Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms

[Straightarrow]

Universal" proof... hmmm, I can't remember making any such claim.

I was speaking about the USA. In any case, you can be confident that I make no carte blanche for even "International" customs or any claims to any all encompassing omniscience when that role is so eagerly saturated via ever present European penchant.

I never made any stipulation that would extend into "International" borders much less "Outer Space" beyond this Galaxy or to the greater "Universe"

It seems likely to me there is life beyond our Earth, but of course, I would not make any assumptions as to how that life is configured, much less how other societal miscreants might comport themselves during the commission of non compliant activities on their planet or cosmic niche environmental habitat however it may possibly manifest itself.

You can rest assured I never made any "Universal " claims.

Americans have the right to own firearms, unless they voilate criteria set forth in applicable law. Not many Americans advertise that they have specific firearms, corresponding ammunition, if the firearm is loaded or available at need, thus the criminal is dealing with an unknown. Violent criminals are referred to commonly as predatory. Predators exploit weakness. This is a common trait in the human counterpart and it is well documented.

In America a criminal often does not "know" at what point a firearm may terminate their crime and the probability is often good that a firearm is available in many homes, thus the comment on my part, which was based on D.O.J. information relaying the majority consensus among criminals as to why many criminals avoid committing a crime in a home at all, and especially when the home may be occupied and the citizen in that home may have a tool that can reliably shunt the circuit activity of a perpetrator.

The fact remains that a firearm is a very reliable deterrent to crime.


The fact that firearms very often deter crime even when they are not actually present is a function of a well earned and well documented reputation. You can find catalogues of ballistic data and other graphic information that document these statements quite readily.
Obviously, non lethal measures are a non issue when there is a respect for boundaries.

It is especially frustrating for the usurpers of our Bill of Rights to acknowledge how much more effective a firearm {that is often not even present} is than their non lethal measures which are secondary and often displaced in relevance wholly by attrition on the part of the criminal's reluctance to risk the physics of any interaction with a firearm whose projection may bisect their anatomy with a ballistic trajectory that results in a projectile dissipating damaging inertia.

Amazingly mission specific in execution of duty.

The truth hurts.

I correctly sense that your request for "enlightenment" is disingenuous but the matter of "illumination" can be greatly improved after the removal of your cranium from the dark recess of your rectal cavity. This will greatly brighten your outlook on other people and cultures and help change your point of view.

[wobbling bear]

Originally Posted by Straightarrow

The fact remains that a firearm is a very reliable deterrent to crime.

It is especially frustrating for the usurpers of our Bill of Rights to
....
.

well well
technique #1 : assert something incertain as being a "fact"
technique #2 : dissenters of my opinion which is the bare truth just are ......... (complete here)
this more looks like self-reinforcement than arguments to try to convince other people.
doubts are good!

[Nurse Ben]

Not many Americans advertise that they have specific firearms, corresponding ammunition, if the firearm is loaded or available at need, thus the criminal is dealing with an unknown.

The fact remains that a firearm is a very reliable deterrent to crime.

How is it a deterrent if the criminal doesn't know you have a firearm?

A deterrent requires knowledge of the deterrent, so deterrents to speeding include speed limit signs, police officers in view, a prior speeding ticket, etc...

And if you insist that an unknown but possible deterrent exists, like a possibility that a person has a hardgun, then wouldn't the criminal focus mostly on homes, businesses, and auto's that are unoccupied?

Hmm, isn't that what most criminals do already?

I'm thinking a dog, locks, or an alarm system are deterrents. Guns are not deterrents, they are weapons. They are rarely "known" and thus deter nothing, but when used they are weapons.

You might want to work on your logic a bit...of maybe the way you phrase your statements. Facts must be facts if you call them facts, otherwise they are opinions

[harper]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

How is it a deterrent if the criminal doesn't know you have a firearm?

A deterrent requires knowledge of the deterrent, so deterrents to speeding include speed limit signs, police officers in view, a prior speeding ticket, etc...

And if you insist that an unknown but possible deterrent exists, like a possibility that a person has a hardgun, then wouldn't the criminal focus mostly on homes, businesses, and auto's that are unoccupied?

Hmm, isn't that what most criminals do already?

I'm thinking a dog, locks, or an alarm system are deterrents. Guns are not deterrents, they are weapons. They are rarely "known" and thus deter nothing, but when used they are weapons.

You might want to work on your logic a bit...of maybe the way you phrase your statements. Facts must be facts if you call them facts, otherwise they are opinions.

I think that this is the research, done for the Department of Justice, that is frequently cited.

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, [6] for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.

57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Citation 6: Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986).

Just because it's research doesn't make it a fact. This is a documented study so it does at least move this argument from the category of speculation to correlation. Just not necessarily causation.

[Nurse Ben]

Just because it's research doesn't make it a fact. This is a documented study so it does at least move this argument from the category of speculation to correlation. Just not necessarily causation.

Exactly my point, a criminal saying something is a deterrent does not mean it works as a deterrent, hence the reality of people smoking even though there parents have COPD/Cancer from smoking, people speeding even when police are present.

Guns are even less of a deterrent than speeding signs which don't deter so much as "create caution". But when people are committing crimes, are they not already trying to be cautious??

I'm much more "accepting" of claims that guns are for self protection if it's not called a deterrent since the only way a gun is a deterrent is if you "show" it to the criminal or you shoot it at the criminal.

Now if I saw a criminal, I'd leave the scene because I would be concerned that s/he was armed. I assume this is what criminals are thinking since:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.

74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.

40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.

So really, we are not talking about deterrents, we are talking about self protection when you are at risk of being assaulted. But then if the criminal is avoiding occupied spaces, then what is your risk of being assaulted?

Ask yourself the following:

1) would you even be able to access your gun in order to use it for self protection?
2) would you aggravate the situation by presenting/using the gun?
3) would you be safer simply leaving the situation?
4) would the risk of having a weapon in your home be worth the increased risks of having the weapon used on you, stolen and used on others, or used by a family member or friend on themselves.

[harper]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

Exactly my point...

But not exactly mine. My point was that your rhetoric was merely speculation whereas that Kevin was referring to actual research done on this topic.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by harper

My point was that your rhetoric was merely speculation whereas that Kevin was referring to actual research done on this topic.

Except that when Nurse Ben posts, it's not opinion, it's only truth. Your posts are meaningless, no matter how logical they are. Logic is for p*ssies, and Nurse Ben does not have time for p*ssies.

[Straightarrow]

I know English is a second language in France and North Crayola so I typed this nice and slow so you won't have to read it none too fast : )

World English Dictionary
deterrent (dɪˈtɛrənt)

— n
1. something that deters
2. a weapon or combination of weapons, esp nuclear, held by one state, etc, to deter attack by another

Firearms exist: Fact, otherwise what is all your fear based on?

Firearm-n...Fact, accept this as obvious

The fear/respect many criminals have of the possibility a firearm may terminate their activities is a deterrent. : Fact

The fear/respect is induced by the firearm that may or may not even be present: Fact

The firearm is the "cause" of the fear/respect that deters the criminal. Fact

When a firearm is randomly pointed at a person, I don't believe that anyone's reaction is doubt about the ammunition being correctly loaded or chambered or the firing pin in place, or the alignment of the muzzle likely to deliver a projectile of adequate construction to ensure lethal penetration or enough resultant tissue damage to cause significant injury: Fact...to quote a shrill protagonist you are F.O.S. if you are concerned about anything except removing yourself from the line of fire! : Fact

Loaded, unloaded, functional, non functional, sometimes not even actually present, a firearm is a very effective deterrent to crime. : Fact

Bear: More sarcasm?... I grasp the obvious : ) The PM was a nice touch BTW...thanks for letting me know I got to ya : ) Since you feel compelled to PM after you "first" dish out enough dripping sarcasm to deep fry some greasy "French Fries" , oh yeah,,,speaking of greasy French Fries: Tell your friend in law enforcement, Inspector Clouseau, not to use that cigarette lighter that looks like the Walther PPK ...he may shoot his mouth off worse than his sarcastic ignorant friend. Slide that sarcasm down with a plate full of slugs on the half shell, a truffle basket of fungus and wash it down with that possibly non extant and all too rare "French" vintage of STHU and then please take a shower this week whether you need it or not!

[harper]

There's a small pharmacy up the street from us that Karen and I have used for 30 years or so. About 15 years ago a guy entered the pharmacy and announced to Mike, the pharmacist, that he had a gun and was robbing the store. Mike drew on him and held him until the police arrived.

Mike was concerned about retribution and asked the investigating detective about it. The detective told him, "here's how this will play out. This guy will go to prison and his story about being stopped in a robbery by an armed pharmacist will spread through the population. Then it will spread to all of the inmates' buddies outside prison. No one will come near your shop during that time with the intent of robbing it. There are unarmed pharmacists all over town. Why risk messing with you?"

The guy went to prison for 12 years for armed robbery. Mike had no problems during that time. Thirteen years after the incident (a couple of years ago) Mike was hit again. Different guy this time; go figure. Same scenario. The guy said he had a gun, Mike drew on him, and the guy was looking down the barrel of a Glock until the police came and took him away. This time Mike wasn't concerned about retribution. He and all his employees, even the petite pharmacy students, are armed in that store. Mike didn't fire a round either time. He didn't need to. He wasn't robbed during the entire time the first guy was in prison and he didn't need to advertise that fact that he was armed. The felon and the prison population did it for him.

[wobbling bear]

For sure being fired at with a firearm and earing a bullet whizz past you is traumatic.
So there can be two reactions:
- wish for a world without guns and just pretend violence does not exist
- accept the unacceptable as normality and wish for a deterrence equilibrium (where everybody should carry a gun).
fantasies are good for soothing our mind but will they make basis for a pragmatic policy? As I stated before culture is an important part: you must carry a weapon in Yemen (it's not even polite not to carry one) but you should not in Singapore. So there is no universal case for firearms: history , culture (or even freedom) may vary. An international forum like this one open interesting windows to other point of views (even if arguments can fire anger).

harper: your example is sensible: being a pharmacist (or a goldsmith) can be dangerous. Two days ago a goldsmith in Paris killed someone who tried to rob him .... the case is complex since the robber didn't have a real gun. So in this case armed is ok , trigger-happy (5 shots!) is a more complex issue (If I were a goldsmith may be I would have acted the same way and done something wrong)

[wobbling bear]

another example to illustrate the Pharmacy dilemna:
I happen to be the owner of a building that hosts a Pharmacy.
It has been there for over 80 years (the building was erected by my great grandmother around 1880).
Though junkies and disreputable characters abound in the vicinity (the town is a haven for drifters) there never was any armed robberies. Burglaries at night yes but no hold-up.
Why that? Because weapons are extremely rare in the region and so are not used by usual law offenders.
Had this store been in another region of France (like Marseilles) the story would have been different: unlawful weapons abound there.
So, until now, I worked on alarms with the store owner and that's all.

[Nurse Ben]

actual research done on this topic.

And we all "know" that research is objective

I love your pharamcist story, if only that was the rule and the "safe" thing to do.

Do you know why banks tell their tellers to "give the robber the money"?

It is because they don't want an escalation in the violence.

I heard on NPR that gun ownership is estimated to be between 35-45% of all households. If that's the case, and the criminals know this, isn't it more lkely that criminals will arm themselves when committing crimes? It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

I am considering putting a sign on my door stating that there are no weapons in this home. Might be safer for me than advertising I have weapons or letting the criminals assume the worst. Oh wait, what criminals, I have yet to be accosted or burglarized, must be good luck

What real gun control looks like:

Japan prohibits handgun possession by citizens. Shotguns and rifles for hunting or sports may be possessed upon completion of a licensing procedure that requires a police background check, successful completion of a safety course, passing of shooting, written, and psychological tests, and police verification of secure storage, prior to approval being granted by the police to purchase a firearm. Fully automatic weapons are restricted to military and police. Gun owners must take a class once a year and pass a written test. Police check on the owner once every three months on an unannounced visit. They inspect the gun locker, proper ammunition storage, and the firearm.

Even our northern neighbors are more sensible:

The Firearms Act of 1995 does not recognise self-defense as a valid reason to acquire a firearm in Canada, though the Criminal Code allows reasonable use of force in self-defence.

Facts? Okay, explain why we have a significantly higher per capita gun homicide rate in the United States than in any other industrialized nation?

Go ahead, be proud, defend our right to own guns...

Have you considered the possibility that a "small" arms race may lead to the same conclusions of the "big" arms race?

[harper]

Originally Posted by Nurse Ben

I am considering putting a sign on my door stating that there are no weapons in this home.

That's so interesting. It's the desire of all gun owners to put a sign on their own doors stating that all of their neighbors are anti-gun. They would never do such a thing, of course, because it would put all of their neighbors at risk. I was unaware until this post that you would be the ideal neighbor. There's a house for sale down the street and I'm looking to fill it with felon bait. Come on up, neighbor.

[wobbling bear]

I have a big watchdog spider (brazilian black tarentula) that roams my house when I am out . Her picture is on the signpost on the door : burglars beware (but you can call her by her name -which is "cinderella"-)! She can jump at amazing speed and I won't tell you how to ask her to go back to her "nest".

[Nurse Ben]

That's so interesting. It's the desire of all gun owners to put a sign on their own doors stating that all of their neighbors are anti-gun. They would never do such a thing, of course, because it would put all of their neighbors at risk. I was unaware until this post that you would be the ideal neighbor. There's a house for sale down the street and I'm looking to fill it with felon bait. Come on up, neighbor.

I ride at least one a week at this local spot, it's a city park, there's not a lot of traffic in the area and it's off the beaten path, so break ins are common. I am one of the few people who has avoided a break in, my technique:

I have a large "placard" that I hang on my dash, it says in words and pictures:

"No Money, no CD's, no Cell Phone, No valuables"

Is it effective? So far, it's been five years and all my friends have had break ins BUT me.

So does this apply to a home and your person? Absolutely, and here's how you do it:

Live modestyly, dress modestly, drive a modest car, don't show your wealth, don't advertise what you got, and make it as plain as possible that "these are not the droids you're looking for".

You all can have your guns, for all the good they do you, in time one or more of you will have a problem with that gun, either it'll be used on you, stolen and used in a crime, used by someone you know to hurt someone or themselves, or you will use it on someone. None of these scenarios are good, but you go ahead and convince yourselves that there is good in there somewhere, you just go ahead.

I'm talking with the wife about voting with our feet once the kids are on their own, and it will most certainly be a place where the people there are less interested in violence as the answer to violence.