On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:38:57 -0500, Kirk Gordon
wrote:

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.

They tried to defend themselves. In these two cases, unsucessfully.
Why? Not enough data. But at least, they tried. If they had been
herded into the cold box and put on their knees, and then shot in the
back of the head..they would have been no less dead. And without
that firearm..they would have had no chance whatsoever in either case.
Did the guns they owned kill them? No. The bad guys did. Did they
perhaps **** up? Only way to tell is to be able to mind read the bad
guys and watch the video tapes.

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.)

Callousness and brutal insensitivity...hummmm...perhaps. I neither
knew either victim, nor trained them. Perhaps Ive seen more than my
fair share of people dying and dead. Shrug.. Ive held them in my arms
and stared into their eyes as the life went away. After a while, one
tends to distance himself. Shrug
..
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.

Good. At least you are admitting your ignorance of something for a
change.

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?

Because Kirk..it was their decision to own that gun. To use it or not
to use it. It was not removed from them like life choices removed from
a slave, and frankly Kirk..they died on their feet, not on their
knees. And Kirk..that speaks volumes for me. Perhaps not to
you..hell..I suspect you would prefer to be a slave, rather than try
to do whats right and proper, no matter if it may kill you or not.
Were they foolish? Who knows. The thing is..they tried.

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.

Kirk..it takes a very short time to learn to handle a firearm, both
safely and effectivly. My skills and techniques may someday not
prevail either. Some doped up 13 yr old with a Lorcin 25 may kill me.
Shrug..and with luck, Ill take him with me. I strongly believe in
Viking Funerals.

On the other hand..while I drive a car daily, Ive never been to the
Daytona Driving schools etc etc. Most folks havent..and they still
drive. My training in the various arts, is simply to give me an Extra
edge, to hone the skills I already have. Quite frankly Kirk..there are
damned few..damned few people anywhere on the planet with my skills in
various arts. On the other hand..the 2.5 million people that use a
firearm every year defensivly dont have my skills either. And they
seem to muddle along just fine.

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.

Hummm Evidently you missed the post where I gave my recommendations
about training, how it should be taught in schools from kindergarten
onwards. Or do you simply wish to ignore that post. Im sure Ed will
verify what I wrote, as he commented on it.

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...

They only need those licenses because of the Rules of the State.
Licenses mean nothing. I know way too many incompetent electricians,
drivers and so forth. Incompetent pilots tend to sort themselves out
early on. Like motorcycle riders. They live or die.

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?

My logic, or yours? My logic says a good basic safety and handling
course taught every year in school. Hands on, live ammo on the range,
the whole works. Pass/fail. And a certification that allows you to
carry what you want, when you want, no registration, no restrictions
in public. No certs needed for what/when/why on your own property.
Full auto or sawed off shotgun. The whole encilada.

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.


Actually no...for every story of a murder, is about 150,000 stories of
those who suceeded in defending themselves.
If they are not as simple in real life..why attempt to use two stories
neither of us know nothing about, as some shining example of why you
should never have a gun for self defense? You did make that
statement..its implicit in your tirade.

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.

Yawn..get to your point, ok?

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 when you drink, you get drunk? Odd. Id seek help for that lil
problem. Seems most everyone else manages to consume acohol in a far
more responsible manner. I dont even drink. However you are
attempting to make the case that only a very select few should be
allowed access to booze, or to ban it entirely. Correct? Its implicit
in your tirade.


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?

See above.

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.

Danger is the only thing a firearm can do? Odd..Id have said the same
about cars. Yes, cars and firearms can be dangerous to some. Far more
people die in cars every year than are killed with guns by several
orders. And yes, firearms may be used to put another in danger..by
those whom wish to protect themselves from harm. You said simply that
firearms have NO utility value except as dangerous tools. Shooting
sports..then blew it away. Well Ill tell you something bub...a firearm
is a very fine tool for helping keep me safe. I take it you forgot the
Massad quote already? If it takes putting the bad guy in danger, to
help keep me and mine safe..so be it. Gary babbles on
occasionally..but he does mention Life Certificates...and frankly
Kirk..using them to keep people alive is a damned good reason to me,
and about 2,500,000 people each year.

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?

We cant. We can only train each and every person whom is not a felon,
or a nut case, and let them carry what they wish, when they wish it.
We cannot keep the nutz or the felons from carrying, never could never
will, but at least we can level the playing field.

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.


See above. As to my sigs, etc etc..feel free to kill file me if you
are offended. Yawn.

I notice you somehow missed that long list of cites I gave you about
storekeepers. Is there some reason you decided not to give mention to
those people? Or did you save it for another post? I hope you simply
didnt blow them off as they dont fit your world view. Ill read the
rest of your posts with interest.

KG

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.