do not obey the law. So you pass a gun law and what do you have . . . . . law abiding citizens not breaking the law and unarmed. The criminals of course go on being criminals and will have all the guns they want and need.
Welcome to the real world!!
Trying to get an Anti Gun Rights person to understand self defense is something next to impossible.
Let them dial 911 and wait however long they need to. Me I prefer to know that should the need arise I can and am willing to defend myself. Just because I keep a fire extinguisher loaded and in my house does not mean that I want to start a fire. But like you I wear a safety belt in my car. Do I go around looking for an accident to get into? Do you with your safety belt on try to have an accident? If you prefer being a victim just because some nut case decides they want to rob you that is your right. Stay away from my right to defend myself. Please do not insult me with your emotional cries of "Rambo." Leave that for the movies where you can find your safety, I'll keep my safety in my holster. . . . .
PS .. the above is also the logical counter to the constant BS put out by this administration about the powers of a commander-in-chief.
The President may be the commander-in-chief. But, he does not have the authority under the constitution to unilaterally make the law. Laws are made by Congress, not the President. And no officer, not even the commander-in-chief has the authority to give and unlawful order.
This is the logical counter to the contents of Mr. Yoo's memos. The President does not have the powers Mr. Yoo claims because the President does not have the power to give an unlawful order.
Those who have obeyed these unlawful orders are fully subject to prosecution for their crimes. And if we were still a nation of laws, then saying that they were following orders would not be a valid defense, since actions like spying on Americans, military ops on domestic soil, and torture are all clearly illegal acts.
Lizard: I agree with most of what you said except for the Marine part.
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
You hit on an extraordinarly touchy subject. The best way I am able to deal with these questions and issues is by sticking to what I believe to be right/proper/moral like a needle to the pole. I have honor, and am not willing to give it up.
-----------------
However, the Nuremberg judgements that 'following orders' is not an excuse is still a part of the US military. As far as I know, it is still a part of the military system that a soldier does not, and should not, obey an unlawful order. I'm not sure if the above is a direct quote, but I'd expect to see the word 'lawful' in front of the word 'orders' where it appears.
Of course, this is very difficult to do in practice, and the military has prosecuted the one officer I know of who declared that the orders to participate in the Iraq war were unlawful orders and thus ones that he should not obey.
But in a society of laws instead of a society ruled by the whims of individuals, this is a crucial point. No one has the authority to give an unlawful order and expect it to be carried out.
To understand the history of the 2nd Amendment, you have to understand some of the fundamental concepts of democracy as defined by the people who had just fought a long a bloody war to obtain it.
The key bit of this is that they did not want the government to have a monopoly on force. They wanted neither a well-armed and permanent police force, nor a permanent standing army. They viewed, correctly in my mind, both as essential threats to their liberty. We've lost that idea along the way, and today's near-police state prison-industrial complex and the military-industrial complex show the dangers of which they were afraid.
The society they created then worked differently. There was a sheriff, but he and maybe his few deputies didn't have the power or the force to act directly. When they needed to use force, they'd call out a 'militia' or a 'posse' of armed citizens.
What this did was keep a very democratic check on the use of force by the police. If the community thought the sheriff was out of control, they could restrict his ability to use force simply by not showing up when he tried to call for a posse. This meant that the citizens in the community always had a veto on the use of force by the police.
The same for the military. There was either no standing army, or a very small standing army. In times of national crisis, there would be callups of the militia and calls for volunteers to come serve the country. Again, this gave the citizens of the country essentially a veto power. If the country thought that a war was illegal or pointless or bad policy, then the call for militia or volunteers would be met by non-participation.
The key part to understand when looking at the second amendment is that the entire design of the society at that time was to keep the ability to use force in the hands of the citizens and not in the hands of the government. Thus, the existence of the 2nd amendment where citizens can keep and bear arms for use in these militias.
Me, while this would need some adjustment for a modern age, to me I'd still like to see us move back to something closer to this system. What I see around me in police forces and the pentagon using the monopoly on force that they've acquired scares me more than my fellow citizens do.
Hilarious! We're probably the best armed nation in the world. AND we have a government run by tyrants.
Big_Money just posted such a profound sentence that it bears repeating: "In my world, the day when we feel the need to defend ourselves against the government and the police force with our own firearms is the day we'll wish we'd fought harder for social justice, not fought harder for the right to win an arms race against any and all comers."
It is not a fantasy, it is like wearing a seat belt. Do you fantasize about what it would be like to get in a wreck? I know I don't. I do wear a seat belt, and I do own firearms. I don't dream about crashing- I actually drive about 5 under for gas mileage and safety. I also don't fantasize about war. I hate war with a passion, I've been there twice. It is however my right and duty to keep and bear arms.
If the fantasy of stopping a burgler with a gun is appealing, and the fantasy of stopping a spree shooter with a gun is tempting, what is the fantasy of fending off one's own government and police force with one's own personal arsenal?
Seriously, paint a picture for us, how do you see that playing out? In my world, the day when we feel the need to defend ourselves against the government and the police force with our own firearms is the day we'll wish we'd found harder for social justice, not fought harder for the right to win an arms race against any and all comers.
Seriously again, you think that if that fight gets rolling, you're gonna win?
Copenhagen - Reading your oath I can't help but see the real possibility of conflicting imperatives. I don't question your love of honor, but your compass must be jumping back and forth between poles about now.
lizard - A few years ago they had a reality mini-series called, I think, "The Battle for Baghdad" or was it "Desert Storm?" There were cameras mounted on real tanks and although real human beings got blown to real smithereens, they edited out the closeups. I didn't watch any of it. Since there was no plot it was pretty much just snuff porn. But I believe gladiatorial tv is already here.
Lizard: I agree with most of what you said except for the Marine part.
I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God.)
You hit on an extraordinarly touchy subject. The best way I am able to deal with these questions and issues is by sticking to what I believe to be right/proper/moral like a needle to the pole. I have honor, and am not willing to give it up.
Copenhagen: The marines do not defend the constitution, they cooperate in violating it. The marines fight for the interest of the wealthy and their companies. I do believe ,though, that disarming the population will make it much harder to resist excesses of power that are already evident. Disarming the population seems dangerous to me. I agree with Jefferson. Gun control does not lead to a more peaceful society. Some of the most peaceful societies have no gun control at all. Peace comes from the attitudes of the people. There is such a thing as responsible gun ownership. Americans will suffer violence in their communities with or without gun control, the violence comes from the attitudes of the American people who still think they are in the wild west. If guns are outlawed, the blackmarket will become a billions dollar market in guns, and the killing will continue unabated. You cannot legislate attitude, this comes from education and a good system of values which are lacking in the US. This is a country dedicated to violence and aggressiveness. Spend one hour surfing tv channels and notice how much violence there is. In am so tired of seeing things blowing up and horrible acts shown in graphic detail. I don't watch much TV at all, but when I do I am very impressed by the abundance of violence. This is were the problem lies. I will not be surprised if the American public backs gladiator shows sometime soon, we are already close to it with these no rules fights on tv. At least pro-wrestling is fake, but there are other combats that are not fake and quite disgusting. Gladiators are just a matter of time.
Daniel David - thank you for your response. The idea that any of these clowns from Bush on down have the brazen effrontory to claim the mantle of Christianity makes me nauseous. I am an inveterate "letter to the editor" writer and my level of outrage grows every time our "Christian" president or our "Catholic" SC justices speak as if they had some kind of moral authority...
I guess I'm way off the mark on that masculinity thing. People are going to need guns to protect themselves from Republicans.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I will support strong gun control laws when they start being proposed as universal; no exeptions for Neanderthals with shiney pieces of tin pin to their chests.
Problem is, you never ever hear any gun control advocates proposing that ALL gun be removed, just the ones from the citizens. I guess people believe that the police will protect us, but that's an insane assumption if you stop to consider how members of the police force are chosen.
Wanting to disarm the citizenry BEFORE you disarm the governing bodies is a recipe for utter totalitarianism. No thank you.
GottaGetOffTheGrid:
Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with you. "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
I wonder, just how much faster BushCo's facist adventure would be advancing if there were fewer or no armed masses in the US?
Many gun owner's sense of masculinity is tied to thier love of firearms. Without the gun they cannot feel like "real men." This is strange because one who is truly brave will not feel the need to own a gun. Guns bring power and security to people who are frightened to death of the world around them.
Arm the Affluent! That's what I think about the conceal and carry laws. They and their Blackwater guards will sometimes have to leave their gated communities and venture into our increasingly lawless cities where, due to budget cuts, there will be fewer and fewer taxpayer-supplied cops to secure their passage through the hordes (many newly evicted) trying to survive the latest economic crisis foisted upon them by the elites.
Copenhagen:
In fact, if history is any indicator, your people willing to give up their lives will eventually impose a self-righteous tyranny against those who "spout off at the mouth." The near universal availability of arms in the ancient world did nothing to stem the rise of tyrants.
In Toronto, (which is in Ontario), our mayor has a petition he wants to send to our Prime Minister asking him to ban handguns. http://www.toronto.ca/handgunban/index.htm Our Prime Minister will certainly not take this seriously. We got some nice low murder rates here for such a huge city. But the endless tide of guns is taking its toll, more and more every year. The more legal ways there are to get these things out of factories, there more there will be kicking around. And they just don't wear out, the way cars do.
Most of the rest of the world thinks your gun laws are crazy. Here in Europe we have a lot less guns (it's not legal to have hand guns like you can, and most illegal guns are smuggled in from the former Soviet block) and a lot less deaths from guns per capita (Gee! What a surprise!). Maybe slaughtering each other by the million in the first half of last century (the wars for empire - WWI & WWII) convinced people here that all those weapons aren't such a great thing. Your country is still trying to be an empire and also has a huge violence fixation. Wonder how much pain you will have to go through before you get smart and walk away from it?
Then again, you don't see much real war pain do you? You just export it to others (The US military has killed over 10 million people since WWII). Maybe shooting each other one at a time gets rid of some of your collective guilt at murdering all those millions in mass in countries far away from your shores? So, i guess as a society you aren't just crazy, you are also sick (as in mentally ill), but if you look at it from any sort of rational perspective you could say the same thing about humanity as a whole. War, starvation, abuse, destruction - it just keeps going on and on and on and on and on ....
In Ontario, we have something better than the right to bear arms - we have the right to bare breasts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_nudity_places_in_North_America#Ontario
I still think that the NRA and its supporters show their IQs in a rabid fashion. I firmly believe that they think the right to bear arms is all about rolling their shirt sleeves up to the shoulder - in other words its all about the right to 'bare arms'. They are just confused.