Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumYoung woman who was shot in head at Lealman church dies
By Kameel Stanley and Dan Sullivan, Times Staff Writers
In Print: Sunday, February 19, 2012
ST. PETERSBURG Hannah Kelley always saved a hug for her dad after he finished preaching the Sunday morning message at Grace Connection Church.
He always made sure to kiss the top of her head. Father and daughter went through the ritual last Sunday, just like they always did.
--------------
They said Hannah Kelley's fiance, Dustin Bueller, was in a church closet with friend John Penu as Moises Zambrana, 48, showed them his Ruger 9mm. Bueller, who turns 21 this month, had expressed interest in buying a weapon for his birthday, according to sheriff's officials.
Zambrana had removed the gun's magazine, but forgot there was a round still in the chamber. The gun went off and a bullet tore through a wall into the next room, where it hit Kelley in the head.
More: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/young-woman-shot-in-head-at-st-petersburg-church-dies/1216059
ileus
(15,396 posts)We always do show and tale outside the church with unloaded firearms.
You can never be too careful, life saving devices are always being mishandled. Training is everything.
This is a life saving device
This is a life taking device
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)petronius
(26,606 posts)when some machete-waving pirate decides to steal your boat and use you for fish bait?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I would point my finger or my flare gun at him and send him on his way. Happens all the time.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)The movie Dead Calm aside, all a flare gun would do is bounce off your target (assuming you even hit in the first place) leaving at best a surface burn.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Just to send the message home. There's nothing more potent than a firm demeanor. Failing that, I might try to buy time by offering him a pint of grog and a galley wench.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm cornfuzed.
petronius
(26,606 posts)Plug those two items into your post above, and see what it does to your word-gaming.
(But I'm sure you're right: harsh salty words and a sternly pointed finger would certainly be the best of all possible options. Unless, of course, a squirt bottle of vinegar was handy or a bicycle wheel... :rofl
DonP
(6,185 posts)Properly used they can both save you.
I guess it really depends on who is using it and how.
Funny how that works.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Oh, let's not get into that again...
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)a lot of people in this group want to personify tools as having good or bad morals depending on the point they are trying to make. I could be wrong but, for some reason it seems that the Anti's are especially guilty of this practice. I often wonder about their reading comprehension skills.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personification
per·son·i·fi·ca·tion
noun
1.
the attribution of a personal nature or character to inanimate objects or abstract notions, especially as a rhetorical figure.
2.
the representation of a thing or abstraction in the form of a person, as in art.
3.
the person or thing embodying a quality or the like; an embodiment or incarnation: He is the personification of tact.
4.
an imaginary person or creature conceived or figured to represent a thing or abstraction.
5.
the act of personifying.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Those who use them have a personal nature. Bringing the two together is not an abstract notion, but a serious combination.
I don't blame you for carrying a gun and truly hope you do it for the right reasons. I don't even blame the old fat guys who carry. I just question everyone's judgement when deciding on such behavior.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)some may actually construe it to mean that you are prejudicial ....
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Nothing funny about it, trust me and I have an excellent sense of humor.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Your own, or someone else's, or possibly MANY lives.
Nor does it always require firing the gun to accomplish it. Nice attempt to falsely frame the debate though.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Hit them on the head? Could use a hammer for that.
"Falsely frame the debate"? - you must be kidding. Falsely framing the debate is suggesting that handguns are tools of self defense, rather than what they really are, tools for killing humans.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You (willfully, i'm sure) misunderstood me. A firearm can be used for self defense without even firing it. If you are being attacked, and you draw your weapon, and the attacker retreats, life saved, no one shot. Happens a lot less, I think, than Kleck and co. think, but the US Department of Justice pegs LAWFUL defensive uses of guns anywhere between 60,000 and 100,000 per year, depending on the year.
Less than 1000 of those lawful DGU's result in a death.
You do the math.
Pistols are excellent tools for self defense, in any situation where lethal force is authorized. There are better tools, but these are pretty good for starters, and very portable.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The Ruger will kill when properly used, that's the difference. Sorry, but that's an argument you'll never win.
Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #13)
Post removed
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)There is nothing proper about killing. It may be an unavoidable consequence of war or other confrontation, but there is nothing proper about it. The Ruger is a good tool for killing. If that is your purpose, then you are using the right tool.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)8: marked by suitability, rightness, or appropriateness : fit
Killing someone is often suitable, right, and appropriate. For example, if a victim is being assaulted with a deadly weapon, it is suitable, right, and appropriate, and thus proper, to kill the person doing the assaulting.
There are countless examples in history where killing a bad person was the proper thing to do.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I concede that there are times when someone ends up dead during a fight, assault, self defense situation. That doesn't make their death appropriate, especially if too much force is involved, which is usually the case with guns. Only the amount of force necessary to stop the attack is appropriate. Relying on a handgun to accomplish that is beyond stupid and is never appropriate.
Not to a liberal mindset. I really think you're playing in the wrong sandbox. You may well be atypical, but liberal? Methinks not.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)A firearm is the best tools available to resist violence with without resorting to fleeing, submitting, or engaging in a physical contest of strength with your attacker. It is why police officers carry firearms. Even in places like the UK, when the situation of violence is serious enough, they bring guns. Handguns are good because they are portable and nearly anyone can wield one.
This woman shot an intruder into her home, while on the phone with 911. What this woman did was entire appropriate and proper:
&feature=fvst
Not to a liberal mindset. I really think you're playing in the wrong sandbox. You may well be atypical, but liberal? Methinks not.
Really? The United States, along with its allies, marched across Europe killing millions of German soldiers to put a stop to their genocide. That was entirely proper.
Youtube is fucking FULL of people on the phone with 911 killing people breaking into their homes.
And frankly, Mr. Starboard Tack, I don't really give a FUCK what your metric is for being liberal. I've made my position on liberal issues clear MANY TIMES before. My ballot is in my fucking sig.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and I am baffled at why the admins let you keep it, but I am even more baffled that you are still here.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That poster consistently made the argument that there really weren't any law-abiding gun owners since all gun owners were potential criminals or just had not been caught yet. It was the mainstay of his posts.
I feel it is important for people to understand the hypocrisy of his criticism.
Additionally, the quote has nothing to do with anything that was said here on DU, and is simply quoting the user FROM HIS OWN PUBLIC BLOG. His blog which, by the way, this user constantly advertises for in every post he made here in the guns forum.
Every single time that user posts here he reference his blog to make his argument. I don't see why I can't do the same.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You link to screenshot of his blog on another site called Walls of the City, which is a home for libertarian wingnuts, which is probably a more suitable place for you to hang out. The site's creator names and models himself after a fictional evil wizard who terrorizes people and a whole town to get his own way.
When Mike B. references his blog it is within the TOS of DU. It is a personal blog, not a commercial one like the one you link to, full of gun porn ads. like "How to Build Your Own AR-15".
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I don't know anything about the web site that was hosting the image of Mike B's blog, I just knew the image as someone posted it here. I don't care for the deregulation-mania of the libertarians, though I can't say I mind ads on how to build your own AR-15.
But just for you I have re-hosted it on imgur.
It is still just a screen shot of the very blog that Mike B. references in every post he makes here, which I think is absolutely fair game for someone who constantly insinuates that all gun owners are just hidden criminals waiting to be found out.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I ask forgiveness if you aren't but it appears you are. I don't know any democrats or 'liberals', progressive, or otherwise, that are not also pacifists (which do exist, and that's cool) who aren't ok with lethal force in self defense.
You seem to be skipping the idea that a firearm can be used defensively, without ever pulling the trigger. The Department of Justice tells us at least 60,000 reported incidents per year of LAWFUL uses of firearms in self defense. Fatalities resulting? Less than 1,000. (I do not know the injury number off the top of my head)
Firearms can have a protective effect without ever firing. It's all up to how determined your aggressor is.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)SD is always appropriate, and may result in a fatality. That doesn't make the death "proper". Unavoidable, maybe. Regrettable, hopefully.
Lethal force may be necessary, but shooting someone in the back as he flees is not SD. Going back into a store and emptying a clip into a man who is already down is not SD and neither is proper. Wielding or brandishing a gun is considered DGU by some and is included in the stats. I find it a very grey area and I suspect that very few of these instances are legitimate.
Very true, but I find being unarmed has a greater protective effect. Only the most evil of miscreants would shoot an unarmed man, or shoot a man in the back.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)If the liberal mindset is that all non-natural death is a tragedy regardless of circumstances, then the truth is almost certainly less than that.
Of course, the conservative view seems to be "steal anything and you get executed", and the truth is almost certainly less than that, too.
There exists in any nation countless people that contribute absolutely nothing positive to society. There have to be some people that are so down on the bell curve that they're essentially pure evil. They steal, lie, cheat, abuse, insult, hurt, and facilitate others that do the same thing. Their removal from society is therefore good and useful, and if they get on the wrong end of an intended victim with a weapon, well, then that's that.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)The liberal mind sees an element of tragedy in any unnatural death, no matter how evil the deceased may have been. He/she was a fellow human, and as such, was a reflection of ourselves, like it or not. This is why we sometimes get so passionate in our debates with other humans. They are reflections of ourselves. There is a part of each in every other. The only difference between liberals and conservatives is their level of denial. The liberal fights denial to gain higher ground. The conservative inflates his own ego to the point where he can float above reality, thus denying his own ignorance.
Sounds like a call for the euthanasia of a sub-class. I'm surprised to read something like that from you. Very surprised and disappointed.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...as is the person calling them a "sub-class". Nice aerobatic leap of logic onto a strawman there. Why don't you preface it with "some people say..." to really do the Faux News schtick?
Because I'd like for you to point out where I said people from certain demographics should be tossed into ovens or mass graves as a preemptive crime-fighting measure. Really, I think you should point that out.
Because if you had bothered to ask instead of making oblique Hitler references, you would have found that "removal from society" preferably entails due process and equality under the law before going to prison.
But you didn't bother to ask, did you? Nope, of course not. That would be open-minded of you. That would mean not making assumptions that fulfill your prejudices and preconceptions. After all, I'm not for civilian disarmament and I *gasp* own guns, so that's more than enough to just pigeonhole me as some knuckle-dragging right-wing sympathizer, right?
Of course there's an element of tragedy in every non-natural death. Every person is somebody's child, at bare minimum, and odds are that person has at least one of the following: sister, brother, uncle, aunt, cousin, nephew, niece, son, daughter, grandmother, and/or grandfather.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Did I reference some demographic. I think you did that bit of sorting with
Do you belong to some elite group that has never stolen, lied, cheated, abused, hurt or facilitated any of those things in others? If so, then I am in awe.
Forgive me if I misunderstood what you meant by "removal from society". I must have been confused by the part where you said "and if they get on the wrong end of an intended victim with a weapon, well, then that's that."
I responded to what you said, in spite of my prejudices in your regard, which were actually very positive. I have always had respect for your opinions voiced here. That's why it came as a bit of a surprise to hear you recommend such draconian measures, be they summary executions à la Atypical Liberal or mass incarceration, as you now appear to support, for our incorrigible fellow citizens.
I think we should concentrate more on what society can do to discourage the evolution of such people, rather than writing them off as being "so down on the bell curve that they're essentially pure evil". We're better than that. Maybe you had a bad day, but I still think you're OK. I didn't make a Hitler reference, either obliquely or acutely, but when we have thoughts like that, which are tempting at times, we embark on a slippery slope.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...have a higher chance of becoming violent criminals. Spousal abusers, child abusers, muggers, rapists, robbers, drug dealers, drug abusers, carjackers, gay-bashers, or whatever.
Regardless, all groups of people, every socio-economic combination you can think of, has in it spouse abusers, child abusers, muggers, rapists, robbers, etc. So, no, I don't belong to some elite group that has a zero rate of criminal production. Which is why we need equal justice and fair trials when people are arrested for crimes.
But at no point did I explicitly or implicitly say that "those people" should just be tossed in prison or in a mass grave or ethnically cleansed or whatever.
If a robber or rapist or domestic abuser or home invader gets on the wrong end of their intended victim's weapon, then so be it. Regardless of socio-economic status. It's shitty for everybody involved, but it's the least-shitty outcome in a situation that has deteriorated to that particular point. And remember, when a violent criminal dies, all potential for future crime dies with him. So, of course, does all potential good. But let's face it, if they're at the point where they're wielding weapons to hurt and maim and steal and threaten, the overall future badness will far outweigh the future over goodness.
But that's why, ideally, they'd be jailed and given counseling in prison. That's their chance to turn their life around, to change course, to get help. And some of them will.
Unfortunately, prison is now a part of doing business, a rite of passage, a networking opportunity, an education experience.
[div class="excerpt" style=background:#AFEEEE]I think we should concentrate more on what society can do to discourage the evolution of such people, rather than writing them off as being "so down on the bell curve that they're essentially pure evil". We're better than that. Maybe you had a bad day, but I still think you're OK. I didn't make a Hitler reference, either obliquely or acutely, but when we have thoughts like that, which are tempting at times, we embark on a slippery slope.
I do, too. Regardless of how the bell curve is shaped, though, there will always be the worst of the worst. I think we need to seriously reform our drug laws; I think we need to seriously reform the prison system; I think we need to seriously address the prosperity gap (the gini index); I think we need universal single-payer health insurance that includes mental-health services; I think we need free tuition to state 4-year universities for scientists and engineers and doctors and nurses; I think we need free tuition to state 2-year colleges for all specialties; I think we need to get of the WTO and NAFTA; I think we need to break up the corporate vertically-integrated monopolies; I think we need to reinstate sane tariffs to bring jobs back to America and gut our economic and military rivals; I think we need to repeal Taft-Hartley; I think we need a stock-transaction tax.
I think we need to do a lot of things to make like in America better, so we have more people producing and fewer people preying. So our families can have the single-income middle class lifestyle for a good chunk of the population.
Our incarceration rate is 500 per 100,000 people; these measures would probably drop that number by 80% in a generation. But in the end, there will still be that 100/100k in jail, a good portion of which will fall in the "pure evil" or "irredeemable" catagory. And whether it's arrested, tried, and convicted, or shot dead by a homeowner, we're better off without them in society.
I do care which way they are removed, but I'm not interested in disarming people or putting people who have been forced to defend themselves with deadly force through the legal wringer to pursue a policy of "only through the legal system".
I prefer arrest over lethal force, and that will be the predominate method that the human predators will be removed from society. But it won't be the only method. And I'm not going to equate legitimate self-defense with "summary executions".
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I never doubted your credentials. But I do question you on
Are you suggesting we give "victims" who shoot their assailants in questionable a free pass and there should not be a thorough investigation? I trust not.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's about politically-motivated state's attorneys, it's about laws that restrict a person's options, it's about the power of the state being used to financially ruin the intended victim, it's about being sued by the assailant's family. It's also about being left defenseless for years after the shooting because your gun is now evidence for the duration of the trial and you can't buy a new one because *gasp* you're under indictment for a felony. It's about being arrested because you used hollow-point bullets or because your magazine held 12 rounds or because your gun was stored improperly or whatever.
A district attorney, with the full spread of facts (both admissible and non-admissible in court)at his fingertips, who knows the shooting was legit and reasonable but prosecutes anyway because he thinks he can convince a jury the guy is guilty.
That's crazy.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Not saying there aren't over zealous DA's and I'm not saying there aren't any legit DGU's, but when you decide to carry a gun, there's a shitload of responsibility comes with it, as you are well aware. That's the breaks. You don't have to carry or even own one. The world out there really isn't that dangerous, especially if you watch where you step.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The same restrictions are also in place (in some localities) for lethal force used in your home, and even for simply owning a gun in your home. If you don't retreat, you're charged. And even if you follow the law, you can be sued in civil court by the family of the guy that just violated your home and threatened your family.
My issue is that you don't have any problem coming down extremely hard on people that legally carry concealed in public and have to use their gun to defend themselves, while coming down much less hard on the suspects that are threatening them. As well as with making the potential consequences of legally carrying concealed so onerous that people figure it's better to be mugged and assaulted than to carry a gun or other effective means of self-defense.
And it's not because CCW permitees have a habit of waving guns at people for taking their parking space or forgetting extra tomato on their sandwich, or for deliberately going into dangerous situations so they can legally kill somebody. You just don't like it. You don't like the people that do it, you don't like what they stand for, and you want to stop their behavior.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Let's discuss owning a gun in your own home. First of all, if I feel the need to own a gun in my own home, the last thing I'm thinking about is the paperwork or legality of it. I would be doing it because I felt a very real need, ie. credible threats, suspicious behavior, prowlers, shit going down in the neighborhood or a general feeling of vulnerability (out in the sticks) etc..
If I am inside my home, I do not have to retreat. If I encounter a possible intruder outside my home, but on my property, I have a right to display a weapon and warn that person off. If they continue to invade my home I am justified in stopping them, by shooting if necessary, but I must still be on my property and so must they. If they retreat, with or without stolen property, I have no right to shoot them if they present no physical threat to me or others. Some states have more relaxed laws and allow what would be manslaughter or murder in other states and countries. I follow my own code of ethics on this one. Don't shoot those who pose no immediate physical threat.
I don't come down on people who have to carry a gun to defend themselves, I come down on those who think it is unsafe to navigate this world without carrying a gun everywhere, or just about everywhere they go. I understand there are certain occupations, locations and circumstances where common sense dictates certain precautions, which may include being armed. I'm neither naive nor stupid and have a strong sense of self preservation and have carried a handgun in a situation that called for it. But, I'm sorry, the routine carrying of a handgun to go to the mall, work, college, ball game, restaurant, bar and church is sheer madness, in my opinion. I think it is a behavior which is harmful to society, by catering to our most primitive instincts. Not that there is anything wrong with our primitive instincts, per se, but they belong mostly outside of urban areas. The urban environment is like a social science laboratory. It is all about large numbers of people living in very close proximity in an efficient and civilized fashion. Guns have no place in that environment.
Yes, one might get mugged, but I don't see how carrying a gun is going to solve anything. What the fuck is one carrying that is worth killing or dying for? Let's get real here.
Your last paragraph I agree with 100%. I want a better society.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)If someone is trying to kill another human, it can be entirely proper to kill them in self defense or defense of others. If you don't HAVE to, you don't, but sometimes it is the only option, and it is entirely proper.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If they die as a consequence of being shot, it should be up to the courts to decide whether excessive force was used, like the guy who went back into his store and emptied the clip on a would-be robber who was already down. You're playing with some dangerous toys, which may well give you a free vacation in the big house, the one place you might actually need to defend yourself.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And it was strongly condemned by just about EVERYONE here in the gungeon when the video became available.
I'm ok with a grand jury investigation into any homicide. That's cool. This is why I like that Washington has no duty to retreat, or is a 'stand your ground' state, but has no castle doctrine. If you shoot someone in self defense here, the presumption is innocence, but you do generally have to explain why you did what you did. I feel this cuts down on any malfeasance that might otherwise be concealed by a 'no investigation allowed' castle doctrine state.
DonP
(6,185 posts)But I guess it depends on how you define "properly".
To me, using the Ruger to defend your life or the life of a loved one or other innocent is "proper use". So is putting holes in paper at a set distance or seeing how many times oyu can make a soda can jump at the plinking range.
Fucking around with a gun in a closet after church and ignoring the "four rules" is not "proper use" by anyone's measure and indicates someone that probably never took a gun safety course from certified NRA instructors or anyone else for that matter.
But you just want to play word games and it's Friday night. Feel free to keep playing by yourself.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This does not mean that all weapons must only be used to kill.
Nor does it mean that killing is never the appropriate life-saving action to take.
ileus
(15,396 posts)it may be my life, my wife, one of the children, or even a neighbor. It's a personal safety device much like the AED in the picture above the ruger.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You can fool yourself into thinking it's a safety device, but you aren't fooling anyone else.
ileus
(15,396 posts)That's what I bought my SD PSD's for.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Maybe you forgot to read the instructions. Load, point, shoot, bury. Side effects, infinite.
ileus
(15,396 posts)But that's just firearms designed for SD.
Many are meant for hunting
Many for target shooting
Many for collecting
None are designed to kill. Some harvest, some protect, some for pleasure. None are designed for killing. (Maybe military grade, but those are actually for preservation of liberty.)
Any use beyond that is User intent not the devices.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Hunting usually involves killing. Target shooting is practice for killing. Guns are designed for collecting about as often as memorial coins are made for collecting.
Yup, that takes the prize for the most inane comment ever on DU. Congratulations! I love the harvest bit.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)This is why the police carry firearms. They use them to take the lives of people who are threatening the lives of themselves or others.
Every weapon can be used this way.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Hopefully you never apply for a permit to carry and if you do, hopefully you will be honest about what you consider to be legitimate gun use.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...a free pass for killing an attacker that he has already subdued and disarmed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117217038#post13
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Are police carrying firearms to take lives, or protect their own and those of citizens?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In the UK they only carry in special circumstances, which is how it should be in a civilized country. I was a cop there, never carried, never met a cop there who wanted to carry. Our job was to protect lives, not take them. Interesting concept, huh?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...you and I made the same point at the same time!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Straw Man
(6,626 posts)I ask because in a previous thread you seemed to be unfamiliar with current UK police firearms procedures.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What's your point? Not much has changed since the 70's. UK cops still don't routinely carry, except in Ulster, for obvious reasons. Neither the public, nor the police would support regularly armed police officers. Guns in the streets is anathema to the Brits. The US adopted many good things from Britain, like it's legal system and Bill of Rights, and rejected bad things, like English cooking. Somehow, it missed out on being able to live together without carrying guns around. A silly mistake that costs us tens of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars annually.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Got it.
That's a spectacularly uninformed observation right there. The economic, political, and social realities of Britain are vastly different from what they were then.
The notion that our murder rate is driven primarily by the legal availability of firearms is seriously flawed when you look carefully at the data. First, our non-firearm murder rate is greater than Britain's overall rate. Second, we have always had a higher murder rate than Britain, even when neither nation had any gun control to speak of. Finally, British society is, unfortunately, becoming more and more violent, unarmed police notwithstanding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6149532.stm
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So in those special circumstances, are they carrying guns to save lives or take them? Or save lives by taking them?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)For the same reason that SWAT teams carry them here, and when protecting known targets, like airports and embassies. A sensible system that works well most of the time.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)... not to take life, but to preserve life, right?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and to go into situations known to be dangerous because suspects are armed. No need for cops to be armed on a routine basis. If they were, the citizenry would not approve.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)and to go into situations known to be dangerous because suspects are armed. No need for cops to be armed on a routine basis. If they were, the citizenry would not approve.
And I would submit to you that officers can and do find themselves in dangerous situations without forewarning. There is no good reason why properly trained police officers should not be armed at all times. I think you will find that the citizenry is divided on the issue.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)And what would that same reason be?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Not to swagger around carrying guns to show who's in charge, reinforcing an us and them scenario.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I've always supported armed defense of a home, especially in bad neighborhoods and rural locations. Outside the home, the only people who should be carrying are the highly trained professionals assigned to known hazardous duty.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)"No, it's a life taking device. Nothing safe about it.
You can fool yourself into thinking it's a safety device, but you aren't fooling anyone else."
Thank you for revisiting your position and agreeing that firearms can also save lives.
It's a shame you believe that only highly trained professionals are able to or should be able to save lives outside of the home, but at least we have made some progress in this conversation in your realization that firearms can and do save lives.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Dodge noted.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That's why police carry them.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Believe it or not, most police officers do not carry guns at all times (although they may call upon armed officers):
In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in the United Kingdom is a perennial topic of debate.
Most officers are instead issued with other items for personal defence, such as Speedcuffs, Extendable "ASP" Baton, and incapacitant sprays such as PAVA or CS spray. While not a firearm, CS spray is subject to some of the same rules and regulations as a projectile firing firearm under Section 5 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968.[1]
The Ministry of Defence Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland (formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary) are issued firearms as a matter of routine. Every force can also call upon the Force Firearms Units, Armed Response Vehicle, and certain specialist units of the Metropolitan Police are routinely armed.
In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used.[2]
Since 2004, Police forces have increasingly been deploying Tasers, for use against armed assailants, by Authorised Firearms Officers. Tasers are considered by the authorities to be a less lethal alternative to firearms, although Amnesty International links their use to 70 deaths in the US and Canada.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom
And Britain hasn't fallen into total shit and disarray, and I would note they of course have a lower homicide rate. In fact, roughly one-quarter of our homicide rate despite having significant poverty rates! Shocking, to think that some law enforcement officers believe they can save lives without guns!
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)... where the police carry guns despite a virtually firearm-free populace?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I think one difference between the UK/Japan and the US is also the potential for flight. A lot of murderers reason that they can flee and disappear in the US. That is less possible in the UK/Japan. Either way, there is really no good justification for our current lax gun control policies that enable criminals and the insane to readily obtain weapons and terrorize the rest of the populace.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but that is not one of them.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I don't pretend to know any of them, but identifying what they are not is a good start. Inability for gang members to get guns is not one of them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1
as far as I can tell, the Guardian is not a right wing rag.
This looks like an interesting read, something both side can get something out of:
http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hors/hors298.pdf
It is a safe bet it is not NRA-UK propaganda
http://www.nra.org.uk/
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...when guns are scarce their use-cost is higher. Want to shoot someone and then dump the gun, not only do you risk being caught sentenced heavily simply for toting without permit, but it's going to cost you to get a new one when you have to dump it in the Thames. I remember reading during the London riots that many crime guns in the UK are actually converted starter guns and the sort. Moreover, I wonder when the last time anyone was found to be criminally in possession of an assault weapon in the UK. Let's face the facts, the UK has a much better working system if you are interested in public safety while still allowing responsible gun ownership. The thing is that the American pro-gun position is at ends with what most of the rest of the world believes about the role of lax gun regulations and irresponsible gun ownership in society. Quite simply, like with issues such as education and healthcare, American policy on gun control lags behind peer countries in its progressive conception.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Allowing responsible gun ownership? When a private citizen cannot own a handgun of any kind legally in the UK, and their Olympic pistol team has to leave the country to practice? Oh, but that's right: target shooting isn't really a sport in your world. After all, they're just militarists practicing to kill someone, right?
I'm interested to know what you consider "responsible gun ownership" when you think that people who engage in shooting sports have a sick fetish. Could you share with us your profile of a sane, responsible firearms owner?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...that's a distortion of my words, but then again, that same poster who is claiming that is that what I'm saying and not that it is conditioning sanctions extrajudicial murder so I'm cool with it
noun \ˈmi-lə-tə-ˌri-zəm\
Definition of MILITARISM
1
a : predominance of the military class or its ideals b : exaltation of military virtues and ideals
2
: a policy of aggressive military preparedness
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)... and the efficacy of Britain's handgun ban, see the following:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=17449
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/1440764.stm
http://www.politics.co.uk/reference/gun-crime
...that's a distortion of my words, but then again, that same poster who is claiming that is that what I'm saying and not that it is conditioning sanctions extrajudicial murder so I'm cool with it
What is a distortion of what words? I may be misinterpreting this garble, but it seems that you are suggesting that I sanction extrajudicial murder. If that is indeed what you mean, it is a foul lie and I'm asking you to retract it.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Are you claiming that you did NOT characterize shooting sports as a sick fetish? These are your own words:
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...but I'm also of the opinion that my understanding of such arguments is teleological in that I believe that weapons would not exist if man did not desire their creation and use to a certain end. Our ability to reason outside of this box, to understand why we take pleasure in certain things and not in others, to think about the causes we take up as our own and put into effect, constitute a form of judgment that one must morally account for within the soul. When we take pleasure in seeing clay pigeons blasted apart, or bullets put onto target, we can only do so with the knowledge that this pleasure taking only occurs within the context of wide misuse of such objects, not as tools of construction, but as weapons of destruction. When we commit ourselves to taking pleasure in such pursuits, we are naturally abandoning others as not of importance. These basic choices pervade our society and it is up to our reasoning ability to judge which is beautiful to our own soul and why we take pleasure in them rather than in other pursuits at that particular moment in time.
He states:
"It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."[3]
Kant proposed a Copernican Revolution in reverse, saying that:
"Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but ... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanual_Kant
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)OK, let's indict humor because it's all based on our pleasure at the misfortunes of others. Let's indict sports because they have their origin in violent competition between human beings. Let's indict consumer culture because it's based on dehumanization and fetishization. None of what you say has unique application to firearms. Your critique is essentially that the contemporary human condition sucks. Congratulations. Welcome to the world.
Please explain "within the context," because it looks to me like a prime example of postmodern weasel-wording. Do you mean that the pleasure depends on awareness of misuse? Or do you mean that the recreational shooter has some kind of moral obligation to acknowledge the abuse? Both are simply false. The recreational shooter harms no one, and his or her actions are no more violent -- are in fact notably less violent -- than those of the players of football and hockey for example. Target shooting is not an adrenalized sport.
Try again.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...until "Target shooting is not an adrenalized sport." - Really?
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Second is to fail to realize that there are many different kinds of target shooting, some of which simulate combat and many of which do not.
But how would I expect you to know that. Silly me.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Would you care to explain how the one's that do not are not simulating combat or hunting?
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Well, you've moved the goalposts, in your usual fashion. I was talking about simulating combat, not hunting. Remember? (You should -- you quoted it in your subject line.) Most shotgun sports simulate bird hunting, but I believe our prior conversation revolved around precision rifle shooting, so let's look at that.
COMBAT
It doesn't use a military caliber. It uses .22 rimfire, which has no military application. It is a small-caliber cartridge with low muzzle velocity and virtually no felt recoil to the shooter.
There is no use of cover or concealment in the event.
Rapid repeated fire is not an element of the event.
Moving quickly between shooting positions is not an element of the event.
HUNTING
Stalking is not an element of the event.
Concealment is not an element of the event.
Knowledge of animal behavior is not required.
Knowledge of animal anatomy is not an element of the event.
Targets are stationary and don't use likenesses of animals.
Just look at these adrenaline junkies simulating warfare:
Clames
(2,038 posts)Benchrest Rifle
Bullseye pistol
Cowboy long-range precision rifle
ISSF 50m Pistol
...to name just a few. None of those have anything to do with combat or hunting, just the extreme limit of precison, accuracy, or both.
Like shoot fish in a barrel when the other side isn't well educated on the subject matter...
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Snipers fire from the prone position at extreme ranges, using bipods. They operate in teams, relying on feedback from their spotters to help them acquire the target and make fine adjustments to their scopes. Position and concealment are major factors in their training.
Nope. Nothing like that in any of those events.
...50m pistol = snipers to you? You need to lay off the video games...
Let me know when you see snipers packing one of these to the field...
[img][/img]
Clueless. Absolutely. Completely.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)That wasn't the argument - the claim was simulation. Would you claim that this is a commonly used weapon?
Clames
(2,038 posts)...precisely nothing to do with any form of sniping. I would only claim you don't know what you are talking about here. And you are doing a fine job of supporting that claim...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they just drop the gun in the river? Used guns in the UK are cheaper.
"assault weapon" in this context is a political with no real meaning.
Although these are not "assault weapons" but with they do?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376085/Schoolgirl-dreamed-going-Oxford-gunned-gang-queued-takeaway.html
http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2011/04/two-men-jailed-for-murder-in-hoxton-takeaway/
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24008819-the-fearsome-gang-weapon-found-hidden-at-playground.do
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)... when neither nation had any gun control to speak of.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Biggest mistake ever was arming the police in this country. Sets a bad example. Bad guys carry guns. Good guys only carry them when they're prepared to be bad.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)That's quite a stretch you've got going there. Perhaps you'd care to elucidate. How does it explain the increase in criminal use of firearms in the UK today?
Is defense of one's person "bad"? That's a peculiar ethical formulation.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Because it sets the rules of the game. In the UK, cops very rarely get shot at. It's against the rules. The whole mentality is different. Cops are part of the community, not a paramilitary force. Their priority is to protect life and property, not to bust people.
Defense of one's person is good. Thinking that the only way to effectively defend oneself is with a gun is bad. The comparison between UK and US gun homicide stats demonstrates very clearly that you reap what you sow.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)I'd have to say that it depends quite a lot on what community you live in:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2011/08/london_riots.html
Really? I thought it demonstrated that too many cooks spoil the broth, or that a stitch in time saves nine. I think "clearly" wasn't the best choice of adverb here.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't see any cops with guns in those images, nor do I see any cops striking civilians with truncheons. In fact the only things the cops are wielding are riot shields. Looks like exemplary police work in the face of a rioting public.
Definition of a constable as I learned it almost 50 years ago:
A constable is a citizen, locally appointed to protect life and property, prevent and detect crime, apprehend offenders and last but not least, to preserve the peace.
Looks like the definition still holds.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Ask yourself why those people are rioting. Ask yourself if they see the cops as "part of the community." Ask yourself if the Dixon of Dock Green image of police/community relations that you're constantly trying to invoke is anything more than a nostalgic fairy tale that bears no relation to contemporary reality.
You are aware of how the riots started, right?
http://www.google.com/search?q=london+riots+duggan
Ask yourself if the police who set out to arrest Duggan should have been unarmed. Ask yourself if Duggan was armed because police are armed, or whether he was armed because he was on a mission of murder. Ask yourself if British officers need better training in the use of firearms. Ask yourself if submachine guns are appropriate weapons for community policing.
The picture you present is inaccurate. That's my point.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)So in those "special circumstances", why are they carrying guns? To save lives or to take lives?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Why would you present it as an either/or?
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Police carry guns to save lives. An assailant's life may have to be taken in order save a victim, but that is an unfortunate byproduct. It is neither an intended nor a desired outcome. Ask any police officer.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)...made ex post facto to justify the pollution of our society with an excessive amount of weaponry. Have faith friend, we can change the dialectic!
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)I just attacked the ludicrous assertion that police carry weapons for the purpose of ending life. I firmly believe that police, with the exception of those in military dictatorships, approach every situation with the desire that no loss of life, whether of victim or assailant, shall occur.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)"I firmly believe that police, with the exception of those in military dictatorships, approach every situation with the desire that no loss of life, whether of victim or assailant, shall occur."
You're forgetting a lot of ugly history in this country...
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)I'm forgetting nothing. I used the present tense. I know more than a few cops. For the most part they are decent people who have no desire to harm anyone. They want to do their jobs well and make good arrests, but they are not out for blood. I'm sure there are bad cops out there, but I don't believe that the police as an institution in the developed world are agents of terror and murder.
Do you have information to the contrary?
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)I think it's a mixed bag.
Straw Man
(6,626 posts)Do you have knowledge of cops that are out to kill? Death squads? That was the topic: cops who intend to cause loss of life. If you have any such knowledge, contact your District Attorney. Then change your address and apply for a concealed carry permit.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Now if only you would admit that taking out vengeance on a criminal is extrajudicial murder that ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)the details of how you met your end.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Funny thing, it fired ok, and hit it's target, but nobody died.
Must be broken.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Hundreds of rounds fired, people all around, nobody suffered so much as a flesh wound. Well, my thumb got a little bruised from loading magazines.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)The fact is both could be used to save lives, both could be used to kill. Fixation otherwise is a symptom of lack of maturity.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I must be the one who's deluded. I must have missed all those defib killings. Shame on me.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Good to see there is some compassion for the for the friends and family. All loss of life is terrible. It's also terrible that sometimes a perp forces innocent people to take them out. Whether it's an accident (as in this case) or self defence, there are the friends and family that have to deal with the loss.
Take Care.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)burf
(1,164 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Forgiveness is a very healing thing.