Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumDETROIT: Large increase in women getting Concealed Pistol License.
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/women-packing-heat%3A-more-getting-concealed-pistol-licensesThe video is dated May 15, 2012 so it is recent. Of special interest is that the NRA instructor and most of the women interviewed are black so that should negate the frequently made charge of racism.
The video says that 75% of the last CPL class was women.
In states with shall-issue concealed carry it is becoming socially acceptable to have a CCW and to carry a gun. People are realizing that those of us who legally carry are the good guys.
Frontlash in action! Yeah.
Edit: Wrong link. Sorry.
Skittles
(153,261 posts)cannot wait until EVERYONE is armed!!!!!!!! YEE HAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you not know the difference between sarcasm and bigotry?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)YEEHAW is commonly used by bigots to mean a southern redneck expression of enthusiam. Rather odd since the women in the video are northern city ladies.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I doubt that.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I could be wrong, but I doubt it was directed at either gun owners or women.
Very few individuals are opposed to gun ownership, especially by women.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The video was aboutDetroit, Michigan. Last time I looked at a map that was a northern industrial city.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Having lived in Detroit, I can see carrying a gun, at times, as being a valid desperate option. Having also lived in the south (Texas and Florida), I've met a lot of rednecks who embrace the idea of an armed population. For some reason, a preponderance of "over my dead body" types tend to populate the south, though by no means exclusively. I have often heard these same folk praise black on black killings. Maybe you've met some too.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)knows for sure what they meant.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Sarcasm was used to make a bigoted point and, if it was alerted I bet it would be allowed to stand.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe you would care to clarify, as there appears to be some confusion as to your meaning. I took it one way and GSC and Tuesday Afternoon took it another.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)armueller2001
(609 posts)and let themselves get raped rather than use an effective self defense tool.
Or, they could just do as the Illinois State Police recommend, and make themselves vomit to appear less attractive to the attacker.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If she is denied to tools needed to defend herself then you don't leave her with much.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...and soon to be CCW permit holder. And NRA propaganda didn't have a thing to do with it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Just because someone is progressive doesn't mean every choice they make is a progressive one. None of us are perfect.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)However, in this case, it was very much a progressive choice on her part.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If you mean she has progressed toward your way of thinking, that is one thing. If you mean it in the political context of "progressive", it's another. I consider the routine carrying of a loaded firearm to be more reactionary than progressive.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...is progressive to begin with. It is possible for a persons reasoning to carry to be reactionary, but it is far from automatic.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If guns are available to any, then they should be available to all. Nothing progressive about it. Individual behavior is what determines how society evolves. The so-called "right to carry" is a political construct devised to divide, not unite the populace. Good guys and bad guys, cops and robbers. The notion of "gun rights" perpetuates the "us versus them mentality, in the same way that borders do.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002700580
That is not liberal in my view. It is not in Bertrand Russell's view either, since it violates his ten commandments for teachers.
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/05/bertrand-russells-10-commandments-for.html
I think criminologist James Wright put it best in front of the House Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary:
And then, finally, my tenth observation is that guns are
important elements of our history and our culture. Attempts to
control crime by regulating the ownership or use of firearms are
attempts to regulate the artifacts and activities of a culture that
in its own way is as unique as any of the other myriad cultures that
comprise the American ethnic mosaic. This is what is referred to as
the American gun culture, about which many have written, and, I
believe it remains among the least understood of any of the various
subcultural strands that make up modern society.
The existence and characteristics of the American gun culture
also have implications that are rarely appreciated. For one, gun
control deals with matters that people feel strongly about, that are
part of their background, and their heritage, and their upbringing
...and their worldview. Advocates for gun control are frequently
taken aback by the stridency with which their seemingly modest and
sensible proposals are attacked. But from the gun culture's point
of view, restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms amount to
the systematic destruction of a valued way of life, and are, in that
sense, a form of cultural genocide. Scholars, and criminologists,
and legislators, who speculate on the problem of guns and crime
and violence would, I think, profit to look at things, at least
occasionally, from the gun culture's point of view.
There are about 50,000,000 U.S. families who own firearms, and
hardly any of these families have ever harmed anyone with their
guns, and virtually none ever intend to. Nearly everything these
families will ever do with their guns is both legal, and largely
innocuous. So when we advocate restrictions on their rights to own
guns, as a means to fighting crime, we are casting aspersions on
their decency, as though we somehow hold them responsible for
the crime and violence that plague the nation. Is it any wonder
they object often loudly and vociferously to such slander?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)And there is a sense in which violence is a public health problem. So let me illustrate the limitations of this line of reasoning with a public-health analogy. After research disclosed that mosquitos were the vector for transmission of yellow fever, the disease was not controlled by sending men in white coats to the swamps to remove the mouth parts from all the insects they could find. The only sensible, efficient way to stop the biting was to attack the environment where the mosquitos bred.
Guns are the mouth parts of the violence epidemic. The contemporary urban environment breeds violence no less than swamps breed mosquitos. Attempting to control the problem of violence by trying to disarm the perpetrators is as hopeless as trying to contain yellow fever through mandible control.
Criminologist James Wright
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)and left them to fend for themselves in case of fire, health emergency, and crime. That isn't NRA propaganda, that's life here on the ground.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't blame these women for wanting to be armed as a consequence of a city and society in turmoil. What I object to is the cheerleading from elsewhere. I see it as gun lovers piggybacking on desperate people who have few options. For these women it is truly a question of survival, not pushing an agenda.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe to you and the other consumers of Faux News.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and what it accepts, or do you have a problem with cultural relativism?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It was GSC's use of the term "socially acceptable". Carrying a gun is neither socially acceptable, nor socially unacceptable. It is a personal choice, which comes with a very high level of responsibility. Not something to be cheered or condemned by those with an emotional investment.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It just doesn't rank very highly as a news item, but rather a propaganda puff piece posing as news.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)An interview of some of the women getting their CPLs is a normal method of presenting the news report. That most of them and the NRA instructor were black was also interesting. You just don't like it when people buy guns and get CCWs.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)by referencing the vulnerability of women. I object to the emotional manipulation, not the women's choice.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Nothing in it about men. I think you are projecting. I am pleased to see more people, both men and women getting CCW. Historically it has been almost entirely men who get them. It is good to see women getting interested too.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The OP was about you choosing
In states with shall-issue concealed carry it is becoming socially acceptable to have a CCW and to carry a gun. People are realizing that those of us who legally carry are the good guys.
Frontlash in action! Yeah.
I find nothing "good" about women, or anyone else, carrying guns. If they need to carry, I wish them well and hope they never have to use them or have them used against them. I am baffled by anyone who thinks that more people carrying guns is in any way good, let alone something to applaud.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in all areas.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I see nothing empowering about carrying a concealed weapon. In fact it demonstrates the opposite. There is a placebo effect, though.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Detroit being one of them, local governments run short of cash because of lack of jobs, companies extorting corporate welfare, and pissing away money on stupid shit like sports stadiums (corporate welfare at its worse), privatizing parking meters, etc. To deal with it, they privatize stuff to get short term cash and lay off cops.
Lack of jobs can make some people desperate enough to do what they normally would not.
Lack of police embolden the ones that are predators by nature.
One more thing, compare police response times in different parts of the city. Doesn't matter what large city in the US. I think you will find a correlation based on economics.
I fail to see the logic. Would you have the same opinion if the weapons were less than lethal alternatives?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And for a particular individual, carrying a gun might make them feel better and may even be useful. I just don't see it as "empowering". Individual empowerment comes from a feeling of self worth, something that cannot emanate from external forces or gadgets. Any sense of empowerment coming from the habitual carrying a gun is illusory at best, and dangerously delusional at worst.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Feeling of empowerment that come only from feelings of self-worth are illusory unless they are accompanied by some genuine power. You can feel as powerful as you want but if some thug is kicking your ass then you don't have much power at the moment, do you?
When my wife fire used her gun to ward of an attacker, she came home feeling greatly empowered. She is a small woman, (4' 10" older (61 at the time of the incident) and no amount of feeling of self-worth would have done anything to help against a street thug. But he ran away when he discovered that she had the POWER to end his life right then. Talking about it that evening she remarked, still feeling amazed, "He was afraid of me!"
The power to immediately end the life of an attacker is a reality, not an illusion. Of course, with that power goes responsibility.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)That ordinary citizens are able to resist violent crime is a very good thing.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)That anyone should be able to avoid and resist crime is a good thing. How one goes about it is another matter. Routinely carrying a gun to achieve it is not a good thing. It is a very stupid and dangerous thing and those who encourage others to carry guns in public are a danger to everyone.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...is a stupid and dangerous thing. Those who encourage others to take whatever precaution they think is suitable in no way endanger the public. What a load
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Hoping that carrying a concealed weapon will solve your problems is also naive. Carrying a loaded weapon around in public is an extreme personal choice and extremely dangerous. Encouraging others to do so is highly irresponsible.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Of course there are those extremely rare occasions when a gun might save the day. How much blood in the street is acceptable? Trayvon's blood should be enough and there are many Trayvons.
I find it rather disingenuous when I see old white guys in Texas justifying there behavior by exploiting the vulnerability of black women in Detroit. I'm highly skeptical as to their sincerity.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)If Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon would have gone home instead of doubling back, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon were not pounding Zimmerman's head on the concrete, Trayvon would still be alive.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How many SSgt Jameses? Sorry that is total bullshit. Race has nothing to do with it.
If Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon would have gone home instead of doubling back, Trayvon would still be alive.
If Trayvon were not pounding Zimmerman's head on the concrete, Trayvon would still be alive.
I don't understand the reference to "SSgt Jameses". Race has everything to do with it. Zimmerman would not have been following a white kid or calling 911 on him. Trayvon, apparently, doubled back to lose Zimmerman who was freaking him out. (Girlfriend's statement). Trayvon was the victim, defending himself against an armed adult.
It is not justifying anything, it is simply exposing the "old white guys in Texas" myth. BTW, how do you know GSC is white? Are you assuming he is Anglo or Latino? I don't know that.
I wasn't singling out GSC, but commenting on a familiar theme used by hardline gun carriers, some of whom live in Texas. From reading their posts, it is pretty obvious the majority are old white guys. Of course I could be wrong.
Ask your average pot head. They don't seem to give a shit how blood soaked their shit is as long as it lights.
I have no idea what smoking pot has to do with this, but if you are saying pot smokers are responsible for violence committed by Mexican drug cartels, then pot smokers would bear the same responsibility as gun owners for every gun death in the world. It is ludicrous to blame your average gun owner for the actions of international arms dealers. Pot smokers tend to be the most peace loving members of society. The only way to stop narco-violence is to legalize drugs and end the bogus war on drugs.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_hillsborough/stand-your-ground-defense-denied-for-trevor-dooley-in-2010-death-of-david-james-in-valrico
Bullshit, there is no evidence. That is the narrative that the media created, but there is no evidence race had anything to do with it. There is no evidence Zimmerman is a racist.
The answer to your larger question, violent crime has been dropping in general. Those by gangs have not, so a greater percentage is gang related. How do you think they get their money? How do you think wholesalers and retailers deal with business disputes and employee theft?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)We haven't seen rivers of blood flowing in the streets yet. Millions of people are carrying safely.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)It flows in veins. What does millions carrying "safely" have to do with anything? Nobody cares about shootings that don't happen.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I merely referred to the claim of many anti-gunners that it would. The fact that millions of people do something in safety shows that the activity is not dangerous if done correctly, thereby refuting your claim that it is dangerous. And there is a safety benefit, that of being having the needed tool to resist violent crime. I have posted several times that my wife has used her concealed handgun twice to ward off imminent attack. As she, like me is a senior citizen, and is frail, I doubt she would have survived the attack. But you would be happier if she had not been armed and was just another crime statistic.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You have mentioned many times that she has felt the need to be armed and I am glad that she is safe and that she had no need to shoot anyone.
Certain activities in life are inherently dangerous, like extreme sports. Carrying a gun is also an activity full of potential danger to oneself and to others. Unfortunately, it is deemed necessary at times, as in your wife's case and by police officers engaged in certain operations. Maybe even by women living in some parts of Detroit.
This is a sad aspect of our society, not something to cheer about.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Therefore you must desire a different outcome of events than if she had been armed.
BTW - The business was a family business where she worked. She worked for her son-in-law and her son and daughter (Both were adults.) also worked there. He son was opposed to guns and tried to talk her out of being armed. After all she would be having her gun in the workplace after she got to work. He changed his opinion after the two incidents when faced with the fact that his recommendation would have resulted in his mother likely getting killed.
If you want someone disarmed then you must desire the outcome of them being disarmed.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)My dismay at the proliferation of concealed carry does not translate into disarming anyone. There are many vulnerable individuals who should be armed at times. I have no problem with that. If you fall into that category, you should follow your common sense. If, on the other hand, an individual has never had any indication of needing to carry a gun, why would they?
If my wife or daughter ever voiced concerns for their personal safety, I would suggest arming themselves. This actually happened about 25 years ago, when a suspected stalker/Peeping Tom was lurking outside our home when I was away on business. I had my brother-in-law bring over his 12 gauge, which gave them peace of mind.
I'm neither anti-gun, nor a disarmer. Extreme situations call for extreme measures. Taking extreme measures as a part of daily life baffles me.
Routine carry to me is like wearing a smog mask at the beach.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is impossible to tell exactly when and where violent crime will strike.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I find situational awareness works very well. Having never encountered violent crime where a gun might have helped, it really isn't an issue.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Convicts in prisons have been shown videos of people in public settings and asked whom they would attack. The different convicts were extremely uniform in picking out their targets. You likely don't look like and easy mark so criminals don't bother with you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Never display weakness, even if you are scared shitless. Walk with confidence when facing possible confrontation. Never walk with your head down etc.. Navigating the world as if you own it and are afraid of nothing will work better than any weapon, IMO. That's what you learn as a cop in the UK. Self confidence trumps arrogance. Assertiveness trumps aggression. I also learned in school how to deal with bullies without ever having to lay a finger on them.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Those things are true and excellent and a first line of defense. But as you get older it will become increasingly difficult to pull it off. And if you are a woman it is more difficult to pull off.
Sometimes the situation itself will make you a target. For those times when it fails, the gun is a backup plan.
As you can see from my new thread, trained and armed citizens are not a threat to the public.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)And you are right, as we get older, our ability to "pull it off" wanes somewhat. We adjust. Carrying a gun is one way to adjust. I prefer it not be my way. As yet, I have no thoughts in that direction. That could easily change, though I doubt it.
I spend so little time in places where crime ever happens, or is ever likely to happen, but even when I do, I don't present as a target. I present as "Nothing obvious worth taking and not worth the trouble finding out". No pockets bulging with money, wallet, gun or other valuables. I'll check out your new thread and respond there.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)First, let me agree with you. The fact that people sometimes need guns to protect themselves is sad. It is not a reasonable cause for celebration, in fact, it is proof of imperfections in our society. But so are courts, judges, juries, police officers, trials, lawsuits, and prisons.
But while needing guns isn't so great, having them when they are needed is an unqualified good. And while needing police, judges, juries and prisons is not a great thing, having them when needed is great. I, for one, am thrilled that many folks have been arrested, tried, convicted and incarcerated.
You seem to think that everyone who is attacked gets a warning gut feeling. If only it were so. If your wife or daughter were attacked, there is no reason to believe that their attacker will give them a reason to think they are in danger. There is no reason to think that they will voice concerns for their personal safety to you, or even in their own heads before they are attacked.
If your wife and daughter are competent, level headed and knowledgeable, would it not be better for them to be armed thousands of days and not need the gun than to be unarmed one day when a gun could have been used to save their lives or physical integrity?
Only routine carry can protect a woman against unexpected threats. If a woman's male relatives and romantic interests aren't abusive, stalkers or the like, her threats are likely to be unexpected and opportunistic. If a woman isn't psychic, she won't think to herself one morning "I should carry a gun today because my car will have a flat and I will be accosted by a man intent on hurting me."
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The only legitimate reason to carry a handgun would be for self defense. Correct?
If I felt my home needed defending with a firearm, I would choose a shotgun every time, but I accept that others may prefer a handgun.
Carrying a weapon outside the home is such an extreme action, that I could never consider it based on the current odds of ever needing one. By not carrying one, I can rest assured that it will not be stolen, will not be used to kill me or another and will not be the cause of an accidental shooting. The responsibility of carrying the gun and inherent stress would far outweigh any advantage it might give me. In fact, I would consider it a distraction from seeking less violent alternatives.
It isn't that my life isn't worth defending, I value it immensely. But, if I were to take the life of another, except in the rarest of rare circumstances, my life would decrease in value to the point where I would have to question what I was defending in the first place. The odds of my being attacked are incredibly remote. I know that doesn't apply to all. I have lived in places where the odds were much higher. Very high indeed. But I never felt that a gun would have resolved anything. On the contrary.
I care more about who I have to face in the mirror each morning, not whom I might encounter in the street.
TPaine7
(4,286 posts)As I read it, the probability of your needing to defend yourself does not justify the risk to you on a personal, ethical (I am tempted to say spiritual) level. Not that you are a pacifist, but that the situations that would justify potentially deadly force are so remote in your calculus that they are outweighed by the potential for harm.
I too hope for a world where more people will land where you are of their own free will when they consider the low crime rates, the social justice and the harmony that surround them.
It seems to me, when reading your posts, that you are unusually gifted at de-escalation, avoidance and persuading people to leave you alone. It is a common mistake of gifted people to assume that they are less gifted than they are--that others can do what they do, or could if they really tried. You may overestimate others' abilities.
I also have a question. Are you good at persuading others to leave people you don't know alone? Do you think you could persuade someone to stop attacking a stranger?
There are people who would be haunted because they didn't threaten (or if necessary, use) deadly force. There are people, who if they saw, for example, a child being harmed by a person they had no chance of stopping through physical force, would kick themselves for leaving the gun at home. I know these are rare and extreme cases, but I should hope that the elderly janitor who walked in on a boy being raped by a coach would have been prepared to shoot if necessary to stop that atrocity.
Both witnessing a crime that justifies potentially deadly force and misusing a gun to cause an unjustified death are extremely rare; we have to decide individually which one is more likely for us, and the relative benefits and risks of carrying.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)
I also have a question. Are you good at persuading others to leave people you don't know alone? Do you think you could persuade someone to stop attacking a stranger?
Simple answer, yes. It has happened many times in my life and is one of the reasons I am glad I was not armed. I am certainly no hero, but I do tend to be a rescuer, by nature. If I can do it without a gun, why raise the ante and risk a situation I wouldn't want to live with.
armueller2001
(609 posts)for one's security and the security of their family is "highly irresponsible", as is expecting the police to protect against all threats at all times.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I have read yet. Then people wonder why I rely on Stratfor, BBC, NPR, and almost none of the rest.
UK gun laws suck, but the beer is great.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Many Americans think UK beer sucks, considering it warm. UK gun laws may well suck, but they are good for the UK. Cultural relativism at work.
I listen to NPR, mainly watch PBS, BBC and Al Jazeera, and once or twice a week we watch RT News, DT (German), France 24 News and South Asia Newsline.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)That's arguable at best. But it's their choice to support a government that allows it in the first place, and if that's what they want, then more power too them, I guess.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The government does what the people want. It's called representative democracy. The people insisted that the police not be armed from the get go. Weapons of war belong on the battlefield, not the streets. Interesting concept, isn't it? Plus, it has stood the test of time. We might learn something one day from those who went before us.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Simply because a nation elects to take an action does not automatically mean that action is actually good for the nation, which was the point I was making. As for learning from those who went before, I think we have, tho I don't think we agree on the lessons learned from their system.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You won't find much argument happening in favor of an armed populace though. And the reason for that is not because of government oppression, but rather public consensus.
There are many things each nation has learned from the other and much they still have to learn. Some good, some bad. On the issue of public safety, public transportation and healthcare, the UK is way ahead.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I would say UK is way behind most of Europe and about half of the US.