Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumJust a reminder - Guns kill 31,000 Americans each year
Gunshot wounds impact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S. The subject remains contentious. (Glantz and Annas, 2009)
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996).
<have a nice day>
yup
ileus
(15,396 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,169 posts)Get ready.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Pro-gun posters aren't supposed to provide a rebuttal? What kinds of discussion would you approve of on this subject?
hack89
(39,171 posts)How does it rank with other causes of deaths? What are the trends?
And why do you include suicides? Did the guns make those people kill themselves?
demosincebirth
(12,551 posts)wrist or stabbing oneself is pretty slow and gruesome.
hack89
(39,171 posts)or is the available methods irrelevant?
Japan, for example, has draconian gun laws. It also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world - much higher than America.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)noluv4hyps
(3 posts)People may be able to kill others with knives, and themselves with pills...but with guns...it makes a loud "popping" sound. That is definitely something to take note of.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)..better social services and more and better jobs (with mental-health benefits).
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But as you can see, the differences in suicide rates are basically all due to gun suicides. Non-gun suicides by other means aren't that different in high-gun versus low-gun states.
Also, this isn't the only evidence linking gun availability to suicide. There are many case-control studies finding that gun ownership is a risk factor. There is also the fact that gun suicide attempts have a very high fatality rate, as opposed to, for example, attempted suicide by drug overdose, which has a low fatality rate.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)But I am at loss at how to modify the numbers to take it into account, how to control for the differences... I'm not a statistician. It must exist, though, so we have to keep that in mind.
It does matter. Obviously, if a gun allows its user to quickly end the life of an attacker, it also allows the user to quickly end the life of an innocent, or the life of the user itself. And being fast-acting and powerful, the firearm will have a very high success rate.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and that guns are the only thing the distinguishes one group of states from the other?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Are those people somehow less dead?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)are done with prescription medication. It's quite common around here. Lots of times it isn't even investigated. I didn't know a dialysis patient could kill himself by eating pumpkin pie, but apparently it can be done. A handful of pills, a nice tall glass of bourbon, and away you go! With a little advance planning it's pretty easy to kill yourself without making a huge mess.
Using suicide prevention as a ruse for taking away a Constitutional Right makes no sense at all.
demosincebirth
(12,551 posts)re-think you intentions and call 911. Not so when the trigger has been pulled.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is a matter of reaching out. Those who choose a rope, gun, (jumping in front of) train really are not going to call 911 even if they could.
demosincebirth
(12,551 posts)a train. There are not statistics on that.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that change their minds before pulling the trigger. Trains are a lot more lethal than guns.
demosincebirth
(12,551 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If you can:
change your mind just before you jump in front of a train. They way they time it, once you jump, you can't go back.
change your mind just before you put the rope around your neck or kick the chair out from under yourself. Once the chair is kicked out, you can't change your mind.
why can't you change your mind just before you pull the trigger?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)There are two distinct groups of suiciders.
(1) Those who want help. These folks pick slow methods of death and do so in locations where they are likely to be found and rescued.
(2) Those who want to die. These folks pick quick methods of death or locations where they are not likely to be interrupted.
demosincebirth
(12,551 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Breathe pure nitrogen. Easy to buy. Absolutely no pain. Fast. No mess.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Three times as many each year as all Americans who died in 9-11, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined.
Nearly three times as many as die from drunk driving accidents.
In two years, guns kill as many Americans as the entire Vietnam war.
The max number of US deaths in any single year of Vietnam was 16,592 (1968), slightly more than half the annual death toll from guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Why just drunk driving? What about alcoholic liver disease deaths? That killed 15,183 people in 2009. What about alcohol induced deaths? That death toll was 24,518 people.
In the same year, drugs killed 39,147 people.
And why do you pad you numbers by adding suicides?
The 15 leading causes of death in 2009 were:
1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimers disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11. Septicemia
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinsons disease
15. Assault (homicide)
Gun deaths due to crime are lumped in with Assault - by themselves, guns properly wouldn't be in the top 25.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf
Point being that if your motivation was to save as many lives as possible, dedicating yourself to the anti-smoking cause is the way to go.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Drunk driving is a major safety hazard, and takes a huge death toll. Everyone knows this. Many people know somebody personally affected by a drunk driving accident. I do. So it's useful to point out that guns kill three times as many.
It's really kind of grotesque to watch you try and downplay 30,000 annual deaths. That's a huge number. Of course, guns aren't the only way people die, and most people don't die from guns. No kidding.
The point you seem to be missing is that we can both fight disease and gun violence. If there were a pro-Parkinson's disease lobby that used congressional influence to stop funding for research into Parkinson's disease, and insisted that Parkinson's disease was part of the "price we pay for freedom", I'd say they were nuts.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Guns kill people. Isn't that what is thrown in our face daily? Well, so do a lot of other things. Tobacco and alcohol being the great legal killers in America.
What is kind of grotesque is watching you twist to place a moral judgement on legal gun owners while giving a pass to legal drinkers. Isn't everyone that drinks regularly morally responsible for the carnage that alcohol wrecks?
Of course we can fight gun violence. In fact we have been very successful at it - what other public health issue has seen such a drastic drop in mortality rates in the past 30 years? Gun violence is steadily declining - looks like our present laws and policies are working just fine. I am not willing to surrender a civil liberty because you want it to decline a little faster.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We are by far the worst nation at fighting gun violence in the developed world. It's not even close. The fact that the amount of gun violence has dropped from obscenely obscene to merely obscene doesn't mean we're doing a "good job". Again, it's grotesque to watch you describe 30,000 unnecessary deaths every year as "very successful".
As for other public health issues that have seen a huge drop over the last 30 years. How about, umm, drunk driving.
hack89
(39,171 posts)most other countries view illegal drugs as a public health problem and have rational ways to minimize the impact of drugs on their culture. We don't.
The vast majority of gun violence is drug related. We know who is killing who. We know where the killing is being done. We just continue to view it through the narrow prism of law enforcement.
Lets legalize drugs, focus the criminal justice system on violent crime and fully fund mental health. We will see a huge drop in gun violence and law abiding citizens can retain their civil rights.
Since drunk drivers kill just as many people as guns do (I am ignoring your attempt to pad your numbers with suicides) I guess it is also grotesque to describe the drop in drunk drivers as successful.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)About the silly "suicides don't count" talking point.
The thing is, any number can be whittled down like this if you are really committed to ignoring the truth. For example, with drunk driving. Most people killed in drunk driving accidents are actual drunk drivers. Those don't count: it's their own fault. And most of the rest are passengers in a car with a drunk driver. Those don't count either, it was their decision to get in the car. That accounts for about 85% of drunk driving fatalities. So even with your silly games, guns kill a lot more people than drunk drivers.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Aren't they both mental health issues? And what of the other societal costs of alcohol like domestic violence and child abuse? How can you allow such people unfettered access to alcohol?
Did you bother to understand my post? Those other countries view their drug problem as a public health issue. I am saying we should do the same.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Our non-gun homicide rate is about the murder rate of other first-world countries. If guns were harder to come by, then we have to accept that a certain percentage of gun homicides would be instead committed with non-guns. What percentage? I don't know, but it's definitely a number much greater than zero. 80%? 50%? 110%?
This would also have to balanced with "crimes that would have been foiled by a gun-owned intended victim are successful instead" statistics.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Just asking the question and asserting a non-zero answer, with no basis for the answer offered, doesn't accomplish anything.
Would someone killed in crossfire have been killed if no gun had been present? Would someone killed in a robbery have been killed -- would the robbery even have been committed -- if no gun had been present? Would someone killed in a homicide-suicide have been killed if no gun had been present? Would a young adolescent have been killed by another young adolescent if no gun had been present? Would people killed in mass homicides have been killed if no gun had been present?
Would anyone killed in an accidental shooting have been killed if no gun had been present?
What basis is there for even asserting that the answer to your question is not zero? Why do we have to accept that?
"Crimes"? You mean homicides?
Statistics?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...about 16,000 people are murdered annually in the United States.
About 11,000 of them are with guns, about 5,000 of them without guns. Rough estimate.
So there are 11,000 people a year that were killed by somebody wielding a gun. Most of those, but not all of them, were intentional. Somebody thought that a person deserved or needed to die, acquired a gun, and shot and killed that person.
Remove the gun from the equation, and you still have a) somebody thought a person deserved or needed to die, and b) a somebody willing to do the deed. The middle part, the part about acquiring a weapon, will still happen, therefore enabling option b.
If you're going to assert that my non-zero answer is incorrect, then I'm SURE you have a well-researched opinion on why it should be zero, and I look forward to reading it. You know, to accomplish something. Because doubtless you have bookmarked some page where a learned professor of something-or-other has asserted that if guns were absent, 100% of those people that kill with guns would have NOT killed the person they thought needed killing.
Would someone killed in crossfire have been killed if no gun had been present?
Well, it's hard to kill somebody in a crossfire if there is no gunfire, so I would assume "no". This is why there are no snowmobile fatalities in Florida, you see.
Would someone killed in a robbery have been killed -- would the robbery even have been committed -- if no gun had been present?
One-third of robberies have the robbers armed with guns, which mathematically means that 2/3rds of robbers are armed with "other", so "yes".
Would someone killed in a homicide-suicide have been killed if no gun had been present?
Yes.
Would a young adolescent have been killed by another young adolescent if no gun had been present?
Yes.
Would people killed in mass homicides have been killed if no gun had been present?
Yes.
Would anyone killed in an accidental shooting have been killed if no gun had been present?
No. By definition, if no gun is present then there can be no accidental shooting. This is why there are no shark attacks in Wyoming.
"Crimes"? You mean homicides?
Statistics?
Statistics on defensive gun uses. What's-his-face... KlecK? estimated 2.5 million DGUs annually in the US. Of course ,this was the early 90's, when the crime rate was much higher. And doubtless many of those DGUs were people grabbing a gun to go check out the odd noise in the downstairs which turned out to be nothing, or criminals protecting themselves from other criminals, or whatever. By that criterion, I've had four or 5 DGUs, FYI.
As I recall, you spend a lot of time discussing (laughing hysterically) about how this guy's study was bullshit, or something like that. But anyway, the DoJ stats of the same time period put the number at 108,000 if memory serves.
Now the crime rate is much lower now, about 50% lower, so that translates into up to 1.25 million, or 54,000, DGUs a year.
Mmmmm... linear extrapolation... yum.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But it's clearly less than 100% and most likely closer to 0% than 100%. Guns are much more lethal than other weapons, and most gun homicides aren't the result of pre-meditated intention to kill. Instead they are the result of arguments or crimes which escalate and become violent. In these cases, the presence of a gun greatly increases the chance of a fatality.
However, there is an argument that the substitution rate could actually be less than 0%. This is because gun violence does more damage to a community than the direct death toll from homicide. So there could easily by a "multiplier" effect whereby more guns not only cause more homicides directly, but also indirectly increases the level of violence.
Regarding DGUs, the Kleck DGU estimates have been soundly refuted by now, but the NCVS number of around 100K seems realistic. The thing to realize, though, is that 100K DGUs doesn't mean 100K "crimes averted". It means that, extrapolating from a survey, 100K people claim to have used a gun in self-defense every year. The first problem, of course, is that they don't interview anyone other than the victim to confirm the fact that the gun use was actually "defensive": for example, George Zimmerman would count as one of those DGUs., and there are plenty of situations where both parties would claim to be on "defense".
The second problem is that a DGU doesn't necessarily mean that a better outcome for the crime victim. There is no real evidence that people who carry or keep guns for self defense are any safer, in the sense that they get injured or lose less property, than people who don't. The defensive benefit of a gun isn't measured in how many times a gun owner claims to have used it defensively. It is measured in whether those DGUs actually result in less harm from crime victimization.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)you can go anywhere you like!
If you are going to assert that this is the nature of the events that resulted in 11,000 homicides, you really do have to offer some substantiation.
I will venture to say that it is not the nature of a majority of firearms homicides at all. A majority occur in the course of other crimes, in the heat of a dispute, etc. etc. They are not planned and executed the way murder-for-hire is (there being a few murders for hire in that number, undoubtedly).
I'm not asserting anything. You're asserting and needing to substantiate. Your assertion is not just "non-zero", obviously.
Non-responsive, since we are talking about robberies in which firearms WERE present. You have no way in the world of knowing whether THOSE robberies would have been attempted/committed without a firearm.
I would also wonder whether your robbery/weapon figures include robberies that resulted in homicide anyway. In crime statistics, the highest offence is generally counted. In the US in particular, thisleaves many robberies uncounted and showing as homicides.
The rest of your "yes" answers are abject nonsense, of course.
Not even Kleck's outrageous respondents claimed that ALL of the "defensive uses" of a firearm they reported averted a homicide, fer fuck's sake! So what is the point, now? Just throwing a few rotten apples into the orange barrel?
If you are really saying that in a country that already has the highest homicide rate in its cohort, there would have been 108,000 more during that period if a tiny fraction of the population hadn't had some gunz to hand ... well, I'll just have to dig up that little "hysterical" laughing bozo again, I fear.
typo
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)remainder.
There is no way to create a tool that can kill a deer, that cannot kill a human, for instance. These devices are working as intended. You want to lower the firearm death rate? How about some universal mental health care, so we can take a huge bite out of suicides by all means?
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)to place guns at the top of the list. You provided context that does not honestly reflect reality.
If it was your intent to provide true context, why not include smoking, which causes about 14 times as many deaths in the US as firearms? But most of those deaths are among smokers themselves, so maybe that's not quite fair. Let's just use secondhand smoke, which only kills about 1.5 times as many Americans as guns. But, then again, if we're throwing out self-inflicted smoking deaths, we'd better also throw out self-inflicted firearm deaths. Suicide alone accounts for more than half the figure, so let's be generous and put non-self-inflicted firearm deaths at 16,000. So in that respect, tobacco now outstrips firearms by about 3 times.
Should we discuss the legitimate uses of tobacco versus firearms? Does anybody have stats for defensive cigarette uses?
There does happen to be a pro-tobacco lobby that uses congressional influence to try to lift restrictions on the tobacco industry. Are you as vocal in your outrage against them as you are against the gun lobby?
(Smoking stats taken from CDC fact sheet)
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Has nothing to do with tubs per se.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That is fucking hilarious. I honestly can't stop laughing. By far the funniest post I've seen in the Gungeon. Love it. Keep'em coming.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it's a little deep - think about for a while.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In future you might want to add some of these deep, relevant thoughts at the same time as you post. Just saying.
hack89
(39,171 posts)something dangerous is taken for granted. Something that is less dangers invokes the vapors. Just like gun grabbers ignore the real killers in America while fixating on guns.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Who killed the other 500+ people?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I know no one really cares about this but in comparison
Road accidents kill 30 to 40,000 per year every year.
YUP
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Over 443,000 Americans (over 18 percent of all deaths) die because of smoking each year. Secondhand smoke kills about 50,000 of them. Just Sayin'
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And which would we blame those deaths on? Of course, one doesn't need a permit to carry cigarettes concealed, but bathtubs are only used for home defense.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Last edited Thu May 3, 2012, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Lest anyone be as gobsmacked by that (especially relative to US figures, when Canada has 1/9 the population and a lower rate of firearms ownership and all firearms-related deaths and injuries) -- a very different measurement method was apparently used:
http://files.dcp2.org/pdf/DCP/DCP40.pdf
Chapdelaine, A., and P. Maurice. 1996. Firearms Injury Prevention and Gun Control in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal 155 (9): 128589.
Miller, T. R. 1995. Costs Associated with Gunshot Wounds in Canada in 1991. Canadian Medical Association Journal 153 (9): 126168.
<the figures for the costs of the registry should be disregarded since they were projections only and did not account for administrative bungling of the start-up>
It's hard to tell here, but the citation and quotation in the OP may both be incorrect: the source appears to be Miller, not Chapdelaine and Maurice, and the figure appears to be $5.6 billion, not $6.6 billion -- and that figure includes costs not factored into the US estimates.
Firearms deaths and injuries in Canada have declined sharply in the 20 years since the period studied by Miller.
The brief presented by Dr. Chapdelaine to a parliamentary committee in 1997 can be read here:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/archives/committee/352/srgc/evidence/09_97-01-30/srgc09_blk-e.html
starting with:
He refers to a coroner's report that examined firearms deaths from an epedemiological perspective:
and in fact I had to read that report at the time for my work, and it was what stimulated my interest in this issue.
-edit-
I found the abstract of the Chapdelaine and Maurice article referred to and it does say what is quoted in the OP:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/155/9/1285.abstract
I do suspect that Chapdelaine and Maurice mistyped the figure from Miller (or it was mistyped in the abstract of the article).
Clames
(2,038 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)HALO141
(911 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That's just the way it is.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Responsible firearm owners should not have to pay the price that these fools cause.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that does not restrict civil liberties or pre-judge people.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The responsible gun owners think very carefully about when and where to carry a firearm and do not carry wherever legal, just because they can; and only in public places under the most extreme situations. Responsible gun owners don't encourage others to carry firearms in public places unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is necessary. Responsible gun owners don't leave firearms lying around where they may be stolen or found by curious kids. Responsible gun owners don't shoot people who pose no immediate threat. Responsible gun owners don't fire warning shots in the air, but the ground.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I know you have no desire to infringe on responsible owners so what legislation will codify what you just wrote?
How, for example, do you write a law that promotes: "Responsible gun owners don't encourage others to carry firearms in public places unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is necessary."?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Like carrying a gun, I see needing laws to control our behavior as a last resort. I prefer to work with people on a behavioral level than a legal one. I see more of a solution via advertising and public service announcements, similar to anti-smoking campaigns or drunk driving campaigns.
We need to counter the BS that the NRA and ALEC have been spreading. I don't want to see a political backlash or division on this. It should not be an election issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and don't talk about gun control.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Whatever else we might disagree on, I just want to say how impressed I am that you don't endorse flooding the nation with restrictions and bans. Changing the public mindset to value the lives and rights of other people is something everyone here should agree wholeheartedly on. Your idea and mine of what this campaign would look like would differ drastically, but if we could all agree to leave legislation off the table, I think we could come up with something truly helpful.
sarisataka
(18,895 posts)If the situation is that dire, I am not going there without an exceptionally good reason.
One of the paradoxes of carrying. You should avoid any place or situation where you would need to use your gun.
The rest of your points are good rules to live by
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)but if I had no choice. Under an overt threat having to change location, I would probably be armed.
spin
(17,493 posts)for self defense.
If a responsible person realized that he would need his concealed weapon to go somewhere, he would simply avoid going there.
Would you admit that it is there is a possibility that a person might be merely walking through a parking lot and find himself attacked by an individual who not only wished to steal his money but intended to also severely injure or even kill his victim.
Parking Lot Security
by Gary R. Cook
Security for parking lots seems to be getting a lot of press lately. If you look at the statistics, roughly 80% of the criminal acts at shopping centers, strip malls and business offices occur in the parking lot. Lawyers make a good living off liability cases based on a lack of sufficient security measures or not taking "reasonable care" in the protection of employees and customers against criminal threats. The lawsuits often revolve around lack of sufficient lighting, surveillance and response. Once crime takes a foothold in an area it is difficult to break the trend, but there are some things you can do that can improve security, deter crime, reduce potential liability and make your customers feel safer. It's interesting to note that where parking lot security has been implemented, customer use has actually increased because they feel safer. Increased customer use means increased profit which can be used to justify the increased cost related to any security improvements
http://www.crimewise.com/library/parking.html
On Location: Wal-Mart Parking Lots
Chris Bottoms, one of our cinematographers, and I met Megan Holdens family in mid-July in Henderson, Texas, a very small town in the western part of the state about four hours east of Dallas.
Megan HoldenWe didn't know what to expect from the Holden family. Megan Holden, a young woman of 19 years, had been kidnapped out of a Wal-Mart parking lot. She was brutally murdered. The killer had been hanging around both inside and outside the store for hours. He later turned up on the grainy tape that the cameras outside pick up. But nobody was monitoring the cameras. At Wal-Mart stores nobody ever monitors the cameras. It would take one low paid worker to do it for every eight hour shift, not much money when you add it up, but the cameras at Wal-Mart stores go unwatched.
***snip***
There were other crime stories that crystallized the "Wal-Mart way" for me. So many cameras to protect merchandise, so much money spent on keeping people from stealing mascara, or a microwave. So little spent on the safety of customers in the notoriously dangerous parking lots of Wal-Mart, too little. During one of our crime story interviews, I asked a man what he would tell his daughter who was going out to shop at a Wal-Mart at night: "Don't go," he said. That sort of sums it up.
http://www.walmartmovie.com/crime.php
PARKING LOT SAFETY FOR WOMEN FAQ
This is what you need to know about parking garage and parking lot safety for women. Lessons from crime victims teach you how to stay safe.
A man pointed a gun at a woman in the parking lot of an Arizona restaurant and ordered her into his vehicle, but she ran into the business and called the police.
A petite woman was getting into her car in a California parking garage when a man came up to her, put a knife to her throat and told her to get in the car. She knew that whatever harm hed do to her in a parking lot would be worse if she went with him. She pushed the knife away but he put it back. The woman shoved her purse at him and ran for help. The man jumped into her car and sped out of the garage.
Parked cars provide ideal hiding spots for a crouching, stealthy predator to close in on you unless youre especially aware of parking lot safety. Also beware of cars cruising the lanes; they can suddenly stop and jump out to attack or rob you.
http://www.crime-safety-security.com/Parking-Lot-Safety.html
I will agree with you that:
" Responsible gun owners don't leave firearms lying around where they may be stolen or found by curious kids. Responsible gun owners don't shoot people who pose no immediate threat."
I partially agree with your statement:
Responsible gun owners don't encourage others to carry firearms in public places unless there is overwhelming evidence that it is necessary.
I don't encourage anyone to carry a firearm and in fact do my best to discourage those who ask me about owning a firearm let alone carrying one. Firearms are not for everybody and the decision to own or to carry one involves serious thought and a thorough knowledge of yourself, your weaknesses and the potential of harm to others in your family. I have personally experienced the tragedy that firearms can cause. A person that I trained to safely handle firearms had been abusing alcohol and in a moment of shear stupidity managed to kill herself while handling a firearm. I use her example to point out how dangerous mixing firearms and alcohol can be and why you never handle a firearm while drinking just as you never drive when you have been consuming alcohol and are above the legal limit. Many people that I know were surprised by her death and said that she always appeared to be very safe around firearms.
However I don't discourage those who do decide to legally carry a firearm from carrying their firearm in public places. I often ask a person who has a carry permit if he has an app on his phone that tells him that he definitely should carry his firearm on a given day.
I have never had a person tell me that he has any reliable means of determining just when he might have a legitimate reason to carry his weapon.
At one time I told the range master when he asked me if I always carried my firearm, "I only carry it when I go into bad areas."
He proceeded to chew my ass. He told me, "The state of Florida after running a background check on you and making sure that you had the necessary training to carry a firearm decided to give you a license to carry. Now carry your damn firearm everywhere you go because you never will know when it might save your life or the life of another person. I definitely don't want to pick up the Tampa Tribune and find that you died because you were attacked and later find out that you didn't have your firearm with you. I also don't want see you come in here and listen to you whine about how you might have been able to stop an attack on another innocent person but was unable to because you left your carry gun behind in your safe."
I recognized the wisdom in his tirade. Therefore I carry unless I am going into an area where firearms are prohibited.
Of course you disagree and nothing I say will change your viewpoint. I have no problem with that.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)"Chris Bottoms, one of our cinematographers, and I met Megan Holdens family in mid-July in Henderson, Texas, a very small town in the western part of the state about four hours east of Dallas."
Henderson is about 45 miles from the Texas-Louisanna border. Definately in the eastern part of the state.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)1. Avoid dodgy parking lots.
2. Never shop at Walmart.
3. Eliminate the range master from your life and carry where you see fit. Being a range master doesn't make one wise, or all knowing. I'm sure he has expertise in certain areas, like the range, but by giving such gratuitous advice, I would be rather skeptical as to both his motives and his sanity. But hey, it's your life and your choice, not mine and not his.
spin
(17,493 posts)for a variety of reasons. I probably haven't been inside a Walmart in six months.
As is true of many people who carry concealed I practice situational awareness and therefore I do avoid "dodgy parking lots."
Obviously our opinions differ which is fine. In an earlier post you stated:
The responsible gun owners think very carefully about when and where to carry a firearm and do not carry wherever legal, just because they can; and only in public places under the most extreme situations.
You didn't define what you meant by "extreme situations." However I suspect that you might mean when an individual with a carry permit realized that there was a damn good chance that he would have to use his firearm. If I suspected that I would have to use my revolver for self defense if I went somewhere, I simply would avoid going there. Of course it might be possible that if my life had been threatened by another individual, that might also qualify under your logic. However, I am a very peaceful person and so far I have never managed to piss off anyone to the point that they said they were going to kill me. It could happen but it is unlikely.
The range master, whose advise you disagreed, with made a valid point. If you go through the process of obtaining a carry permit it makes little or no sense to leave your weapon at home in your safe. There is no way to know when you might need your weapon, therefore you always carry. Admittedly the chances that you ever will have to use it are very slim but not nonexistent.
You are absolutely right when you say, "it's your life and your choice, not mine and not his." I totally agree. I chose to carry. It's legal for me to do so and I will continue.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You answered your own question as to what I meant by "extreme situations".
I haven't been near a Walmart in 10 years and then only reluctantly with my daughter.
The range master made a point, it's validity is up for discussion. I sometimes buy a fishing permit, but don't always go fishing, though I spend 90+% of my time on the water. Having a permit gives you the option of carrying legally, in the rare eventuality that you may feel threatened or if you need to go to a Walmart for some strange reason. Otherwise, why bother? I try to remember my camera, wherever I go, just in case there's a a good photo op.
It's legal for me to do lots of things, but I choose not to, especially things that make me ask myself "WTF do I think I'm doing? When did my life ever get so scary that I feel the need to behave like this?"
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I have an aversion to Walmart and everything it stands for, so have no interest in finding out. I do see posts here and news items frequently mentioning Walmart stores and there parking lots as places where "bad" things happen.
Regarding gas stations, I would say they seem safer today, in general, than 30 years ago. I can't remember the last time I used cash to buy gas and having a Prius means very few trips to the gas station (4 or 5 per year, except when doing our biennial road trips).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)save you even more, Union made in the US, and umm just cooler. Besides around here, the Prius replaced the 98 Olds as the old WASP accountant car.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Unfortunately they weren't making them when I bought my Prius in '05 or when my wife bought hers in '02. Both are still running perfectly and have been problem free from the start. The Prius also serves us better for our particular usage, which involves our biennial 8,000-10,000 mile road trip (including several 400+ mile days). The Volt is ideal as a commuter, around town vehicle, but is not good for long distances. The odd years in between rack up about 1,000 miles of local driving (50+ mpg), hard to complain. BTW, accountants tend to be pretty savvy when it comes to economical living. Around here, you would be hard pressed to associate the Prius with any professional group. They are ubiquitous.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The Volt is a series hybrid, the gas engine recharges the batteries while the electric motors run the car. AKA plug in hybrid. Basically like a locomotive (the diesel engines run the generators, each wheel has its own electric motor). I think you have it confused with the Leaf.
Last gun show I went to, I counted three Priuses.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Lots of torque and great for the first 40-50 miles, then the gas engine is running continuously on a long run. Neither car would run it's gas engine on declines, but we drive back roads, 45-55 mph most of the time and our mpg goes into the 60's. I like them, but why change something that ain't broke? Another thing is the Volt uses high octane fuel, which adds 50 cents/gallon.
I haven't met anyone yet who has had any problem with their Prius and we have 2 in the family with a combined age of 17 years, problem free.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)well, mostly that they are half the price of a Volt.
spin
(17,493 posts)and the nearest Walmart is a 40 mile round trip. I will admit that I dislike the parking lot at the nearest Walmart but not because I fear any crime. I have a handicapped sticker as I have degenerative disc disease and am also a candidate for a hip replacement. I can rarely find a handicapped spot to park in at Walmart so I usually have to park in the outfield and have to suffer a long walk to and from the store.
Unfortunately Walmart is the closest large store to my home as I live in a small town that doesn't even have a McDonalds (not that I would eat there). We do have one small grocery store, a good hardware store, a couple of auto parts stores, a CVS drug store and two Dollar Stores. The nearest Sears or Best Buy require an 75 mile round trip.
I have learned to rely on Amazon.com for most of my purchases. I can order just about anything and it shows up in two days. Since I don't have to pay shipping on most items as I have a prime membership, often I can buy items from Amazon at a lower price than I can buy them at Walmart.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)...we will have fools using firearms around other people.
Responsible firearm owners should not have to pay the price that these fools cause.
We all have to pay that price.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)suicide as violence? The 30K number is a nice talking point and way to pad numbers, like calling 20 year-olds "children". It is less than honest and total bullshit.
The logical extention of "gun laws will prevent suicide" is that if Japan and South Korea had gun laws like ours, their suicides rates would be beyond astronomical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Given that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Firearms
I fail to see how the US would have better results.
These are the actual numbers of "gun violence"
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
Clames
(2,038 posts)...car accidents kill 40,000 in the US every year.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
crayfish
(55 posts)You must have something in mind, yes?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)The OP author's name appears next to exactly, let's count, and oh I think I can leave my shoes on for this, um-hm, ZERO responses in this thread. After those other 62 responses elicited NOTHING (I'm just curious - I'm reply #64) were you really expecting to hear from the OP or maybe someone else who's actually interested in a discussion?
crayfish
(55 posts)more carefully here!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)Clames
(2,038 posts)...is to perform a drive-by dump and leave. Symptomatic of a person with little originality when it comes to their ideas.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,483 posts)...something racial and sexist here?
ileus
(15,396 posts)LAGC
(5,330 posts)Whatever happened to Mikey?
He must have gotten tired of his views being challenged here, so he retreated back to the safety of his low-trafficked blog.
noluv4hyps
(3 posts)Because after all, it is not the people who choose their actions, and choose the gun as a tool in their actions, but rather the gun that jumps into the persons hand and FORCES them to shoot it.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)Let's get rid of all the cars! Cars only for professional delivery drivers, police, and the military!
Sorry, the Census didn't break them down by how many were suicides, etc.
Oh! look at the numbers for DEMON RUM!
2009- 39,700 alcohol-induced deaths, not counting accidents and homicides.
Bring back Prohibition! (yeah, like THAT worked!)
Subtract the 19,000 suicides, because they would have found some other way to leave this vale of tears. That leaves you with 12,000 non-self-inflicted firearm deaths.
Still safer than drinking or driving.
Yassir!
gendoikari87
(3 posts)I CAN"T BELIEVE WE LET THAT MANY PEOPLE DIE IN COMPLETELY PREVENTABLE CAR ACCIDENTS, WE HAVE TO BAN THEM NOW. FIND SOME OTHER WAY OF GETTING AROUND MURDERER!!!1
gendoikari87
(3 posts)19,000 suicides, so you're saying that without guns those 19,000 suicides would not occur? People can't kill themselves other ways?