<p>I believe after GZ’s last dust up, judge ordered GZ to stay away from his girlfriend alleging he pointed gun at her in domestic dispute, and also he is not allowed to have guns now. If proven innocent in court, or if charges are dropped he’ll likely be allowed to get his guns back. Too in Florida, convicted felons are not allowed to legally have guns, even after serving sentence, unless all their civil rights are restored by a clemency board composed of governor and a few other state cabinet officers. Good luck with that! Hundreds of thousands of former felons in Florida have never had their civil rights restored…they can’t even vote. A handful get civil right rights restored, but not fully… most will never be allowed to own guns.</p>
<p>I was struck by post 362:
and frugaldoctor’s response in post 363
Here I think that frugaldoctor and I are in agreement. A guy who gets out of his car to punch someone who honked his horn at him is exactly the kind of person I would expect to get a gun to “protect himself” from the other guy who he considers to be crazy.</p>
<p>
This I don’t get. It reminds me of people who insist that “everything changed on 9/11.” The world was the same place before and after. The risk/benefit analysis was the same before and after. I grew up with no particular feelings about guns one way or the other, my wife was mugged in my driveway, my home has been burglarized, my cars have been stolen, and my son was robbed at knifepoint a few years ago. None of those events actually changes the risk/benefit analysis so they didn’t change my behavior. Yet clearly several posters here have stated that they made significant decisions based on fear that grew out of events which made them feel insecure. </p>
<p>I do understand that people buy guns out of fear, and a belief in the (magical) power of guns to make them safer. But an objective, rational analysis doesn’t bear that out. If it didn’t pencil out before an event happened which caused you to freak out it still doesn’t pencil out after you’ve had your buttons pushed.</p>
<p>When a small airplane’s engine fails, there is at least a four second laps before the pilot recognizes the emergency. I suspect there is a few second delay if you are confronted with a guy with a gun or knife before you recognize there is an emergency. If a robber is in your face with a gun or knife, you won’t be able to respond in time to stop the attack. If a mugger stops you and sees you have a weapon, he will likely kill you rather than let you shoot him as he runs away. In the psych article I cited earlier, it said if you have a gun you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot.</p>
<p>But then there are the anecdotal stories where the bad guys don’t prevail:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/07/cleveland_man_with_concealed_c.html[/URL]”>Cleveland man with concealed carry permit kills robber in his driveway, police say - cleveland.com;
<p><a href=“http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/10/man_with_concealed_weapons_per.html[/URL]”>Man with concealed weapons permit shoots, kills robber in double-shooting, Grand Rapids police say - mlive.com;
<pre><code>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/07/17/surveillance-vid-shows-71-year-old-concealed-carry-holder-opening-fire-on-would-be-robbers/
</code></pre>
<p>Frugal doctor, “The Blaze”, really? </p>
<p>Then there is the case of the police in New York City in the last year or two. They had to confront an armed assailant. The police in the big cities have a lot of training and real-life experience with these situations. They ended up shooting multiple innocent by-standers and may have injured the assailant, I don’t remember. But these are highly trained professions who still caused such injury. </p>
<p>I understand the desire to keep yourself and your family safe. I just wish more people were more self-aware of their own potential limitations as non-professionals reacting to emergency situations. </p>
<p>The idea that if you have a car accident and knock on someone’s door for help or to ask them to call 911 or whatever can get you killed, is chilling. Those car accident victims have a right to be protected too.</p>
<p>They should get a gun, if they want to.
They should take the chance anyways and knock on the door knowing the possibilities, if they choose to.</p>
<p>Hayden, I am reading posts that are using words such as, “never”, “always”, and I see one side of statistics used to support these statements. I just posted links to show that other outcomes are possible even when people say “never”. You would be surprised to learn how rare it is for police officers to actually use their guns. Remember, for most homicides and crimes, the police arrive after it is over. I grew up in NYC, I wouldn’t even say the word “gun” in public out of fear of causing mass hysteria. </p>
<p>The FBI should start compiling good numbers to show when CCW permit holders had to use their weapons for self or property defense. Otherwise we are playing with one sided numbers and the anecdotes are left to the reporting by “rogue” websites.</p>
<p>There are chilling facts about our country such as knocking on a door, walking in certain neighborhoods at night, living in certain areas, and having a mental illness. All of these modify risks of death, suicide, crime, etc. There are multiple answers to these factors. Some people modify their risks by either owning weapons or not depending on their risk tolerances.</p>
<p>And then there’s the option of simply not opening your door to a stranger who is pounding on it at night. </p>
<p>Sheesh. A simple, “What do you need?” followed by, “I’m calling the police to help you.” shouted through the door would solve practically any issue at night. Someone who really needs help will get it. Anyone else has a gotten a warning to leave before the police arrive, and the home owner has given fair warning. </p>
<p>Why ANYONE would feel the need to open their door to a stranger and then shoot the person standing there is beyond my comprehension.</p>
<p>“The FBI should start compiling good numbers to show when CCW permit holders had to use their weapons for self or property defense. Otherwise we are playing with one sided numbers and the anecdotes are left to the reporting by “rogue” websites.”</p>
<p>I believe this is prohibited by federal law as a result of lobbying by the NRA.</p>
<p>The 2nd Amendment was never intended to protect gun ownership for purposes of self-defense. Self-defense fell under common law, and then later may have been protected in the constitutions of the various states. There are many points - good and ill - regarding gun ownership for purposes of personal protection, but they don’t have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the part that is inexplicable to me too. There was a similar case last year outside Milwaukee where a drunk kid (AA in a predominately white neighborhood) who had been at a party ended up on a neighboring homeowner’s screen porch (apparently hiding from police who were investigating what was going on. Instead of locking the doors and calling the police, the homeowner shot him dead. In fact, he even claimed he didn’t have a key to the door connecting the porch to the house. It’s hard to view these things as other than examples of where gun owners have been itching to use their weapons and now see their chance.</p>
<p>[Party</a>, call to police preceded fatal shooting in Slinger](<a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/homeowner-knew-police-partyers-were-nearby-before-firing-5s4n7e0-144120795.html]Party”>http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/homeowner-knew-police-partyers-were-nearby-before-firing-5s4n7e0-144120795.html)</p>
<p>I seriously don’t understand that either. I find these reports as repugnant as the criminals who target the elderly for robbery and assaults.</p>
<p>
Exactly where are you reading these posts, frugaldoctor? On some other website? Because I don’t remember anyone using terms like “never” here. The need to change the terms of the discussion - creating a straw man argument, then responding to that argument instead of the one that has actually been advanced - is a sign of lack of confidence in your argument.</p>
<p>Everyone acknowledges that a person with a gun can stop a “bad guy” under circumstances in which a guy without a gun might not be able to do so - and that it does happen at times. The question is, how common is that? Is the likelihood of this event happening to you a great enough benefit to offset the well documented risk of the various bad consequences which are attendant to gun ownership? </p>
<p>The fact that gun owners huddle together online, sharing stories of the heroics they fantasize about engaging in themselves, so that anyone with a fetish for gun brandishing can quickly cite to a handful of cases over the past several months which happened in a variety of locales throughout the nation kind of proves the point. That sort of desperation for ratification is a sign of mania, not reasoned analysis.</p>
<p>The problem with indulging that fantasizing is that it leads guys to do the sort of thing Darrel Hanger did. Here’s your next anecdote: [Willow</a> Creek murder trial begins; defense argues shooting was self defense - Times-Standard Online](<a href=“http://www.times-standard.com/ci_21067499/willow-creek-murder-trial-begins-defense-argues-shooting]Willow”>Willow Creek murder trial begins; defense argues shooting was self defense – Times-Standard)</p>
<p>The sad thing about this case is that the bad guys were trying to run away before they even knew that the good guys had guns. If they had been able to start their stolen truck they would have been gone before the “good guy with a gun” started shooting at them. </p>
<p>By all accounts Darrell Hanger was a good man - a husband, father, volunteer fire-fighter. If he hadn’t gone all vigilante on the burglars he’d be alive today. But he’s dead. And he’s dead because he had a gun and he chose to use it. Not a good outcome. But if the gun lover’s websites even acknowledge Darrell Hanger I doubt that they’ll admit that his possession and use of a gun not only was not essential to prevent a crime, but led directly to his own death.</p>
<p>So there’s another anecdote for you, frugaldoctor. And we haven’t even gotten started on these:
[5yo</a> boy accidentally shoots and kills 2yo sister - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)](<a href=“http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-02/5yo-boy-accidentally-shoots-and-kills-2yo-sister/4666250]5yo”>5yo boy accidentally shoots and kills 2yo sister - ABC News)
[Sibling</a> Accidentally Shoots 5-Year-Old-Brother In Dallas: Police | NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth](<a href=“Sibling Accidentally Shoots 5-Year-Old-Brother In Dallas: Police – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth”>Sibling Accidentally Shoots 5-Year-Old-Brother In Dallas: Police – NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth)<br>
[url=<a href=“http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/police-13-year-old-indiana-boy-accidentally-shot-killed-by-sibling]Police:”>Police: 13-Year-Old Indiana Boy Accidentally Shot, Killed By Sibling - TPM – Talking Points Memo]Police:</a> 13-Year-Old Indiana Boy Accidentally Shot, Killed By Sibling<a href=“All%20you%20have%20to%20do%20is%20google%20%22accidentally%20shoots%20sibling%22%20to%20get%20a%20depressingly%20long%20and%20recent%20set%20of%20hits”>/url</a></p>
<p>So, yes - all outcomes are possible. But which outcome, good or bad, is more likely for you, in your situation? As I posted way up towards the top of this thread, if you operate a jewelry store near a freeway entrance, the answer may be different that if you’re a suburban dad in a gated community. But basing one’s decision on emotion rather than calm analysis is rarely a good thing, and even less advisable when dealing with tools specifically designed to harm or kill people.</p>
<p>I could refute the language that those anti-gun advocates stress - things like loaded words like, say in kluge’s last post. </p>
<p>Fetish, fantasize, gun lovers, gun brandishing, indulging in fantasy, heroics…but it would suck the rest of my day off. </p>
<p>Both sides on this debate use loaded words to promote their arguments. Stats can prove nearly anything you want, depending on who is doing research. </p>
<p>Gun free zones aren’t gun free or immune from violence, ie - Chicago. </p>
<p>“Bad guys” might not be able to be stopped by the shotgun in my house. I get that. </p>
<p>Shooting first without identifying if that person is a real risk is terrible and idiotic. </p>
<p>You can respect my opinion or not why my family owns guns, I am beyond that. </p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<h1>383 post refers to what a person won’t be able to do with their response time. That was the exclusive and not the literal comment I was referring to. I posted examples where the CCW permit holder was able to respond to one or more assailants.</h1>
<p>Thank you, Samurai for that post. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We are hampered in discussing the statistics for the reason mini mentioned. It leaves me to wonder why the NRA wants to prohibit the government from collecting and publishing real data. People can make their own decisions regarding whether to own a gun; and if so, how they will store/handle it. If accessing valid statistics would be helpful to those decisions, I am suspicious as to why the NRA fought to keep those statistics under wraps by law.</p>
<p>Maybe the NRA didn’t want to deal with anti-gun zealots who think it shows confidence in their argument to continue using incendiary language.</p>
<p>Sryrstress, I have a lot of issues with the NRA besides them blocking research and what seems to be an anti-liberal agenda. Not all liberals are anti-gun. But after reading some of the posts here, I agree with your statement. I can see myself having reasons to join the NRA one day to balance the rhetoric.</p>
<p>But you already think some people use immoderate language when discussing guns. How could that worsen just because we all have access to the real statistics? </p>
<p>Despite all the strong arguments we have among ourselves on so many other topics, is there any other aspect of American life where there is an actual law prohibiting collection of mere facts?</p>
<p>EXACTLY, hayden. If guns are such a good idea for so many people I am sure the facts would speak for themselves.</p>