Gunner wrote:

I'm beginning to believe that guns cause brain damage, even when
they're not fired. In the cases I cited, the robbers announced their
intentions by producing their weapons (according to the news reports),
and pointing them at the shop owners. After that, the only choices the
store owners REALLY had were whether to hand over the money or to die.
Imagining, as you do, that other choices were available, didn't help the
shop owners a bit. A bullet beats a wild fantasy any day of the week.

No ****..ya think? So why did the one guy become a Darwin Event?
The Gun made him do it?
He did the equivilant of when finding himself driving towards a
cliff..flooring the gas peddle. Poorly trained, no use of tactics at
all from your report..such as it was.

You didnt give enough information in either case to really make a good
analysis of either case. Did the bad guys say to each other..ok..take
him into the back and kill him? At what point would the good guy have
been justified in trying to defend himself? Never?

Oh, c'mon, Gunner. I KNOW you're smarter than that. You've slipped
up and made it obvious, in spite of yourself, on more than one occasion.

The good guy is ALWAYS justified in trying to defend himself. But
in the cases I cited, the shop owners DIDN'T defend themselves. They
died. In my book, that's a pretty good definition of not defending
oneself, no matter how valiant or how sincere the effort might have
been. And no, these people didn't give their lives to protect anyone
else. The news reports I mentioned (and which I freely admit are less
than complete) gave no indication that others were threatened, or that
the bad guys displayed any intentions besides taking the money and running.

As you say, the shop owners made mistakes.

But when someone makes a mistake, and gets killed, you seem
extremely quick to blame the victim; but only in carefully selected
ways. (The guy I mentioned wasn't a "Darwin event", btw. He was a
murder victim. Callousness and brutal insensitivity aren't exactly the
traits I like to see in someone who claims to care about protecting
folks and making the world safe.)

You think the dead shop owners were "poorly trained?" That'd be my
guess, too; though I have no way of knowing how skilled or experienced
they were with regard to their guns. "No use of tactics?" You're only
assuming that; but I don't know enough about the specific situations to
say that you're wrong.

But here's my problem: If we accept that the people in question
made bad decisions, failed to respond properly to the situations they
faced, etc., then why, and how, can we automatically, necessarily,
ALWAYS, find fault with every decision they made EXCEPT the decision to
have a gun? Why wasn't that a bad decision, too, if it helped in ANY
way to precipitate a deadly shootout? How can we question the sanity
and judgement of these individuals in every OTHER way; but magically
find them pure and innocent of any foolishness or poor judgement at all,
with regard to that one little decision that YOU like to defend?

A couple posts back, you asked something about whether I'd let an
untrained, inexperienced 16 year old drive my car in the snow, or in
some other dangerous situation. I found that question interesting
because it was EXACTLY the same thing I'd asked you just a few weeks
ago. I asked about inexperienced drivers, if I recall correctly, and
also about whether untrained people should fly airplanes, or whether
that activity should be reserved only for skilled pilots. And I offered
other, similar forms of the same question, even though I don't remember
the exact details right now. And I asked why, in light of the obvious
answers to these questions, you'd advocate letting anybody and everybody
own and carry a gun, without apparent concern for their training, their
skill, their temperment, or any of the other factors that seem to matter
with cars, airplanes, or whatever.

I also asked, clearly and carefully, if your own experiences in the
military, and as a police officer, martial artist, etc., might not offer
some clues about how hard it is, and how long it takes, to develop the
skills YOU rely on when you consider yourself qualified to carry a gun.
And I asked how likely you thought it was that the average guy on the
street would have your training, or your skills, or your experience.

You didn't answer my question at the time; but since you've repeated
a part of it almost verbatim, I gather that your answer - at least in
regard to non-gun devices - is the same as my own. ANY DEVICE which can
be dangerous to others should be owned and operated ONLY by people who
know how to use it safely. That doesn't mean that dangerous things
should be outlawed. It doesn't mean that limits or regulations should
be more stringent than necessary. But they SHOULD be stringent enough,
in all cases, to ensure everyone's safety as much as possible.

So, to attempt to get this discussion back onto something like sane
and logical grounds. Let me ask another question:

If pilots need licenses, before they're allowed to fly; and if
drivers can have their driving privileges revoked for doing things that
are stupid or dangerous (or even just for failing to pass an eye exam or
a simple written test), and if electricians need to be trained and
licensed before they're allowed to touch the wires in someone's home or
business, etc., etc., etc...

Then what limits, what restrictions, and what controls, exactly, do
logic, experience, and a genuine concern for safety, require for those
who want to own and operate those other potentially dangerous things
that we call firearms?

Stories about someone who used a gun to protect herself (or any of
the other stories you've quoted) aren't of interest, as far as I'm
concerned. **** happens every day. Good ****, bad ****, and all the
other kinds in between. Somebody recently swam over Niagara Falls and
survived; but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. And for every story
about a gun that was used saved someone's life, there's another story
about a gun used as a murder weapon. And in BOTH stories, the details
are probably more convoluted than either of us will ever know, and maybe
too complex to make much of a case in either direction. Few things are
as simple in real life as they seem when printed in a newspaper.

Statistics can't be resolved or made convincing either. The
collection and interpretation of them is selective, and never includes
ALL the right questions. And they're often too subjective, and too
easily made to show anything we want to see.

And the second ammendment isn't an issue here either. Just because
we have the right to bear arms, doesn't mean we need to exercise that
right every day, all the time, without considering some clear and
compelling reasons. I have a right to drink liquor, since I'm over 21
years old, and not planning on driving tonight. But that doesn't mean
that I NEED to get drunk.

So how do we decide what limits to put on ownership and carrying of
guns? How would YOU do it, if we made you king for a minute and half?

Think carefully. I AM going to respond to your answer, if it's even
slightly coherent. And think about this, too: The comparisons between
guns and cars, or airplanes, or whatever else, are imperfect in one
critical way; and the logic derived from those other things has one
critical flaw. Cars ARE extremely dangerous when owned by idiots, or
when operated carelessly. But a car has other features - fundamental
features - which exist despite the danger. I could kill somebody with
my car just as easily as with a gun; but I can't drive a gun to work, no
matter how hard I try. Same thing with airplanes. And electricity is
dangerous; but at least it'll light my home. A gun won't. In fact,
except for shooting sports (which I don't object to; but which are
optional, and not nearly in the same category as transportation and
electricity), guns aren't, can't be, and aren't SUPPOSED to be, anything
EXCEPT dangerous. Even when they have value as protection or deterence
in the face of crime, they accomplish their purpose merely by being
dangerous to the right kinds of people. But danger is still the ONLY
thing a gun can do. And that, I think, requires some special
consideration, and places some special burdens on those who promote
widespread gun ownership.

So, how do we do it, Gunner? How do we justify, or not, the idea of
people carrying guns as commonly as they carry cell-phones or cigarette
lighters? How do we identify those who SHOULDN'T carry guns, and
prevent those people (the people, not the guns) from becoming dangerous
beyond our reasonable and practical expectations?

I have some ideas of my own; but YOU'RE the one who insists on
making firearms a part of every thread you visit - if only with your
signature lines. So the ball is in your court. The burden for telling
us how and why we should do something that appears to be a very
dangerous idea, belongs in your holster. And it's time to test your aim.

KG
--
I'm sick of spam.
The 2 in my address doesn't belong there.