Democrats & Liberals Archives

Orlando Nightclub Attacked

In the wee hours this morning, a man entered The Pulse, an Orlando nightclub catering to the LGBT community. Armed with an AR-15 rifle and a Glock 17 handgun, Omar Mateen committed the worst atrocity on American soil since September 11, 2001. Approximately 50 people are dead and nearly as many injured.

20 minutes before doing the unthinkable, Mateen called 911 and pledged loyalty to DAESH. According to CNN, the call included references to the Patriots' Day attack at the finish line of the Boston Marathon three years ago. That attack was perpetrated by a pair of lone wolves who received no material support from overseas. It is unclear whether the same can be said of Omar Mateen. However, it is certainly worrisome that Islamism has motivated a US citizen to kill so many of his fellow Americans.

Born in New York to immigrants from Afganistan, Omar Mateen was repeatedly investigated by the FBI due to suspicions raised by his co-workers as well as his relationship with Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha, an American who conducted a suicide bombing operation in Syria on behalf of Jabhat al-Nusra 2 years ago. Now, I know Jabhat al-Nusra is a bitter enemy of DAESH so this detail does not make sense to me, but I hope further clarification will be forthcoming.

Returning to Omart Mateen's parentage, his father, Seddique Mateen, spoke with NBC news:

"We are saying we are apologizing for the whole incident," the elder Mateen said. "We weren't aware of any action he is taking. We are in shock like the whole country."

He added: "This had nothing to do with religion.


Seddique Mateen also hinted at a possible motive,
"We were in Downtown Miami, Bayside, people were playing music. And he saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry," Mateen's father, Seddique Mir Mateen, told NBC News on Sunday. "They were kissing each other and touching each other and he said, 'Look at that. In front of my son they are doing that.' And then we were in the men's bathroom and men were kissing each other."
However, the elder Mateen has a checkered history of his own. Without further details, I will not draw any further conclusions. That said, the behavior of Seddique Mateen is quite troubling. Sympathy to Islamism has no place in this country and I fear that it may have impaired Seddique Matten's ability to disrupt his son's evil plan.

Again, we are faced with the stark reality of the dangers of the world we inhabit. Issues such as gun control and immigration will likely increase in their salience as the Presidential campaign grows ever hotter. All I can say is that DAESH has undoubtedly reached plenty of US citizens with its propaganda efforts and countless more citizens of Western European countries who do not need a visa to enter our borders. Whatever response we have to this attack needs to be focused on minimizing the risk posed by these people. Clamping down on illegal immigration will do zilch to prevent citizens of the US or Western Europe from entering and has little relevance for counterterrorism.

Ultimately, counterterrorism will need to focused on identifying dangerous individuals and apprehending them before they can acquire the weapons they need to unleesh their terror. I would consider it unwise to permit a man purchase firearms as potent as the AR-15 as he was being investigated by the FBI for links to terrorism. It is certainly regrettable that earlier FBI investigations did not result in a situation whereby Mateen could not legally buy those tools of murder.

We've had debates on Watchblog on many occasions on these issues, and I would not be surprised if this thread is one that blows up with 200+ comments arguing about guns and immigrations. That said, I hope everyone can at least agree that we need a make sure that any response to this tragedy is commensurate with the risks involved. It simply is not worth going through hell and high water to prevent this sort of thing. Unfortunately, life is full of risks and many innocent lives get cut short by tragedies everyday. The risk of premature death does not deter us from riding in dangerous automobiles everyday, nor should it cause us to make rash decisions in reaction to this incident. Caution and levelheadedness must prevail.

Posted by Warren Porter at June 12, 2016 9:18 PM
Comments
Comment #405249

Warped, As tragic as this attack was I see more coming. Our enforcement of immigration laws are a joke and law enforcements sharing of information is also a joke. The problem I see is not being able to purchase an AR15, but who is able to purchase that gun.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 13, 2016 11:22 AM
Comment #405250

Almost unnoticed, another mass shooting took place the same day; a mother and four children were shot in their house in Roswell, NM. The husband was assumed to be the killer. And just a few blocks away from the massacre at The Pulse, a young girl, an aspiring pop star, was shot by a deranged fan, who immediately turned the gun on himself. The killing at The Pulse was the 133rd mass shooting this year. The US averages almost one a day. No other industrialized country in the world experiences anything remotely close to this level of killing. Then again, no other country has so many guns.

In each of these cases, a good guy with a gun would not have stopped the murderers. At the Pulse, four policemen could not stop the killer for fear of hitting the patrons in that crowded room. The young girl and her assailant died before anyone could react. The father killed his family in what will probably be a murder/suicide.

There are two common factors: mental illness and gun ownership. The possession of assault rifles turns murders in mass killings on a terrible scale. The obvious thing to do is to reinstate the assault weapon ban, which was allowed to expire during the Bush administration.

As far as politicians go, the worst moment after The Pulse massacre came from none other than Donald Trump, who tweeted perhaps the worst humblebrag of all time, asking people to stop congratulating him for being right about radical Islamic terrorism, followed by another tweet demanding Obama resign. Who but Trump could pretend he was receiving congratulations after the massacre of 50 people?!

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 11:23 AM
Comment #405251

KAP,
None of the examples I mentioned involved immigration.
The murderer at The Pulse was born in New York.

Law enforcement does not have the right to share information about individuals when there is no cause to even arrest a person. There was no cause to deny the murderer at The Pulse an assault rifle because he did nothing illegal.

Banning assault weapons will not stop gun violence. It will only reduce the mass killings.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 11:28 AM
Comment #405252

phx8,
How do you define an assault rifle?

Posted by: tomdobson at June 13, 2016 12:04 PM
Comment #405253

phx8, Banning assault weapons will not reduce mass killings, if a person is hell bent on killing he/she will find a way. Your saying that if a person has a violent or mental history law enforcement doesn’t have the right to share that info? Immigration was not the issue in this case but it is a problem, 12,000,000 people here illegally undocumented is a problem.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 13, 2016 12:13 PM
Comment #405254

tomdobson,
For the purposes of our discussion, the AR-15 and its military equivalent, the M16, can both be considered assault rifles. Most Americans consider the AR-15 an assault rifle, however, assault rifles normally are automatic, while the AR-15 is normally semi-automatic; for most, the difference is mainly semantic. The AR-15 in semi-automatic mode can kill a large number of people in a very short period of time, as we saw in Sandy Hook, San Bernadino, and now at The Pulse.

KAP,
Of course a ban would reduce mass killings. It already has done just that in Australia. After a mass killing in the 90’s, Australia banned AR-15’s and instituted a buy-back program. There has not been a mass killing since.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 3:19 PM
Comment #405255

phx8
A 30-06 simi-automatic rifle could cause just as much damage in the same amount of time as an AR-15, yet it is considered a hunting rifle. The only difference is the appearance. I don’t think we should ban something just because it makes some liberals feel good. If you can explain why it would be effective to ban the AR-15 and not the 30-06 hunting rifle, it would be worthy of discussion.

Posted by: tomdobson at June 13, 2016 4:03 PM
Comment #405256

phx8, banning AR-15 type weapons would be a darn good start however I would like to see a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Gun ownership and legislation should be re-written completely.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 13, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #405257

The original Constitution was wrong about slavery and wrong about women’s rights. It is past time to recognize that it was wrong about gun ownership and gun legislation in the 21st century.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 13, 2016 4:38 PM
Comment #405258

phx8, As I said he/she would find another way to kill if he/she was hell bent on killing so a ban would do nothing but stoke a persons imagination on ways to kill. A car bomb can cause more damage then the AR15 but are we going to ban cars?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 13, 2016 4:51 PM
Comment #405259

tomdobson,
Any rifle firing a lot of rounds in a short time with the potential to kill large numbers of people is not a “hunting rifle,” unless you are hunting the undead in the zombie apocalypse. Or deer that can shoot back at you.

Speak,
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism, but in practical terms, changing the Constitution is very difficult, as we all know. It would be much more practical to limit the killing by restricting various automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

KAP,
They banned AR-15’s in Australia and no one has resorted to car bombs yet. Violent crimes will still occur. It is still possible terrorists like McVeigh, or that anti-abortionist who shot up a Planned Parenthood, or other mentally ill people will construct bombs, but it is a lot more difficult to build a bomb than buying an AR-15 and blowing people away, and bomb-making is harder to hide, since purchasing the chemicals to build them would set off alarms.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 5:07 PM
Comment #405260

phx8, agreed that would be a good place to start however the Constitution dictates that it should be changed when necessary and even though it would be difficult it is our determination that would cause that to happen. We need to honor the memories of the original writers of the Constitution to make the change necessary, just as we did with slavery and women’s rights.

I don’t expect much agreement on my contention however it is still something I would like to see happen. Maybe in another 240 years or so? I don’t see any way around it, just as slavery and women’s rights were addressed, so should gun ownership and gun legislation.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 13, 2016 5:19 PM
Comment #405261

phx8

“Most Americans consider the AR-15 an assault rifle, however, assault rifles normally are automatic, while the AR-15 is normally semi-automatic;”

Actually it’s not an assault rifle, because it lacks the select fire capability. It is a gas operated semi automatic rifle.

“for most, the difference is mainly semantic.”

Wrong again. An M16 lower fire control group is different, and has an extra sear.

“The AR-15 in semi-automatic mode can kill a large number of people in a very short period of time”

One pull of the trigger one shot. No different than any other semi auto rifle.

Posted by: dbs at June 13, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment #405262

dbs,
We had legislation to prevent mass killings committed with automatic and semi-automatic weapons before. We can do it again, and institute a buy-back program to take them out of circulation as much as possible.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 5:36 PM
Comment #405263

phx8

Not gonna happen again. Buy back is a joke. First off, you can’t buy back something that wasn’t yours to begin with, and second, at 700 to 4000 a piece the re isn’t enough money to do it. Not to mention most people would not comply.

The 2nd amendment was written specifically with people like you and Obama in mind. At the end of the day, an armed citizenry can just say no. Mass non compliance would be a disaster for the democrats.

Posted by: dbs at June 13, 2016 5:58 PM
Comment #405264

phx8, Banning something means only criminals will have them. I like the way you said YET the possibility is always there. No one thought anyone would fly planes into buildings yet it happened. IMO making a bomb is much easier then buying a gun because all you have to do is go to your local garden shop or grocery store to buy the ingredients and at a much cheaper price.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 13, 2016 6:02 PM
Comment #405265

How many times has this happened? A news story about Trump is so out there and so extreme, it must be a joke, and then the story turns out to be true!

Trump revoked the press credentials of the Washington Post because he did not like their coverage of him.

That is incredible. The WaPo is the premier political newspaper in the United States and serves the population around D.C.

Trump has already banned the Des Moines Register, Huffington Post, Politico, the Daily Beast, Buzz Feed, and Univision (one of the two main Hispanic stations). I’ve never seen anything like it! To lock out one organization after another is simply incredible. Usually politicians will allow the opposition to receive press credentials. It is part of the whole ‘freedom of the press’ thing. That doesn’t mean politicians like the media. But they still grant them access barring a particularly egregious piece. But shutting down the WaPo takes it to a whole ‘nother level.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 7:09 PM
Comment #405267

I’ve been watching the coverage from the Orlando Sentinel website and WESH Channel 2. ORMC is a couple of blocks from the location of the shootings. People were carrying victims to the hospital. I lived about 3 miles from there in 1979-80.

The current governor of FL seems to be a typical Rpblcn idiot. The gun shop owner is former NYPD. “An evil person came in here, and legally purchased two firearms.” He passed the background checks, and had additional security clearances. “Unfortunately, he’s evil, and we happened to be the gun shop that he picked.”

The Orlando Sentinel has some individual profiles of the victims on their YT channel. A majority of the victims so far mentioned have hispanic names.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 13, 2016 9:29 PM
Comment #405268

A primary value in Buddhism in non-violence. In Buddhism, one of the precepts of the Eightfold Path is Right Livelihood. That means earning a living without killing, stealing, being promiscuous, lying, or abusing drugs. It means making a living in a way that does not harm others. According to the Buddha, that means staying away from “business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.”

The gun shop owner sold a weapon that was created in order to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The weapon could also be used for target practice, hunting, and home defense. One day, a customer came in, bought one, and killed a lot of people in a short amount of time.

This is one of those things the Buddhists got right. The gun shop owner needs to take responsibility, and find a way to make a living in an ethical manner.

Posted by: phx8 at June 13, 2016 10:03 PM
Comment #405269

So, phx8,
It’s not assault weapons you want to ban, but ALL simi-automatic guns. Am I correct?

Posted by: tomdobson at June 14, 2016 8:27 AM
Comment #405271

I still think it is far more productive to restrict access to high capacity magazines than to restrict access to “assault rifles”. It’s the ability to shoot dozens of rounds without reloading that ditinguishes a tool of murder from a tool of self-defense.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 8:52 AM
Comment #405272

Warren,
That is a “feel good” proposal. I can change a magazine in less than 2 seconds. What difference would that make?

Posted by: tomdobson at June 14, 2016 9:06 AM
Comment #405273

Saying he was born in the U.S. is avoiding the issue. Placing focus on his citizenship is a way to distract from the real issue.

This guy was a Muslim. His parents, who raised him, are not U.S. Citizens. His father is loyal to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Not one of you can say you weren’t influenced by your parents during your lifetime. Saying he was a U.S. Citizen is avoiding those facts and painting over the issue of radical Islamic Terrorism.

Not one of you who support the Democratic party are willing to take the political ideology into account. All of you are blaming the gun. The gun is killing people while dragging these poor Islamic Terrorists into nightclubs and shopping malls.

…and you call Conservatives extreme?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 9:09 AM
Comment #405274

We can discuss the merits of different legislation that dances around the problem of gun ownership and gun legislation but it is a future generation that will finally determine that the words of the 2nd amendment cannot be applied effectively to the 21st century weapons technology. We can say that it is too difficult to change the constitution, and it is, but there is a generation coming that will not be daunted by this task and merely look at it as something that needs to be fixed.

All of the present day arguments for and against this matter will dissipate under the rational, reasonable and necessary quest for an answer to gun violence that plagues this country. I have no doubt that this will occur, just as there was no doubt that slavery would end and women’s rights would be attained by those that were intuitive and intelligent enough to recognize the need for the change to occur.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 14, 2016 10:06 AM
Comment #405275

tomdobson,
If it were up to me, I would like to see a ban on all semi-automatic & automatic weapons; however, I’m realistic about this, and would be happy to at least see us make an effort to stop these massacres. There is no reason for civilians to possess those kinds of weapons- not for hunting, and not for home defense.

WW,
At one time or another, the killer in Orlando claimed to support the Taliban, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and ISIS. No one who is serious about their religious ideology would ever support groups which are actually opposed to each other. It is appearing right now that homophobia and self-hatred for being gay played a major role. He was also Muslim and he was probably mentally ill.

The common threads in the mass killings are mental illness and the availability of guns- whether it was the father killing his four children and wife in Roswell NM, a deranged fan assassinating a young pop star just blocks away from The Pulse, or the slaughters in Sandy Hook, Aurora, San Bernadino, the massacre at Planned Parenthood, or Columbine. There have already been at least 133 mass killings this year. We need to take realistic steps to reduce the murders.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2016 10:21 AM
Comment #405276

Warren, again as a practical matter a ban on high capacity magazines would not be effective. Here’s an article on the ban currently in effect in Colorado as an example:

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/10/30/many-circumventing-colorado-high-capacity-magazine-ban/

The big problem is that guns to include the mighty AR 15 are very low tech devices. A local machine shop with elementary CNC equipment could spit out 1000’s of high capacity magazines per day. Magazines are not perishable items (like contraband drugs); a high capacity magazine made in the 1970’s is just as usable today as it was then. So removing all of them from circulation, then cutting off the manufacture of their replacements, will be a thousand times more difficult then getting rid of banned drugs. And look how effective those laws have been.

If a society wants guns it will have them and if it doesn’t it won’t. The issue then is the society and not the guns.


Posted by: George in SC at June 14, 2016 10:37 AM
Comment #405277

Exactly George in SC. It is society.

To prove it:

How many mass shootings were happening during the Suffragette era? Guns were more legal and more prevalent then they are now.

Also, the same goes for the Slavery era. People weren’t going into schools and murdering children wholesale when this country supported slavery.

The sooner we admit this society is sick the sooner we can address it. If we don’t we’re going to have more slaughter. The more unarmed people we have, the more dead people we’re going to have, because people who are sick won’t give a damn about how good politicians feel about themselves when they take law abiding citizen’s weapons away from them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 12:49 PM
Comment #405279

Look at the time frame of the homicides by hand guns. Then look at the “other guns” timeline.

Also, look at how happy politicians were when they passed the 1994 Assault weapons ban. It looks like they feel good about themselves, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 1:20 PM
Comment #405280
I can change a magazine in less than 2 seconds.
This is a special skill that took lots of practice and training to obtain. Reloading would be a major impedance for most mass shooters.
The big problem is that guns to include the mighty AR 15 are very low tech devices. A local machine shop with elementary CNC equipment could spit out 1000’s of high capacity magazines per day. Magazines are not perishable items (like contraband drugs); a high capacity magazine made in the 1970’s is just as usable today as it was then. So removing all of them from circulation, then cutting off the manufacture of their replacements, will be a thousand times more difficult then getting rid of banned drugs. And look how effective those laws have been.
This is a very salient point. There is also the issue of 3D printing making any restriction upon access to weapons likely moot.
If a society wants guns it will have them and if it doesn’t it won’t. The issue then is the society and not the guns.

Very well said. I struggle to imagine what motivates these Coloradans to break the law and obtain high capacity magazines that provide marginal benefit to a law-abiding citizen. Obviously, we have a culture which glorifies not only gun ownership, but the acquisition of the gnarliest most potent tools of death. Why is that? I suggest that many Americans look to their political leaders as role models. When Senators running for President take photo ops cooking bacon on the barrel of an AR-15, it influences our culture and our society. When a Tennessee Assemblyman raffles off an AR-15, it normalizes what should be abnormal behavior. Passing “feel good” measures may be necessary if we are to communicate to the society writ large that owning these items is a vastly disproportionate response to the desire to protect oneself, one’s family and one’s property.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 2:05 PM
Comment #405281

We should consider adding lithium to the water supply:

NY times article

Posted by: ohrealy at June 14, 2016 2:20 PM
Comment #405282

Changing a magazine is easy. You press a button and it falls out. Inserting another is like inserting an 8 track cassette. Press another button and the weapon loads.

I know of ways to make a gun from a car antenna. I worked at a place that made fiberglass reinforced tubes with an ID that matched the caliber of every major shell casing made.

In other words, you’ll never be able to ban guns.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 2:40 PM
Comment #405283

“This is a special skill that took lots of practice and training to obtain. Reloading would be a major impedance for most mass shooters.”

Nothing special about it and it doesn’t take a lot of practice. If you know where the magazine release is it’s simple to press it. sliding a new magazine in is also simple. releasing the bolt comes natural if you are familiar with your weapon. Anyone who can’t do it in 2 to 3 seconds is not familiar with their weapon.

Posted by: tomdobson at June 14, 2016 3:23 PM
Comment #405284

It wasn’t easy ending slavery.

It wasn’t easy attaining women’s suffrage.

It won’t be easy dealing with the plague of gun violence that has infected our country.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 14, 2016 4:04 PM
Comment #405285

Especially when you’re addressing symptoms instead of the actual problem, Speak4all.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 4:49 PM
Comment #405286

Don’t expect this to go to far, but it is a start.

This will be repeated over and over and over until there will be justice.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 14, 2016 4:54 PM
Comment #405287
I suggest that many Americans look to their political leaders as role models. When Senators running for President take photo ops cooking bacon on the barrel of an AR-15, it influences our culture and our society. When a Tennessee Assemblyman raffles off an AR-15, it normalizes what should be abnormal behavior.

Maybe Arnold since he was The Terminator but I doubt anyone else outside of the political sphere notices or desires to emulate the behavior of politician. Respect for politicians is probably at an all time low. More likely candidates would be Hollywood and the gaming industry.

Posted by: George in SC at June 14, 2016 4:57 PM
Comment #405288

” Passing “feel good” measures may be necessary if we are to communicate to the society writ large that owning these items is a vastly disproportionate response to the desire to protect oneself, one’s family and one’s property.”
It sounds like you think you know best what everyone else should be allowed, their desires be damned. What happened to freedom in your world?

Posted by: tomdobson at June 14, 2016 6:58 PM
Comment #405289

tomdobson, you’re going to be hard pressed to get a description of phx8’s goals are. The same for the rest of the left here on WatchBlog. They won’t give you an answer to the question, “What are your goals? What does their version of society look like?”.

They won’t tell you. They can’t. They say banning assault weapons is the way to end gun violence. Did you see the graph in my earlier comment? Assault weapons(a misnomer) are not the cause of gun violence! Handguns are! Why aren’t they even making an effort to ban handguns?

Government isn’t afraid of gun violence. It’s afraid of the assault weapon.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 7:13 PM
Comment #405290
Anyone who can’t do it in 2 to 3 seconds is not familiar with their weapon.

There have been plenty of mass shootings done in the last decade by people who weren’t familiar with the weapon. I sincerely doubt someone like me could reload a weapon that quickly. I’d spend way too much precious time fumbling around looking for the release button. Alas, Jared Loughner’s rampage in Tucson ended when he was tackled while reloading. Aaron Ybarra got a face full of pepper spray when he stopped to reload. I think there’s enough anecdotal evidence that inexperienced civilians are sometimes not capable of reloading quickly enough to protect themselves.

I doubt anyone else outside of the political sphere notices or desires to emulate the behavior of politician
I did not claim people wish to emulate politicians, but I did say that politicians’ behavior goes a great way towards setting what is or is not normal behavior. It’s not just politicians, it’s the church or little league that raffles an AR-15 as a fundraiser.

I know many people who play violent video games, but do not aspire to own such a weapon. There is a clear delineation between fact and fantasy within most games. That cannot be said for the civic leaders who openly glorify guns and pervert them from delicate tools one hopes to never use into banal expressions of masculinity.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 7:43 PM
Comment #405291
It sounds like you think you know best what everyone else should be allowed, their desires be damned. What happened to freedom in your world?

I admit my position is an illiberal one.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 7:45 PM
Comment #405292

I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say there, Warren Porter. It’s so full of contradictions, I don’t think you know what you were saying!

If you’re saying communities should begin training people/children how to properly use and maintain a firearm, to understand when and how a firearm is used in a variety of situations, then I wholeheartedly agree!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 8:06 PM
Comment #405293

I think we would be better off in a society where people had more reverence and respect for a weapon like the AR-15. Right now, I see it being treated like cotton candy by many people instead of recognizing it as a tool for committing crimes with limited lawful uses.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 8:16 PM
Comment #405294

It’s not a tool for committing crimes. It’s a tool to stop crime. There’s the rub, Warren Porter.

Your side views the weapon as an evil. My side sees the weapon as neutral.

Your side refuses to educate people about weapons. Your side sows fear. Your side promotes the evil. I wrote a post which had over 100 comments about how the media is bias toward gun violence and gun control at the expense of an overwhelming number of stories about self-defense.

If the media concentrated as much on the self-defense aspects of gun ownership as it did on the violent crime everyone would own a weapon and train their children how to use it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 8:34 PM
Comment #405295

A revolver is a tool for stopping crimes. An AR-15 is not.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 9:16 PM
Comment #405296

“A revolver is a tool for stopping crimes. An AR-15 is not.”

Would you want to try breaking into my house knowing I had an AR-15?

Posted by: tomdobson at June 14, 2016 9:36 PM
Comment #405297

Warped, They use a 9mm Automatic not a Revolver, Revolvers are antiques. An AR 15 is NOT an assult weapon, all it is, is a modified version of a hunting rifle. It does not have a selector switch to go from auto to semi auto.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 14, 2016 9:44 PM
Comment #405298

tomdobson,

I wouldn’t break into your house knowing you had two functional fists.

KAP,

I previously stated here before that I think revolvers are better for self-defense because it is more difficult to commit a crime with a revolver than a semiautomatic handgun.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 9:48 PM
Comment #405299

Warped, What a foolish statement. Any gun can be used to commit as crime. The 9MM Auto is the gun of choice by criminals as well as Law Enforcement. IMO I would rather have a 9MM for Concealed carry and a Shot gun or AR 15 Semi Auto for in home protection.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 14, 2016 9:57 PM
Comment #405300

Did I say that revolver couldn’t be used to commit a crime? No, I said a revolver is more difficult to use to commit a crime. This is clearly borne by the ample evidence that very few crimes are conducted with a revolver. Criminals seem to prefer 9mm semiautomatic handguns.

How does an AR-15 exactly help one defend a home? Its size makes it unwieldy and makes a simultaneous call to 911 very challenging. An AR-15 is only preferable when in criminals’ hands. Otherwise, a revolver or perhaps a shotgun is a much better tool.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 10:11 PM
Comment #405301

Do you see how this issue won’t be solved by WatchBlog bloggers mentally fencing with each other?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 10:38 PM
Comment #405302

Warren Porter, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 10:42 PM
Comment #405303

Warped, Explain to me how a revolver is harder to use to commit a crime. A 38, 357, or 44Mag Revolver will kill you just as dead as a 9MM Auto will. The only difference would be the Auto 9MM is faster to reload unless you have the quick reloads for the revolvers but I think the 9MM is a little quicker.


Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 14, 2016 10:43 PM
Comment #405304

I was thinking of a .22 revolver rather than those with larger calibers. And most importantly, revolvers take longer to reload, particularly if they need to load each chamber individually because they don’t have a speedloader.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 11:12 PM
Comment #405305

The best thing would be for the left, phx8, Warren Porter, Rich, Speak4all, j2t2, would be to consider the possibility they may be wrong!

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 11:13 PM
Comment #405306

Show me the people who died because they foolishly considered a .22 single action revolver was good enough for self defense.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 14, 2016 11:18 PM
Comment #405307

Warped, In a gun fight I would rather have the Auto, but if I was robbing someone on the street it don’t matter because an unarmed person will be just as frightened of a revolver as he/she will be at a 9MM. Weary is right you clearly don’t know what you are talking about.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 14, 2016 11:35 PM
Comment #405308

WW,
Why did mass shootings stop in Australia after their gun ban? After all, they have a culture and media similar to the US, yet once they instituted a ban and buy-back, the mass shootings stopped.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Notice what happened? Mass shootings in Australia were fairly common in the 80’s. After the Port Arthur massacre and gun control legislation, the shootings dropped in number, there were fewer deaths when events did occur, and then they virtually disappeared.

Since legislation was enacted. there have been 10 mass murders in Australia since 1996 (in a country with a population of 23 million). In the US, in 2016 alone, there have already been 133 mass killings, and it is only June.

Australia serves as a good example because of its similarity to the US, but the fact is, no other country in the industrialized world has gun ownership on the scale seen in the US, and no other country has so many killings.

Posted by: phx8 at June 14, 2016 11:45 PM
Comment #405309

Warren Porter, I’ll show you the people who’ve died because they foolishly considered an assault(misnomer) weapon something they hold dear and vital to their existence.

Look toward Waco, Texas.

Look toward the actions of our federal government when 83 men, woman, and children were torched alive, cowering in the only refuge they had left, their home.

You support this, Warren Porter. You, phx8, j2t2, Rich, Speak4all, …

All of you support the deaths of those people in Waco, TX.

You couldn’t care less about their fate because you think your party is more important.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 14, 2016 11:53 PM
Comment #405310

phx8, move to Australia.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 15, 2016 12:02 AM
Comment #405311

Meanwhile, the NBC poll showed Hillary Clinton with a 7 point lead, and the Bloomberg poll showed her with a 12 point lead over Trump. Remember what I said about double-digit deficits? Trump is in very serious trouble. No one in the GOP will come to his defense. His defenders are down to Limbaugh, Hannity, and a handful of others.

Hardly a day goes by without him engaging in a personal feud, or telling another egregious lie, or running off on a senseless rant. Unlike the GOP primary candidates, the Democrats are ready and primed for this. They will tar him with his own words, and make a forceful case for HRC based on issue after issue.

I still find it hard to believe the GOP will go through with it. I find it hard to believe they will make him their nominee. In that Bloomberg poll, 55% responded they would not vote for Trump under any circumstances. That is a huge number. It means it is virtually impossible for Trump to win, or even come close. The handwriting is on the wall, and it will be extremely difficult for Trump to do anything other than lose in a landslide.

Recent poll: 58% of Americans favor a ban on assault style weapons.

Posted by: phx8 at June 15, 2016 12:07 AM
Comment #405312
In a gun fight I would rather have the Auto, but if I was robbing someone on the street it don’t matter because an unarmed person will be just as frightened of a revolver as he/she will be at a 9MM

In any robbery attempt, the robber is less likely to sacrifice his life for the sake of stolen goods than the property owner. This means defeating the property owner requires more firepower than simply defending against a robber. In particular, I am quite sure most robbers don’t have the courage to actually kill a stranger. They are interested in petty thievery, not murder. Not to say it never happens, there are certainly examples to the contrary, but this is my opinion and it has just as much validity as yours unless you are able to summon statistics that contradict my claim.

WW,
The Branch Dravidians’ leadership were criminals, not law abiding citizens. Law enforcement may have made mistakes that led to innocent deaths when they attempted to arrest the criminals, but that only speaks to their conduct and says nothing about the role guns ought to play in society.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 12:14 AM
Comment #405313

This whole conversation is becoming silly from the left side. I’m out of here.

Posted by: tomdobson at June 15, 2016 5:27 AM
Comment #405314

warren
“instead of recognizing it as a tool for committing crimes with limited lawful uses.”


Sorry, but not true. It is used in numerous competitions, is an excellent defensive weapon.

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2016 5:38 AM
Comment #405316

Dbs,

So, it’s used in competitions. I file that under “limited lawful uses”. Scenarios when an AR-15 is useful for self-defense and other firearms are inadequate are highly circumstantial. Again, the lawful uses are limited.

Unless you or someone else can point to an academic study that demonstrates that amount of firepower is essential I stand by my assertion.

Tomdobson,

Sorry to see you go. But I’m not going to simply take you at your word with your claims. You are going to have to post actual proof instead of making naked assertions. I remain confident that my claims are valid because numerous other nations have far fewer gun deaths than the US even though far fewer people have weapons at home for self-protection.

Unfortunately, this whole self-defense aspect is becoming a farce. The chance that one is a victim of a home invasion is already vanishing small, yet it seems there are people investing upwards of a $1000 to purchase guns and ammo to protect one’s property. All in a vain effort to eliminate the chance that some rascal doesn’t run off with a few hundred bucks of stolen electronics or jewelry. Give me a break. Clearly, the ownership of anything more than a cheap revolver or shotgun is fueling something other than basic security. Withough a doubt, it’s a “feel good” measure.

Now, some people definitely use guns with such high firepower for recreation (hunting or target shooting) and that’s fine, but that doesn’t really speak to their use in self-defense. Countries with gun control have provisions that enable citizens to use these guns for those activities in a controlled manner. Please don’t muddle this with the self-defense issue.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 9:22 AM
Comment #405317

Russia also took the guns from their population. China, Cambodia, North Korea, all gun free zones.

Guess what? There’s still gun violence in those countries.

This isn’t Australia, Warren Porter. You haven’t seen gun violence yet if you think you’re going to take this population’s weapons away.

Instead of calling it Gun Control Legislation, call it what it really would be, Civil War Legislation.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 15, 2016 9:40 AM
Comment #405318

Kind of strange but I believe there was a Civil War fought over changing the legislation regarding slavery and this country survived and got stronger and more productive. If the notion of a “Civil War” would be provoked by repealing the 2nd Amendment and replacing it with the correct legislation necessary for the 21st century and beyond, I say bring it on, we will overcome that challenge also.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 15, 2016 10:34 AM
Comment #405319

What are you going to fight that war with, hypocrisy?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 15, 2016 10:37 AM
Comment #405320

Without a doubt this country is more similar to Australia than it is to Russia, China, Cambodia or North Korea. None of those nations have the centuries long commitment to liberalism evident in the United States. We have no tradition of illiberal authoritarian regimes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 11:03 AM
Comment #405321

Yes, yours.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 15, 2016 11:05 AM
Comment #405322

Warren

Capacity and stopping power make an excellent defensive gun, especially when faced with multiple attackers. It is much more likely to stop with one shot as opposed to a handgun. BTW the cartridge it fires is very common and many other rifles also chamber it.

Posted by: Dbs at June 15, 2016 11:33 AM
Comment #405323

dbs, The liberals are not interested in what the gun fires but it’s looks. Just like the M1 of WW2, it fires the same 30-06 as a Deer rifle.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 15, 2016 11:51 AM
Comment #405324
Capacity and stopping power make an excellent defensive gun, especially when faced with multiple attackers.

Are multiple armed attackers a likely scenario? Or is it more common to encounter a common burglar interested in scoring a quick hundred bucks before making his quick escape?

There’s no hard facts regarding home invasions because the FBI doesn’t distinguish between home invasion and other crimes. That said, an online repository of home invasions reported in the media says:

Moreover, judging from the nationwide RSS feed posting every day on Home Invasion News, we aren’t seeing even 80 home invasions

With 134 million households, that comes to less than 0.00006% of households targeted for home invasion. Many of the people targeted by home invasions are drug dealers because they have lots of valuable drugs laying around that can be easily snatched. For the average law-abiding citizen, the risk of this sort of invasion is much smaller.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 12:15 PM
Comment #405325

Warren


Don’t care about statistics or likelyhood. I choose to be prepared, and as such will use the most effective tool for the job. I bet those people who were unlucky enough to win that lottery don’t care about your statistics either, and wish they had been prepared. That is the ones still alive to do so.

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2016 12:28 PM
Comment #405326

So, you are interested in a “feel good” solution rather than actually preserving your property?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 1:00 PM
Comment #405327

Warren

“Feel good” solution ? Being prepared to defend my life and those I love is a “feel good” solution ? Who said anything about property ? You don’t kill people over property. Your comment is about as nonsensical as it comes.

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2016 1:07 PM
Comment #405328

Warren


“With 134 million households, that comes to less than 0.00006% of households targeted for home invasion.”

And what are the statistical odds of dying in a mass shooting ? Bet they’re are also pretty slim.

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2016 1:55 PM
Comment #405329

KAP

How’s Cuyahoga county treating you old friend ?

Posted by: dbs at June 15, 2016 4:14 PM
Comment #405330

I applaud this effort.

More of this will be coming, we must be relentless in the face of this adversity.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 15, 2016 4:32 PM
Comment #405333
And what are the statistical odds of dying in a mass shooting ? Bet they’re are also pretty slim.

Yes, but mass shootings cause greater emotional distress in the population writ large.

“Feel good” solution ? Being prepared to defend my life and those I love is a “feel good” solution ? Who said anything about property ? You don’t kill people over property. Your comment is about as nonsensical as it comes.

Home invaders are thieves, not assassins. When you use a gun to defend against a home invasion, you are defending your property, not your life.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 6:17 PM
Comment #405335

dbs, Getting ready for the Republican fiasco. It’s going to screw up the county for a week. But I hope they spend a lot of money here.
Warped, “Home invaders are thieves, not assassins” A person can’t be to sure about that. You don’t know if the thief is packing a gun or blade, now do you Warped? You can state stats but when it happens to you stats don’t matter.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 15, 2016 7:44 PM
Comment #405336

Bill O’Reilly:

the Fox News host addressed the “right-wing responsibility” after the attack carried out by 29-year-old O… M….. using an assault weapon and a handgun.

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high-powered weaponry is too easy to get,” he said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars. Even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades.”

“That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals,” he continued. “They have that right in the name of public safety. Therefore, Congress should debate what kind of weapons should be available for public sale. And the states, the individual states, should decide what kind of carry laws are good for their own people.”

It must be a different Bill O’Reilly.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 15, 2016 8:01 PM
Comment #405338
The best thing would be for the left, phx8, Warren Porter, Rich, Speak4all, j2t2, would be to consider the possibility they may be wrong!

Weary, I would suggest both sides of the gun issue are wrong.Conservatives with all the phony “gun facts” and the absurd response to-“A revolver is a tool for stopping crimes. An AR-15 is not.””Would you want to try breaking into my house knowing I had an AR-15?”
TDobson would you want to try breaking into my house knowing I had a shotgun, .45cal handgun, a tank, an armed biker gang deranged on meth looking for someone to kill? The arms race isn’t the answer guys. Answering a question with a question isn’t an answer either.

Or .. oh man the list goes on as I read, I guess my current favorite for absurd denial of reality is the high capacity magazine justification. The one where “removing all of them from circulation, then cutting off the manufacture of their replacements, will be a thousand times more difficult then getting rid of banned drugs.” This is why we have a violent society we cannot reason beyond out a**es. You guys tell us how so many law abiding citizens have guns yet tell us these same law abiding citizens would become criminals were high capacity magazine outlawed!

I could go on but… oh hell…lets have a laugh at the AR-15 argument conservatives like to use….”or AR 15 Semi Auto for in home protection.” Come on guys an AR -15 for home protection! DO I even have to explain why this is so laughable? Who you defending it from a platoon of soldiers? Or the banning AR-15 wouldn’t stop mass murders! Australia guys! it worked in Australia, so much foolishness so little time.

Anyway with these foolish statements conservatives do not deserve to have any gun rights or weapons that have sharp edges they have demonstrated their inability to reason and have intelligent thought.

Now as far as I am concerned Weary I stand by previous position on the gun issue. IMHO it should be mandatory for all Americans to carry weapons, all Americans or no Americans. We are unable to have a middle ground or get rid of guns altogether so every American should be armed. This kinda matches most conservatives except I include any felon who is out of jail in this requirement. I figure why not they need to be able to defend themselves along with the rest of us. But speaking of matching conservatives this is where I stop matching conservatives because of these ridiculous memes y’all keep using to justify yourselves. Not one holds water nor do they need to for the fact of the matter is y’all are just marching lockstep with the leaders of this country.

The leaders that get the laws passed by Congress and the president, the oligarchy. The gun lobby is part of the leadership and you guys buy into it with all the nonsense you have spouted as you defend the citizens arms race in this country, Tools for the fascist leaders IMHO.

SO how do I differ from you and your conservative friends Weary? Well for starters I don’t use those foolish arguments y’all think are valid. I don’t attempt to justify the reason I want to defend myself and my loved ones and the guys down the street and well anybody I damn well choose to defend. I know this foolish private arms race is wrong but it is happening and the average American cannot get any laws passed to stop it. I am practical Weary I would prefer we progressed as a country nor regressed as we have since the Reagan revolution.

I am appalled that out of 350 in this nightclub not one person can return fire while this bozo shoots a 100 people. IMHO the ownership, the management and the bouncers should be strung up in front of the club and shot. No trial no questions just armed mob retaliation. I mean no one could muster a knife to throw, a Saturday night special to return fire, nothing in a night club in Florida for crying out loud! You would think these guys didn’t have access to any information from the last 20 years, the how many mass shootings, how many murders, the lax enforcement by the Florida legal system when it comes to shooting people in the state. Did they honestly believe the police would defend them! Not their job this isn’t the fifties this is conservative America of today.

Had they had mandatory carry as I support the guy would have been dead long before he got to 100. It is the times we live guys and we need to face it, we are a third world nation, well we act like one at least. And with globalization still lowering wages and making it harder for most Americans it will only get worse. The liberal battle for peace and acceptance is lost and it is time to arm ourselves and defend ourselves from other Americans.

It makes no difference if this guy is a “terrorist” or not, should the no fly no guns thing take off maybe the whole terrorist thing will blow up in the faces of all of us. The whole gun issue will keep taking away our rights as we all become terrorist but hey we have the weapons(ya right) to fight the military and law enforcement as citizens right? I still think Bin Laden won and the American people lost.


Posted by: j2t2 at June 15, 2016 9:17 PM
Comment #405339
A person can’t be to sure about that.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you and I are not important enough to be assassinated. Unless we have made personal enemies with a violent person, nobody else really gives a damn as to whether we are alive are dead. Statistics bear this out. The vast majority of home invasions have robbery as a motive.

You don’t know if the thief is packing a gun or blade, now do you Warped
For the purpose of this thought experiment, I have always been assuming that the thief is armed. However, the possession of a weapon does not mean a thief actually intends to use it to kill. Rather, many thieves use firearms to coerce their victims into handing over private property that may be hidden. Sure, the thief may decide to fire the weapon if confronted with an armed and hostile would-be victim, but that is a separate matter. At that point, the thief is defending his own life, not caring out an assassination.
quote textYou can state stats but when it happens to you stats don’t matter.

In the grand scheme of things, my life is not any more important than anyone else’s life. I would gladly sacrifice my own in order to save many others. To do otherwise, would be incredibly selfish. This is why statistics matter and worst case “what if” hypothetical scenarios do not.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 15, 2016 9:34 PM
Comment #405340
the ownership, the management and the bouncers
There’s something that doesn’t make sense about this story. All clubs have security. This one had an off duty OPD, so how did this guy get past with a rifle. Posted by: ohrealy at June 15, 2016 9:41 PM
Comment #405341

Warped, I may or you may not be important enough for a thief to kill, but being found in the act he/she may also fear for their lives and try to kill you or me. So if you are willing to take that chance of being killed by that thief you think will not kill you go right ahead and think that way and become a statistic.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 15, 2016 9:47 PM
Comment #405345

ohrealy

“Well regulated” means well trained in the use of arms, not regulated by the gov’t. The framers not only wanted citizens to be well armed, but also efficient in their use.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 5:38 AM
Comment #405346

“Deparately Wednesday, the National Rifle Association reiterated its support for a bill from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would let the government delay firearms sales to suspected terrorists for up to 72 hours. Prosecutors would have to persuade a judge to block the transaction permanently, a bar Democrats and gun control activists say is too high.”

Sounds like democrats don’t want the govt to have to prove their case bafore denying someone their rights. Leaves to much room for abuse.

If they can’t use it to further their agenda they’re not interested in a solution.

Posted by: .dbs at June 16, 2016 7:20 AM
Comment #405348

I am a former gun owner but have lived gun free for over 35 years and will continue to do so. Good luck getting me to be “well armed”, let alone being “efficient in their use”. Not gonna happen.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 16, 2016 9:45 AM
Comment #405349

Small step towards a rational approach.

More of this will be coming. We will continue to chip away at the idea that nothing can be accomplished to help stem the gun violence that has besieged or country. As a country, we can and will do something until the eventual occurs and the 2nd Amendment, as it stands today, will be re-written in order to serve it’s citizens in the 21st Century and beyond.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 16, 2016 9:51 AM
Comment #405350

Speaks

That’s your choice. But not your choice to make for others.

If you want to change the constitution you’ll have to do it through the amendment process.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 9:56 AM
Comment #405352

And that is the hope that I have that we can accomplish(amending the constitution). You have your choices and I have mine. Our legislation needs to be re-written to respect each of our contentions. I cannot and will not attempt to define that but will continue to support a more thorough and rational approach to the guns that are available today that were not available in the 18th century. It is my hope that this can be accomplished to both of our satisfaction, but it won’t be easy and it will not happen at break neck speed.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 16, 2016 10:27 AM
Comment #405358
being found in the act he/she may also fear for their lives and try to kill you or me

Exactly why I recommend shooting him with that .22 revolver.

being found in the act he/she may also fear for their lives and try to kill you or me

Yes, I already have and will do so again. I was threatened by a wannabe mugger in New York who was armed. I told him I had nothing of value so shooting me wasn’t worth his time. He did the math and decided to run away.

Sounds like democrats don’t want the govt to have to prove their case bafore denying someone their rights. Leaves to much room for abuse.
If someone has been forbidden from flying, their rights have already been denied. Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 12:16 PM
Comment #405362

Warren

A 22 revolver is not an effective defensive tool. Would you suggest law enforcement also be limited to this obsolete weapon ? Before you tell us what is sufficient as a fighting implement, you should first have some knowledge in that arena.

Flying on an airplane is not a right, and if it was, it should not be taken away without due process.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 12:41 PM
Comment #405364

Law Enforcement are armed for reasons other than self-defense. There is no comparison.

Flying on an airplane is not a right
Wrong.

I agree that due process needs to play a fundamental role in abridging anyone’s right to travel. However, I see zero reason to treat traveling by air more strictly than buying firearms.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 1:03 PM
Comment #405365

Why should someone defending there life be any different. When someone is trying to kill or maime you, there’s no difference.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 1:13 PM
Comment #405366

Warped, You were lucky the first time with a mugger, but you may not be the second time. As far as using a .22, I will as long as it is the .22 on steroids an AR 15.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 16, 2016 1:16 PM
Comment #405367

A fight for your life is a fight for your whether you’re a cop, an soldier, or a civilian. You should use the best tool available for the job.

And a 223/556 is a much more effective round than a 22LR. That goes for most centerfire pistol cartridges as well.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 1:36 PM
Comment #405368

Law enforcement are supposed to apprehend violent criminals. This means they have weapons for offensive as well as defensive purposes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 1:41 PM
Comment #405369

I will also add running away is not an option for law enforcement, but it is a valid method for the civilian to save his life.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 1:47 PM
Comment #405370

Offensive, defensive, makes no difference. A fight for your life against a violent attacker is just thst, no matter what the circumstances.

In the public de escalation and or evasion is always the better option if avaible. But that isn’t always the case. A violent attacker is a violent attacker regardless of who is being attacked.

A police officers life is no more important the yours mine or the elderly lady down the street.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 1:58 PM
Comment #405372

Officers are not merely fighting for their lives. They are fighting to apprehend a criminal. If a violent felon attempts to flee, it is the officer’s duty to pursue him. Civilians never have that obligation. This is why officers use different tools than the rest of us.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 2:17 PM
Comment #405374

Warren

Circumstances are different, but a fight is a fight. The best tool is the best tool. That’s it. A violent altercation is a violent altercation. The only difference is the rules of engagement. The tools don’t change.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 2:34 PM
Comment #405375

Different rules of engagement mean different tools. This is fundamental.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 2:54 PM
Comment #405380

Warped, there are no different rules of engagement. Police, or Military all have all the tools at the ready for whatever happens.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 16, 2016 3:11 PM
Comment #405383

Civilians do not pursue and apprehend criminals. This is a fundamentally different rule of engagement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 3:47 PM
Comment #405385

Warped, Civilians do not have a rule of engagement, unless you consider shoot first ask questions later as a rule of engagement.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 16, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #405386

warren

“Different rules of engagement mean different tools. This is fundamental.”

Sorry, but that is false.

“Civilians do not pursue and apprehend criminals.”

No, but The criminals that attack civilians, are no less dangerous, and many cases are one in the same. It’s better to have more gun than you need, then need more gun then you have. A 22 revolver IS terribly inadequate as a fighting tool. It lacks capacity, as well as the energy to reliably stop a violent attacker, and if there is more than one, sorry for your luck.

I train professionally every year, with instructors that are LEOs, and ex military personnel, and they would tell you just how wrong you are. I run between 3000 and 4000 rds through the gun I carry every year between training and practice. What you are suggesting would cause many innocent people their lives. I suggest you refrain from making recommendations to friends and family when it comes to choosing a defensive firearm.

These are 2 of the companies I choose to train with.


http://www.icetraining.us/index.html

https://www.gunteachers.com/

I suggest you educate yourself on this subject before continuing this conversation. At least as pertains to self defense.

Posted by: dbs at June 16, 2016 4:17 PM
Comment #405391

In Counter-Strike, the game I play most often, one of the things they do to “nerf” a weapon, besides reducing its damage, its penetration value, or its fire rate, is to reduce its magazine size. Reloads in the game are automated once you push the button, and typically take just two or three seconds.

If somebody comes upon you while you’re switching out that magazine, you practically have to dance like Fred Astaire to avoid getting killed. You can wait for the reload to finish, take out your other weapon (and hope it’s loaded), take out your knife (a viable weapon if you’re close enough,) But all options take time, during which an opponent with a loaded weapon (or even a knife) can kill you.

This is not a perfect analogy to real life, but in real life, a guy in the middle of a reload of their weapon would also be at a loss to fire it, so the delay in real life would function similarly to the game, and actually has in a number of cases (the guy is tackled or shot while trying to reload)

So, if you show me a video of somebody quickly reloading a weapon, lovely. One breakdown of the analogy between the game and real life is that as long as the reload is not interrupted, every reload goes perfectly. No fumbling, no misalignment. Perfect reload, every time, no training needed.

Try that in the dark, in a nightclub. A simple matter of ONE miscalculated reload can be a difference measured in dozens of lives.

What many of the gun rights advocates, with their arguments from perfection are missing is something really critical, something that the designers of the game I play constantly have to take into account.

See, they recently introduced a revolver, a powerful weapon, into the arsenal that players can choose from, can buy in the competitive rounds and just equip in deathmatch and other modes. It starts out, it’s RIDICULOUSLY powerful, ridiculously accurate, too. You can pinpoint somebody from across the map and kill them with one shot to the chest. It literally became the weapon everybody carried and it was freaking terrible. They had to reduce different stats on the gun in order to bring the game back into balance.

So, consider what the game designers have to deal with. Players can be armored or unarmored. Different guns have different impacts on armored players, and always greater impacts on unarmored. Different guns are accurate at different ranges, and importantly, lose that accuracy to a different degree as people move with those weapons. Each weapon has different base damage as well, some so weak you can unload an automatic burst at somebody’s head and only badly wound them when they’re armored.

What’s my point? Well, even if no one feature or part of the gun perfectly disables its lethality if we remove it, if we ban certain features, certain levels of power and penetration in ammunition, etc., we can reduce the lethal power of that weapon. Additionally, if we put enough impediments to a bad guy getting a gun, or legally carrying one around, we might be able to slow, stop, or discourage their use of the weapon.

I don’t think the fact that we can’t make their violence or their attainment of a weapon impossible is a good argument against making that violence and that attainment more unlikely, less catastrophic when it occurs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2016 7:05 PM
Comment #405394
instructors that are LEOs, and ex military personnel

For the umpteenth time. Law Enforcement and soldiers experience different conditions and responsibilities than civilians. Civilians don’t pursue armed men like soldiers and police do. Tools that assist in that pursuit (such as high capacity magazines and higher caliber rounds) are of little benefit when in a purely defensive situation.


It lacks capacity, as well as the energy to reliably stop a violent attacker

The circumstances in which a violent attacker would continue the attack despite being wounded by a .22 gunshot wound are few and far between. Unless you are being targeted for assassination, anything more than a .22 revolver provides only marginal benefit.

What you are suggesting would cause many innocent people their lives.
I agree. A .22 revolver, like any gun, is more likely to be used to kill either the gun’s owner or a loved one than any violent attacker.

By the way, do we have any anecdotes of people who lost their lives after wounding a violent attacker with a .22?
I searched but could not find any.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 7:53 PM
Comment #405395

Warped, For the umpteenth time a .22 is useless especially a pistol.
Stephen, Life is NOT a video game. When you have a real life experience tell us about it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 16, 2016 8:25 PM
Comment #405396

Any examples of people who have died because they erroneously believed a .22 revolver could protect them?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 8:35 PM
Comment #405397

Warped, NONE because only a blooming idiot would use a .22 for protection, using a .22 revolver even worse then a blooming idiot.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 16, 2016 8:42 PM
Comment #405398

KAP,

There is no shortage of idiots in the world. Show me an example of one who died because he thought a .22 revolver provided ample protection.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 16, 2016 9:07 PM
Comment #405399

Warped, I probably couldn’t find any examples of people killed using any caliber gun for protection. But using a .22 caliber rim fire cartridge which is prone to misfire may get you killed more times then say a .25 caliber center fire cartridge. But like I said only a blooming Idiot would use a .22 caliber revolver for protection.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 16, 2016 9:21 PM
Comment #405401

Rich KAPitan-
Yeah, you got me there, life isn’t a video game. Everything has to be literal, applicable without any kind of imagination applied to it.

Seriously, I admitted that there were significant differences, and then stated why I thought that those factors might not make the comparison false. Like game designers, gun designers have made design decisions with the weapons that allow those weapons to do or not do certain things. They design some bullets for police that stop within the person they’re shooting rather than exiting from them and hitting somebody else. They use subsonic rounds for certain weapons when they want the weapons to be quieter when they fire them.

What I’m saying is that there are classes of design elements we can simply say don’t belong on civilian weapons, which only enable these kinds of events.

We can make it to where there is that precious few seconds where the murderer can’t just continue to pull the trigger, but has to reload, has to risk fumbling with a magazine. We can make it to where to get this weapon, or at least this grade of weapon, he has to pass a background check that will take into account whether he’s raised certain red flags. We can make it to where he has to pay an extra sum of money, a tax, and register that assault weapon, so that he’s got some hesitation and exposure upon getting that weapon.

We don’t have to play this stupid game of saying, oh, if we can’t completely keep guns out of the hands of people we might as well try nothing at all. No, we can put reasonable filters in place that will allow a law-abiding citizen to pass that way, but not somebody we know already is at risk of committing a crime like this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 16, 2016 11:51 PM
Comment #405403

Stephen, I’m all for better background checks but I’m also for Concealed Carry. Although a bar is not the place to be carrying a gun at least one or more of the bartenders could have one behind the bar. The same for schools at least one or more security guards depending on the school size with a gun and yes strict background checks on those people. If we make things to hard for law abiding citizens then only criminals will have guns.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at June 17, 2016 12:48 AM
Comment #405404

warren

“high capacity magazines and higher caliber rounds) are of little benefit when in a purely defensive situation.”

WTF ! Actually they are, because they are more effective. You seem to think that there is a difference between a violent attack on a civilian and one on a police officer. There isn’t.


“The circumstances in which a violent attacker would continue the attack despite being wounded by a .22 gunshot wound are few and far between.”

Okay, now you’re just making shit up. This is absolutely retarded. Why would you not be prepared for the worst case scenario ?

“I agree. A .22 revolver, like any gun, is more likely to be used to kill either the gun’s owner or a loved one than any violent attacker.”

Again, more BS. I’m done’ here. I’ll continue tool keep the tools I think are appropriate for defense, which include a 9mm pistol, and an AR15, and you do what you need to do.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 5:10 AM
Comment #405405

Rich Kapitan-
In the countries where they have real gun control, it’s a rare criminal who actually has a gun. Why? Because they know if they’re stopped with that weapon, they’re going to jail, and they don’t want to make it that easy. Even the feared Yakuza in Japan don’t typically carry around a gun. While they are more likely to be the ones to break the rules by using it, they will be much more selective about when they break those rules, because they know it’s risky.

That’s why I think the gun rights lobby’s breaks down. It assumes that criminals and terrorists just walk between the raindrops, that they thwart the rules merrily while the rest of us grimly suffer under the tyranny of it.

No, they don’t. They have to worry about being snitched on, caught on surveillance, leaving evidence at the scene. They have police and sheriff departments, federal agencies and bureaus whose main job in life is to make theirs difficult.

dbs-
In the old days, people were satisfied with a good old fashion rifle, or shotgun, or revolver. Now we insist that we have to threaten our burglar or potential killer with a military semi-automatic rifle that was made to rival the Red Army’s main weapons, the AK-47. Sure, you can argue you’re well defended, that is, until somebody walks up to you in a public place, where you aren’t carrying around that rather bulky weapon, and uses it on you. Maybe you have that 9mm, maybe you don’t. But the first thing you have to overcome isn’t his firepower, but his element of surprise. Then you have to overcome your own body’s natural response to a genuinely dangerous situation, something even soldiers have trouble with. Oh, that, before he finds you and shoots you, or kills more people than you’d want.

Oh, it gets better: others might confuse you with a shooter, and shoot at you. They may have no better knowledge of who is doing the shooting than that.

This is not to say I wouldn’t be glad to see a gunman’s rampage cut short by a well-placed bullet by a well-trained marksman, which is part of the reason I wouldn’t be against the continued existence of the second amendment right to bear arms. I don’t just don’t believe in counting on that to keep these situations from getting out of control.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2016 7:31 AM
Comment #405406

Stephen

The likelyhood of being killed in a public place by a gunman are miniscule.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 8:12 AM
Comment #405407
You seem to think that there is a difference between a violent attack on a civilian and one on a police officer. There isn’t.

Is Claude Werner lying?

Another fact that many people haven’t considered is the difference between police and armed citizen gunfights. My friend Claude Werner often points out that when a criminal is involved in a gunfight with the police, the stakes are higher. The criminal knows that the cops won’t stop until he’s dead or in jail. That’s not true with a gunfight against an armed citizen. The armed citizen just wants a break in the fight. If he can cause the criminal to flee, he wins and stops shooting.

When criminals fight the police, they are likely to fight harder and take more rounds before giving up, because they know giving up equals a long prison sentence. Giving up and running away when fighting an armed citizen has no such negative consequences.

Okay, now you’re just making shit up.

No, I’m not:

In Claude’s lifetime study of defensive gun uses, he has yet to find a single case where an armed citizen was killed by a criminal after the criminal had taken at least one .22 round. In the case of civilian defensive gun usage, the criminal almost always flees after the first hit. I have been unable to find any gunfights that prove Claude wrong.

Prove Claude and I wrong. Cite me a single evidence of a civilian shot and killed by a criminal after successfully wounding said criminal with a .22 round. You can’t.

Why would you not be prepared for the worst case scenario ?
Why wouldn’t you stockpile aluminum foil hats to combat the worst case scenario whereby the Illuminati implement mass scale mind control? Posted by: Warren Porter at June 17, 2016 9:20 AM
Comment #405409
Again, more BS.

Typing the letters “B” and “S” doesn’t prove you right. Now matter what, you cannot dispute the basic fact that the average American gun is more likely to be used in a suicide than a justifiable homicide.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 17, 2016 9:49 AM
Comment #405411


My contention was not that the 22LR cannot be used, but that it is not the best choice. Being we don’t know what our fight will be like, it makes no sense to use a tool that is less than optimum.


“That’s the statistic that most .22 advocates choose to ignore. It’s the percentage of people who were not physically incapacitated after any number of rounds. It’s roughly three times higher with the .22 as compared to the service caliber cartridges.”

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/using-22-self-defense

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 10:12 AM
Comment #405414

“Typing the letters “B” and “S” doesn’t prove you right. Now matter what, you cannot dispute the basic fact that the average American gun is more likely to be used in a suicide than a justifiable homicide.”

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 17, 2016 9:49 AM

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 11:16 AM
Comment #405416

I’m completely opposed to any concealed carry. If we’re going to have people wandering around with guns, they should be out where anyone can see them, and of a sufficient size to be clearly visible.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 17, 2016 12:13 PM
Comment #405417

So the .22 versus the AR-15 in a home defense scenario is a no brainer. For most people waking up at home in the middle of the night to a strange set of noises that causes them to suspect an intruder the .22 is a much better choice. First of all hallways and corners make the AR-15 a bad choice. Secondly the AR-15 will go through a wall and into an innocent family member more so than a .22cal. Third if the strange set of noises turn out to be a family member or friend after you get a few rounds off the survival rate for the .22cal will be better for the family member or friend you just shot. And of course the most important the .22cal is much more accurate in the hands of the average person.

Of course there are other scenarios that may change the tune a bit, say your home is under assault by a platoon of extreme right wing fascist militia types wanting to tar and feather you and your family for your political beliefs an AR-15 would probably be the better choice. Of course just one AR-15 won’t due in a case like this but then you probably have one for each family member and drill in tactics as preparation for an armed assault. Well versed in cover fire and urban warfare the family unit can make it to the safe room and wait out the military style assault until other members of their political party can come to the family home and do battle with the militia hopefully freeing the family.

Carrying an AR-15 on the streets as opposed to a .22cal handgun is well lets say it reeks of “ammosexual”. SO once again on the streets the .22cal would be better for self defense unless you come across a street gang with semi-auto weapons.

I don’t know dbs lets hear why the AR-15 is the better choice for the average guy and home defense other than stopping power. BTW professionals use the .22cal for close range killing quite often why would they choose the .22cal if it wasn’t effective? The stopping power argument works for the well trained but for the regular Joe if you can’t hit the target with a .357 or .45 cal there is no stopping power. The AR-15 and it’s 5.56 ammo and close to full auto capabilities make it a military weapon so when laying down suppressive fire it is superior to the .22cal hand gun. But really dbs are you suggesting we try that at home?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 17, 2016 12:17 PM
Comment #405418

J2

For home the AR is a better choice, because it will stop more reliably. Overpenetrarion is aways a consideration, and that is why it should be considered before the need arises. If you have kids and neighbors angles, and back stops needs to be taken in to consideration.


Carrying an AR 15 on the street is asinine. For concealed carry a modern striker fired pistol chambered for 9mm is the best option.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 12:37 PM
Comment #405419

J2

Hallways and such are only a consideration if you need to retrieve children and such. Otherwise staying put calling the police and waiting for them is the best move. You DO NOT want to attempt to clear your house.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 12:39 PM
Comment #405420

Ohrealy

Criminals hide their guns anyway. Your fear of legal ccw holders is completely unfounded, and open carry makes no sense for a lot of reasons. I don’t believe it should be illegal, but it has too many disadvantages.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 1:04 PM
Comment #405423

J2

“The stopping power argument works for the well trained but for the regular Joe if you can’t hit the target with a .357 or .45 cal there is no stopping power”

Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that, and with a little training and practice neither do most people.


. “The AR-15 and it’s 5.56 ammo and close to full auto capabilities”

A gun either has a full auto capabity or it doesn’t. The AR15 on the civilian market doesn’t.there no such thing as”close to full auto”. An AR15 is semi auto, meaning one trigger press one round. That’s it.


“make it a military weapon so when laying down suppressive fire it is superior to the .22cal hand gun. But really dbs are you suggesting we try that at home?”


Actually that is not the roll of an m4/M16 that is the roll of a light machine gun, not an assault rifle.

I wield an AR15 in my house and make quicker hits on an attacker with less effort. That rifle is very easy for most people to run. There is also less risk of over penetration because the light 40 to 75gr bullet tends to tumble and shatter when it hits something like a wall stud or obstruction. At the same it carries more energy than a pistol cartridge and is very effective at stopping people. On the other hand a 9mm FMJ is much more likely to pass through multiple barriers. That is one reason a jhp is a better choice for defense. But I’ll stop here.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 3:49 PM
Comment #405425
it makes no sense to use a tool that is less than optimum.

If no one has ever died as a result of relying on a .22 for self protection, then the .22 is just as optimum a tool as those higher calibers.

It’s the percentage of people who were not physically incapacitated after any number of rounds.
Who cares if the criminal gets to run away after losing the gunfight?

Regarding guncite.com, the author initially makes a very poor refutation of the Kellerman study. Your author compares gun suicides with gun homicides and attempts to make a comparison with non-gun objects. Apparently, the non-gun objects fare even worse than the guns. However, this one of the purest examples of apples-to-oranges comparisons that I have seen. All this tells us is that non-gun objects are better at facilitating suicide than they are at facilitating self defense. Well duh! There are a plethora of objects that can assist suicide (prescription medication, belt/rope/string, etc), but none of them have any utility when it comes to self defense.

That said, the author does make a valid criticism. Just because a gun is more likely to facilitate the death of its owner (or the owner’s friends/family) than it is likely to justifiably kill a violent criminal does not mean keeping a gun handy to defend one’s life is a bad idea. This is because not every successful instance of defensive gun use (DGU) results in a justifiable homicide.

To make this claim, the author cites a study where it was determined that only a tiny fraction of instances of DGU involved a justifiable homicide. If we believe Gary Kleck’s study, which found 2 million annual DGU incidents, then that would indicate that a DGU is 4x more likely than suicide.

Now, Kleck’s survey has its critics, but I am going to take it at face value for now. With less than 500 justifiable homicides reported in 1993, this means that less than 0.025% of DGUs involve a “physical stop” of the assailant. Indeed, this justifies my claim that the .22 alone is able to prevent nearly all violent attacks by “psychological stop” alone. This means all talk of “stopping power” is a bunch of nonsense.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 17, 2016 4:04 PM
Comment #405426

Here’s another one, and there are plenty out there if you choose to look.


https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/papers-shade/StatisticalMisgivingsandLies.PDF


The flaws in Kellerman’s study can be summarized as:
ƒ No peer review
ƒ No release of raw data has ever been made
ƒ Sampling and bias errors
o 65% of subjects in subgroups were black
o Does not consider positive aspects of gun ownership by asking if a
weapon was used to frighten off an intruder, or if the homicides
were even justified (i.e. justifiable homicides by homeowner or
police). Kellerman merely asked: “ In this household where a
homicide was committed, was there a gun, any gun in the house?”
Kellerman intentionally limited his study group to cases where
people were murdered in their own homes.
3


“If no one has ever died as a result of relying on a .22 for self protection, then the .22 is just as optimum a tool as those higher calibers.”

That’s not actually what it means if you choose read the other information.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 4:51 PM
Comment #405427

dbs,

The paragraph you cite basically rehashes what I already acknowledge. If Kleck’s work is to be believed, the number of DGUs is orders of magnitude greater than the number of justified homicides. This means a gun is more likely to be used in a DGU than to be used to harm its owner or the owner’s loved ones.

I am not going to defend Kellerman’s specific methodology. The same conclusion can be reached merely by comparing the annual number of justified homicides with the annual number of gun-related suicides.

Again, I acknowledge that it is misleading to assume that the number of justified homicides is the same as the number of successful DGUs.

That’s not actually what it means if you choose read the other information.
Look, we can imagine and contrive scenarios where an AR-15 is more appropriate than a .22 all day. However, unless these things are actually happening to everyday citizens, then all this conjuring means nothing. Posted by: Warren Porter at June 17, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #405429
Your fear of legal ccw holders is completely unfounded
Whose afraid of legal holders? If they carry the gun visibly, they would be more likely to prevent crimes. Concealing it would only make it harder to use it if the need arises. I was in a store in Evanston today when someone walked in with a gun in a holster, and he wasn’t from the local PD. Fine by me.

I was on a bus by the airport one time with a shifty character who was unfamiliar with the route, which goes around some FAA buildings, where an armed security guard gets on the bus until it leaves the FAA area. This character, carrying a bag that said Kenwood Academy, immediately got off the bus and took off running.

What I don’t get is the pretzel logic of hiding behind the militia amendment to preserve the rights of mass murderers to kill the masses.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 17, 2016 6:33 PM
Comment #405433

ohrealy

Open carry is a personal choice. Not one I’d make. While it may be true that it could have some deterrent effect, the negatives IMO outweigh the positives.

1.The gun carried, and the method it’s carried should be appropriate for the context in which it’s carried. Not everyone is comfortable around guns, and I don’t see a point in upsetting people when there is no reason for it. There are places or times where it might be appropriate, but in most situations it’s not.

2. From a tactical standpoint it is a bad decision. No one needs to know that I’m carrying a gun, unless it is needed. Consider the situation where individuals have entered a business with the intention of robbing it, and these people have no reservations about taking human life. They are most likely concealing their weapons until they are ready to make their move. If they see someone openly carrying a gun, guess who gets it first?

3. It gives someone the opportunity to take from you.

Carrying concealed can present challenges, but practice will minimize them. IMO anyone who carries should get professional training and take the time to practice so that they are properly prepared to use it should the need arise.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 9:51 PM
Comment #405434

warren

Kellermans samples are not representative of the American population at large. I could get the same type of results by limiting my samples to a certain area of Chicago. That study was discredited years ago.

Posted by: dbs at June 17, 2016 9:59 PM
Comment #405435

I really don’t want to hear about scientific study when Republicans won’t even allow the CDC to do it. If you’re serious about doing actual science, don’t cripple research with federal dollars into the matter.

Also, though, it is incredibly hard to scientifically research impressions that one scared somebody away, especially since you’re relying on self-reporting in nearly all cases. If you need to scare somebody way, it may be no less effective to wield a baseball bat. Or it may be no less effective to have a rock-salt loaded shotgun instead. There needs to be real research to separate the wishful thinking from the hard fact. But Republicans are too scared of the results to let real science go on.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 17, 2016 10:11 PM
Comment #405437

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CATKBjsuyp0

Posted by: dbs at June 18, 2016 9:10 AM
Comment #405438

Charlotte Mecklenburg Police came to our office and gave us active shooter training about a year ago. Their training for the “hide” was more to screen yourself from the eyesight of the shooter and not try to hide in a closet, under a desk, or in a confined space. Your best chance of survival is if you can keep moving and stay out of the sight of the shooter. I guess in Orlando there were several people hiding in the bathroom and those ended up as the hostages. CMP then went over everything in a common office that could be used as a weapon: paperclips, scissors, pens, etc. The target is the shooter’s eyes and you fight for your life.


Posted by: George in SC at June 18, 2016 9:57 AM
Comment #405439
Kellermans samples are not representative of the American population at large. I could get the same type of results by limiting my samples to a certain area of Chicago. That study was discredited years ago.

Now, let’s make sure we keep things straight:

I did not cite Kellerman’s study when I made my original claim. In particular, Kellerman claims that gun ownership increases one’s risk of dying in a homicide. That is not something that I have claimed to be true and I will not defend Kellerman here. Repeatedly reminding me that one of Kellerman’s assertions is flawed does not going to help you disprove the other assertion.

Instead of reading Kellerman, my conclusion came from a glance at national statistics. There are many times more gun facilitated suicides than there are justifiable homicides. Thus, if a gun shoots someone, that someone is overwhelmingly likely to be its owner (or his or her loved one) and not an armed assailant. That said, I recognize the flaw in that statistic because there is no accounting of encounters which are remedied by a gun that doesn’t shoot anyone.

If we are to believe Kleck and assume that there were two million instances of DGU in 1993, this clearly indicates that actually shooting someone is an extremely rare use of a gun. Nearly all its self-protection value comes from psychological rather than physical stopping power. This means that criticizing a .22 revolver for its weaker stopping power is virtually meaningless.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 18, 2016 10:46 AM
Comment #405440

Regarding the messages from the Brevard Sheriff and Charlotte Mecklenburg Police, I wholeheartedly agree with any effort to teach people to resist criminals with any and all available tools. If hiding is not as useful as once thought, then it might need to be discouraged.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 18, 2016 11:13 AM
Comment #405454
A gun either has a full auto capabity or it doesn’t. The AR15 on the civilian market doesn’t.there no such thing as”close to full auto”. An AR15 is semi auto, meaning one trigger press one round. That’s it.

Oh come on dbs wouldn’t those bump fire gadgets qualify as almost full auto? They exist they are sold legally and they are as close to full auto as it gets.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 19, 2016 1:56 PM
Comment #405460

j2t2 the bump fire gadgets are just toys and no one would ever use one in life dependent situation. They look good online but that’s about it. In fact in the U.S. full auto used during the commission of a crime is very rare. The Hollywood bank robbery is the most obvious example, and during the ’80s the drug cartels would use Mac-10s to scare people. But “spraying” bullets is not a very good tactic and the reason the U.S. went with 3 burst fire on the M-16A2.

The “black gun” culture is something that I don’t relate to and I do think there should be concern there. You see them at the range with all of their tactical gear and picatiny rails full of accessories and for many this is their first gun experience. As a life long gun owner this is foreign stuff for me but that’s not the gun problem in U.S.


Posted by: George in SC at June 20, 2016 10:17 AM
Comment #405461
The “black gun” culture is something that I don’t relate to and I do think there should be concern there. You see them at the range with all of their tactical gear and picatiny rails full of accessories and for many this is their first gun experience. As a life long gun owner this is foreign stuff for me but that’s not the gun problem in U.S.

As an outsider, I’m really having trouble making the nuanced distinctions that you want me to. My impression is that a huge chunk of American gun culture puts a lot of value on the acquisition of the most “badass” weapons. People justify it by letting their imaginations run wild with the most implausible of fantasies, compelling them to purchase weapons with more and more firepower. We need to stop thinking of the guy with the AR-15 as the “coolest guy on the range” and start thinking about emphasizing guns with lower calibers and magazine capacities. Even if this isn’t something the government should be getting involved with, I think it would benefit all if pepole focused on buying the absolute minimum they need to protect themselves.

In fact in the U.S. full auto used during the commission of a crime is very rare.
Is this not a result of the severe restrictions placed upon civilian ownership of automatic weapons? Back in the prohibition era, automatic weapons were used a lot more often because it was legal for civilians to obtain them. Posted by: Warren Porter at June 20, 2016 10:43 AM
Comment #405463

Warren,

Black gun sales have increased three fold in the past 4 years but they are still a small portion of the overall gun sales. This USA Today article gives some estimates.


FBI Crime in the US 2012 is the latest full report but it gives a five year trend with regards to murder in the U.S.

All rifles (no sub category for black guns): 322
Blunt objects: 518
Hands, feet fists: 678
Knives: 1589

Now contrast all of those with handguns: 6,371

As I said black guns aren’t the problem; cut off everyone’s hands and feet and you would have a greater impact on murder in this country.

Posted by: George in SC at June 20, 2016 2:01 PM
Comment #405465

Even though they make up a small number of homicides overall, these rifles are the weapon of choice for nearly every mass shooting of late. I think the goal of the arms control movement ought to be on limiting the number of fatalities that result from a mass shooting event rather than attempting to reduce the number of such events.

As long as Americans are allowed to keep and bear arms, there’s nothing we can do to prevent an individual from buying a gun and using it to shoot his fellow man. In other words, there’s little the government can do to prevent most assassination attempts upon ordinary citizens. However, I still believe we can limit the carnage if we force these murderers to use weapons other than the AR-15, AK-47 or their variants.

For instance, about a day before the mass shooting at the Pulse, another man attempted a mass shooting at a meet & greet following a concert performed by Christina Grimmie. However, he was not armed with one of these rifles and ended up being tackled after only killing a single person. Arms control may not have been able to save Grimmie’s life, but it may have saved those of countless others.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 20, 2016 3:29 PM
Comment #405469

Actually Warren the No. 1 gun used in mass shootings is the 9mm semi-automatic pistol. Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/

Posted by: George in SC at June 20, 2016 10:02 PM
Comment #405472

Thank you for the source. It appears I might be wrong, but a better metric would be to count the fatalities caused by each type of gun rather than count the incidents. It may be that the AR-15 type guns are such better tools of murder that they cause more fatalities per incident than those 9mm handguns. Unfortunately, the pretty graphics created by the Washington Post prevent an easy tabulation.

Ultimately, it is likely impossible to impose any sort of control on those 9mm pistols. This probably precludes an arms reduction as we have seen in the rest of the modern civilized world, so our life of fear is here to stay. That said, I think America’s gun owners bear an ethical responsibility to change the conversation and culture around guns. I don’t mean removing what is certainly a great hobby for millions of Americans, but instead changing the emphasis from maximizing firepower toward avoiding those sorts of excesses.

Self-defense weapons experts should guide people to select the best tools to counter this situations that have a realistic chance of occurring. Fears about a 3 or more assassins breaking into a random person’s house is really overdone and does all a disservice. I believe that this sort of hysteria is partly to blame for the “black rifle” movement and it ruins the optics of the entire situation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 21, 2016 9:52 AM
Comment #405480

warren

“so our life of fear is here to stay”

Living in fear is your choice. Pretty silly when you consider your chance of being gunned down in a mass shooting are probably as likely as a home invasion robbery. Either way I’m gonna keep my guns.

You are a pacifist, or a sheep if like, and that’s okay. I wouldn’t expect you to understand what motivates other men, and women to be prepared to fight for their lives. Or to choose to possess tools you feel are extreme, and frightening. But it changes nothing. You live your life as you see fit and rely on others to protect you, and I will live mine as I see fit.

Posted by: dbs at June 21, 2016 6:13 PM
Comment #405481
Living in fear is your choice. Pretty silly when you consider your chance of being gunned down in a mass shooting are probably as likely as a home invasion robbery. Either way I’m gonna keep my guns.

If you want to burn thousands of your dollars reacting to your emotional distress, that’s your prerogative, but please don’t pretend you are acting in a rational manner.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 21, 2016 6:38 PM
Comment #405488

The irrational manner is not allowing our children to be educated about weapons. In the place of education the gun control crowd and the media have put fear. Demanding others share in that fear by denying them the ability to defend themselves or educate themselves and their children about weapons is what’s not rational.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 22, 2016 3:48 AM
Comment #405489

“If you want to burn thousands of your dollars”

It’s my money…. right ? LMAO ! Well at least we agree on something.

Posted by: dbs at June 22, 2016 5:18 AM
Comment #405492

It seems some would interpret concern as fear. These two words are not synonymous. Some of us have a concern for a homophobic person with latent homosexual tendencies and a professed revulsion of our social norms in obtaining a high powered weapon. Some of us have a concern for someone with avowed latent mistrust of any authority of our government that also have access to high powered weapons. This concern is not an expression of fear as much as it is a revulsion that these individuals cannot get the help needed for them to be productive contributors to our societal needs. It is unfortunate that we have been unable to identify and help these individuals. Expressions of the need to obviate the ability of said individuals to obtain high powered weapons only seem to drive these individuals into a hyper sense of fear that someone is going to deter them from obtaining the high powered weapons that then allow them to feel safe. It is our duty as citizens to attempt to address this problem and we will continue to do so in any way possible.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 22, 2016 9:29 AM
Comment #405494
That said, I think America’s gun owners bear an ethical responsibility to change the conversation and culture around guns.

Well said Warren and this goes with what I said before. There are certainly sub-cultures with regards to guns that I don’t understand and that give me concern. The black gun culture is one of them and that includes what it is about (tactical gear and military styled tactics) and who is predominately involved (many first time gun purchasers and have not grown up with guns). A nasty side effect of this culture is every time there is a notorious shooting these people seem to go buy more guns and accessories. This means through theft and illegal transfer more of these weapons will come into the hands of people looking to do ill will. I certainly would like to have a conversation about this problem but people on one side want to ban the guns and people on the other side want to proclaim an unrestricted right. Neither addresses the cultural problem nor the end results.

All that said, however, and not to minimize Orlando, Sandy Hook, and San Bernardino, in terms of the gun problem in the U.S. black guns are should not be the priority. Handguns being carried and unfortunately used by previously convicted felons, in blatant disregard for many state and federal laws, should be the main focus.

In Charlotte we had a shooting this past Christmas Eve inside a busy shopping mall. Daquan Westbrook was shot and killed by an off duty officer after he pulled a gun in a store and started shooting at a rival. Westbrook had previously served time for shooting a 12 year old and he was retaliating at the mall on behalf of his brother who was shot during Thanksgiving. When interviewed Westbrook’s parents said that they knew he had a gun on him for protection even though they also knew of his previous felons. After all, Westbrook’s rap video collection on Youtube was entitled “Convicted Felon with a Weapon.”

Watch a video of a celebration of Donkey Cartel’s life and music that was held about a month ago and especially around the 1:48 or so mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU32XsAbqWw

What are we teaching our children Warren? Note the parents videotaping their kids while they rap about killing other kids with Glocks and 223’s. Westbrook was 19 when he was killed and leaves behind a girlfriend and a baby; he was just a kid himself.


I have a convicted felon friend and the first thing I did when he was arrested was clear all of his guns from his house and sell them. I wish everyone would do the same. If they sell a gun they should do it through an FFL even if it costs you an extra $25. In that regard I have no problem with universal NICS as I think it’s well worth it to have a clear conscience on my gun sales that I didn’t sell it to a felon. It’s my feeling that universal NICS would have already passed had Feinstein not gone straight back to an assault weapons ban.

Then we have to do the tough thing and start locking up convicted felons with weapons instead of just recycling them. A mandatory five years in a federal pen in Colorado out with Larry Hoover would be good. We need a monitoring process that includes random searches and frisks of convicted felons and 10 years for their second offense. Building a federal prison just for this issue would be a far better use of our tax dollars than anything else we’ve tried with regards to gun control.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2016 10:50 AM
Comment #405495

GSC, thank you for a well thought out comment. Yes, we are divided on these issues and many, many more. Let’s just hope the quote “E pluribus unum” can still be attained today and for many more years to come. We must try. Thanks again.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 22, 2016 11:31 AM
Comment #405496

Agreed Speaks and that’s why I’m not a Trump supporter. I still believe in the our form of government and, as bad and as crooked as it is, it’s still the best deal on planet Earth. If this era of polarization doesn’t end soon maybe, but not yet…

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2016 12:26 PM
Comment #405497

Yes GSC, while our differences may be many, our similarities are more plentiful and forebode much more accomplishment. Polarization is something I have been recognizing as increasing since the early 1960’s. Perhaps it started well before then but it is exacerbated by the focus of our ability to communicate more quickly and efficiently since then, I believe. This leads to hotheaded and not well thought out responses to perceived problems between certain groups or individuals. I must admit I can easily fall into that myself and welcome any attempt to reflect on that.

Posted by: Speak4all at June 22, 2016 12:37 PM
Comment #405498

George in SC,

I agree with nearly all of what you say. The abundance of preexisting weaponry greatly limits any effort to restrict access to high capacity magazines or assault rifles, neither of which have much utility in a likely self-defense situation.

Do you think a symbolic “feel good” measure such as a federal ban (ineffective as it may be) would help force the conversation that we agree is sorely needed? Once people discover that a simple revolver is all they need to protect themselves, perhaps they will give up their aspirations for more deadly equipment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 22, 2016 1:42 PM
Comment #405508

Warren that was tried in the ’90s and for ten years did nothing to reduce the availability of any of this stuff. That’s why it sunseted.

In every state it is against the law for a felon to have possession of a firearm but in most cases it’s a slap on the wrist or served concurrently with something else. Under federal law it’s real time however. Unfortunately the federal law is used selectively and is therefore not much of a deterrent (and not too fair in my opinion). If States, however, announced then followed through with a harsh crack down you would see a lot of movement in the gun market with a lot of guns being sold by people who shouldn’t have them.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2016 4:16 PM
Comment #405513

The Brady Bill reduced mass shootings. It sunsetted for political reasons, not practical ones.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 22, 2016 5:32 PM
Comment #405517

Warren that’s got to be the worst evidence link I’ve ever seen.

First of all the Brady Bill centered around handguns and not assault weapons. It’s what gave us the NICS and didn’t sunset. Parts of it were challenged and deemed unconstitutional but the bill basically survives the day.

As for the Assault Weapons Ban in your link, even the writer’s friends in the comments couldn’t come up with a cause and effect. That’s because there was none. AWB dramatically flooded the U.S. with Norinco AK’s and SKS’s. Once the ban was in place the same AK was sold either as a pre-ban gun or as the MAK 90 (same gun without the evil pistol grip, bayonet, threads on the muzzle). All told the prices of the guns during the ban rose for the first couple of years and then dropped back to “dirt cheap” once supply caught up with demand.

As for magazines I bought several NATO surplus 20 round mags for my Browning in the late ’90s during the ban. I think they were $30 each.

Sorry it was just a piece of feel good legislation and did nothing. The only study that said it had an impact was done by the Brady Center and they grasped at straws.

Posted by: George in SC at June 22, 2016 9:33 PM
Comment #405518

Or perhaps the legislation’s symbolism affected the greater culture as I posited above?

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 22, 2016 10:17 PM
Post a comment