Open Carry and Stand Your Ground

[Moontanman]

If I felt my life was threatened at home I would prefer to be homeless someplace safe.

 

 

......seriously, if people were pointing guns at me and I was arming myself in response I would sacrifice whatever needed to be sacrificed and find a way out of that situation. What could be more important than safety?

 

 

Exterior motion lighting, bars on your windows n' doors, alarm systems, dogs, etc, etc are all effective crime prevention tools. None are free but neither are guns and ammunition. If I were convinced nothing could protect me other than a gun on my person while at home that would mean I was living someplace too dangerous. It would become my life's mission to not live there.

 

 

Well I no longer live there, two years now, I still have gun, it never gets handled or taken out for show, I think it's my right as a human being to have a defensive weapon. A shotgun is far more intimidating than a pistol, easier to aim and much less likely to go off in any condition that wasn't intentional and #5 pellets don't go through walls so the neighbors life is safe.

 

Everyone has to live where they can afford to live and eat pay power bills and such, many of those places are my range...

 

"in every case where the home owner was unarmed the home owners were abused or killed."

 

What's the percentage for cases where they were armed?

 

 

In all 6 cases in the last couple years the home owners had no weapons.

[Acme]

...

 

"in every case where the home owner was unarmed the home owners were abused or killed."

In all 6 cases in the last couple years the home owners had no weapons.

 

What MonDie is getting at is whether or not a gun in the home actually makes a person safer. The answer is no, a gun in a home puts the people there at a higher risk for death or injury by the firearm. Referring back to my earlier post #21 the myth of increased safety is debunked. While you may feel safer, you in fact are not safer. [Note each highlighted item links to a statistical analysis.]

 

 

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down: Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.

Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.

Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.

For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.

43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.

In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger. ...

[Ten oz]

Well I no longer live there, two years now, I still have gun, it never gets handled or taken out for show, I think it's my right as a human being to have a defensive weapon. A shotgun is far more intimidating than a pistol, easier to aim and much less likely to go off in any condition that wasn't intentional and #5 pellets don't go through walls so the neighbors life is safe.

 

Everyone has to live where they can afford to live and eat pay power bills and such, many of those places are my range...

 

 

If you no longer live there, unusually lawless and danger place, and today never handle you gun or take it out for show it woul seem you found a solution to your problem without needing your gun.

Self defense laws are already on the books. Self defense is everyone's right. Now one is saying different. Open carry and stand your ground laws are a different thing in my opinion. Once a person is armed they shouldn't confront, challange, intimidate, or otherwise harass anyone unless they are doing so to protect themselves or others from a clear physical threat. That means no putting a gun in the pocket and walking down the street to demand the kids on the corner turn their music down. When and if that situation escalates and the gun owner shoots an unarmed person in my opinion it is vigilantism, a crime. Let the cops handle it.

[Phi for All]

@ Phi,

 

I took it to mean that it's ironic because Moontanman said he happily keeps a loaded shotgun beside his bed, but the same guy thinks that it is borderline mental disorder to bring that same shotgun outside only yards away. It definitely displays a contradiction in feelings about gun use in a short post. It's okay to keep a loaded gun ready to kill in your home, but a mental disorder label is hoisted upon any who carry openly.

 

"Only yards away" is putting words in Moontanman's mouth. To clarify, "public" (as far as I can see, in the context of this thread) is being used to mean "on the streets", walking around with a gun in plain sight of many other citizens. Don't conflate "public" with "outside".

 

It's been my experience that more rural areas, where there's less law enforcement personnel, will lean more heavily on personal defense. Police in big cities would rather you rely on a more robust response time than try to defend your home with a firearm. We've only had one case in Denver in the last two years where someone was able to defend their home successfully with a personal firearm from an intruder. Sales of guns for personal protection continue to increase, but in reality, most of the break-ins occur and are over before anyone can get their gun out of the safe or wherever else they've hidden it.

[MonDie]

What MonDie is getting at is whether or not a gun in the home actually makes a person safer. The answer is no, a gun in a home puts the people there at a higher risk for death or injury by the firearm. Referring back to my earlier post #21 the myth of increased safety is debunked. While you may feel safer, you in fact are not safer. [Note each highlighted item links to a statistical analysis.]

 

 

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down: Fact-checking some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments shows they're full of holes.

I wish this person would actually provide quotes from their links. I'm reading the discussion sections and seeing a lot of correlations that could be explained in other ways.

 

 

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

Our findings document a very strong association between handgun purchase and subsequent gun suicide. There are few evidence based solutions to the problem of suicide. It would, for example, be difficult to screen potential gun buyers for suicide risk factors.7

In other words, maybe gun purchase is correlated with other suicide risk factors (like mental disorders).

They do however mention another study that probably gives a better case for this argument.

General restrictions on handgun ownership, on the other hand, have been found to reduce gun suicide rates without an increase in suicide by other means.22

The homicide correlation could merely reflect that people tend to buy guns when they're at a higher risk of homicide. For example, maybe gun buyers tend to live in places with more crime.

 

The quote below shows that some of the calculated hazard ratios for homicide were as low as 1.4. It would be nice to know the confidence intervals for the different hazard ratios. Assuming they're all equally confident, however, the lower hazard ratios might be due to sample differences, but they might be due to better experimental controls as well.

 

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong. Studies that have examined the risk of either violent victimization or perpetration at the individual level show relative risks between 1.4 and 2.7 (14, 20, 23, 24). Our findings are also in this range.

Edited June 25, 2014 by MonDie

[Acme]

I wish this person would actually provide quotes from their links. I'm reading the discussion sections and seeing a lot of correlations that could be explained in other ways.

Yes, but space is always at a premium for a popular news source. They at least provided sources.

 

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

In other words, maybe ...

Those are all valid observations and anyone interested in pursuing them has at least a starting point.

[marty dabney]

A few things puzzle me about these statistics. If the NRA has done such a good job of covering up the real data where did mother Jones get their data.im not disputing all of the figures just yet but the day isn't over.one example is the myth about an armed society being a polite society. Where did the author get his numbers from.how can they say that you are 44 percent more likely to use an obscene gesture and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.? Those aren't law breaking offenses that would be under any statistic so where did the numbers come from.

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

 

 

 

 

[Acme]

A few things puzzle me about these statistics. If the NRA has done such a good job of covering up the real data where did mother Jones get their data.im not disputing all of the figures just yet but the day isn't over.one example is the myth about an armed society being a polite society. Where did the author get his numbers from.how can they say that you are 44 percent more likely to use an obscene gesture and 77 percent more likely to follow them aggressively.? Those aren't law breaking offenses that would be under any statistic so where did the numbers come from.

The links are embedded in the article; they are the underlined terms. Hover your cursor over them and click to go to the source.

[marty dabney]

Thanks.i clicked the underlined 44 percent but the numbers don't add up.the article said 44 percent more likely to use obscene gestures but the study only said 17.also, the article said 77 percent more likely to follow aggressively but the study said only 9 percent.maybe I miss read?

The links are embedded in the article; they are the underlined terms. Hover your cursor over them and click to go to the source.

Edited June 25, 2014 by marty dabney

[Acme]

Thanks.i clicked the underlined 44 percent but the numbers don't add up.the article said 44 percent more likely to use obscene gestures but the study only said 17.also, the article said 77 percent more likely to follow aggressively but the study said only 9 percent.maybe I miss read?

The 17% is all drivers who said they made obscene gestures. The MotherJones link -Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage has another link to the full study which is presumably where the 44% is and presumably it means 44% of armed drivers. Unfortunately that study is pay-only. >> Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage

 

The 77% is referring to 77% of drivers who have guns being more likely to follow aggressively, and again this statistic is likely in the pay-only full version of the study.

[John Cuthber]

Thanks.i clicked the underlined 44 percent but the numbers don't add up.the article said 44 percent more likely to use obscene gestures but the study only said 17.also, the article said 77 percent more likely to follow aggressively but the study said only 9 percent.maybe I miss read?

I don't have access to the full article.

I have looked at excerpts from it like this one

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/youth-and-guns/

It says

"We found that 17% of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year,..."

Now, it's possible that the rest of the article says something like

" we asked 100 people.

17 said they made gestures.

Of those 100 people 75 were gun owners.

Of the gun owners, 14 made gestures.

and, of course, 3 of the non gun owners did.

So it's 14 out of 75 vs 3 out of 25

19% vs 12%

That (entirely made up, but illustrative) data would show that gun owners are 58% more likely to make rude gestures, even though only 17% of the whole survey group made them.

[MonDie]

I want to see a study that compares the outcomes of home invasions for gun-owning and gunless victims.

[Acme]

I want to see a study that compares the outcomes of home invasions for gun-owning and gunless victims.

Have you looked for such a study?

[Moontanman]

If you no longer live there, unusually lawless and danger place, and today never handle you gun or take it out for show it woul seem you found a solution to your problem without needing your gun.

Self defense laws are already on the books. Self defense is everyone's right. Now one is saying different. Open carry and stand your ground laws are a different thing in my opinion. Once a person is armed they shouldn't confront, challange, intimidate, or otherwise harass anyone unless they are doing so to protect themselves or others from a clear physical threat. That means no putting a gun in the pocket and walking down the street to demand the kids on the corner turn their music down. When and if that situation escalates and the gun owner shoots an unarmed person in my opinion it is vigilantism, a crime. Let the cops handle it.

 

 

You build such an elegant strawman or maybe a direct insult? I never said a gun is used to go next door and intimidate someone. In fact I said quite the opposite. But it is still a fact that calling the police results in an investigation after the fact not in prevention of the crime.

 

I have dogs, they have discouraged trespassers many times, I still do not understand how you can equate me with ammosexuals,

 

Just kidding, i am well aware of the contradictions in my views on this but as I have said I grew up with guns, hunting was away of life and having a gun at the door to defend your livestock and such from both animal and human marauders was necessary. Now days they are only useful for home defense and I have a shotgun which is also quite different than a pistol or automatic assault weapons.

 

When people pull out pistols there is no telling if they can hit the ground with the weapon with out some reasonable training. Bullets go every where even at close range.

 

I don't think you can compare all guns together any more than you can compare all drugs as one.

[MonDie]

I still do not understand how you can equate me with ammosexuals,

 

Are you feeling ammorous?

[marty dabney]

thanks for the link to the full study though i' not paying to read it.this particular study just seems flawed along with several of the other facts.maybe the study did show that 44% of the gun owners polled showed aggressive behavior while driving but it doesn't say if having a gun was the reason behind it.to me it could say 44% of drivers with red trucks are most likely to speed which i feel would be just coincidental and not a valid statistic.myth number 4 is flawed as well with the fact that most of the mass shootings we have experienced have been in gun free zones.fact number 7 seems flawed as well.what the NRA means by making women safer is a woman owning a firearm herself and training to use it to prevent a crime against her.this study just says she is most likely to killed by her abuser if he has access to a gun but says nothing about what the numbers would be if she personally had a gun.

[Ten oz]

You build such an elegant strawman or maybe a direct insult? I never said a gun is used to go next door and intimidate someone. In fact I said quite the opposite. But it is still a fact that calling the police results in an investigation after the fact not in prevention of the crime.

 

I have dogs, they have discouraged trespassers many times, I still do not understand how you can equate me with ammosexuals,

 

Just kidding, i am well aware of the contradictions in my views on this but as I have said I grew up with guns, hunting was away of life and having a gun at the door to defend your livestock and such from both animal and human marauders was necessary. Now days they are only useful for home defense and I have a shotgun which is also quite different than a pistol or automatic assault weapons.

 

When people pull out pistols there is no telling if they can hit the ground with the weapon with out some reasonable training. Bullets go every where even at close range.

 

I don't think you can compare all guns together any more than you can compare all drugs as one.

 

My statements was directed at stand your ground laws. I was not looking to send a mild insult your way.

 

Self defense laws are already in place. Stand your down is just a silly addition that says an armed person has no responsibility to avoid trouble. I disagree with that. There is a thin line between not backing down and antagonizing. I think the Zimmerman case in Florida is an example of that. Zimmerman was standing his ground but many wonder if that ground he stood wasn't ground he had taken by confronting Trayvon? We will never know. Perhaps Trayvon attacked spontaneously or perhaps Zimmerman confronted and a fight followed. Either way in my opinion Zimmerman probably stays in his vehicle and waits for the police had he not been armed.

 

As for grouping all guns together I am not sure what you are referring to? I have not advocated for any type of gun ban in this thread.

[Moontanman]

My statements was directed at stand your ground laws. I was not looking to send a mild insult your way.

 

Self defense laws are already in place. Stand your down is just a silly addition that says an armed person has no responsibility to avoid trouble. I disagree with that. There is a thin line between not backing down and antagonizing. I think the Zimmerman case in Florida is an example of that. Zimmerman was standing his ground but many wonder if that ground he stood wasn't ground he had taken by confronting Trayvon? We will never know. Perhaps Trayvon attacked spontaneously or perhaps Zimmerman confronted and a fight followed. Either way in my opinion Zimmerman probably stays in his vehicle and waits for the police had he not been armed.

 

As for grouping all guns together I am not sure what you are referring to? I have not advocated for any type of gun ban in this thread.

 

Obviously I was confused as to the OT

 

In my state even with an intruder you have to be unable to retreat or defending someone else who cannot retreat. No stand your ground, if you do fire a gun you better be able to convince the law that you were in immediate fear of your life or some one else is.

 

You cannot shoot someone over property, I cannot shoot someone who enters my yard to steal something but my dogs can eat his ass alive... Again no, you cannot seek your dogs on some who is trespassing either.

 

I think the gun laws here are relatively reasonable, I'd like to see gun licensing much like drivers license but there are simply too many pro people here to allow that to happen via popular vote.

 

Carrying a long gun inside the city limits is called going to the terror of the public and it is enforced.

 

I agree that stand your ground rules are insane, going looking for trouble like Zimmerman did is a sign of a mental disorder IMHO.

 

In this thread so far all guns have been considered the same, they are not

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

You are more likely to be killed by someone beating you to death with their hands than a shot gun...

Edited June 26, 2014 by Moontanman

[Ten oz]

@ Moontanman, I don't disagree with any of your last post.

[John Cuthber]

I want to see a study that compares the outcomes of home invasions for gun-owning and gunless victims.

Why?

What would it tell you?

[dimreepr]

The only thing this, and other, similar threads have convinced me of, is that guns are inherently dangerous and not always to the other guy.

[Moontanman]

Why?

What would it tell you?

 

 

There was a rash of home invasions several years ago where people who did not own guns were targeted. It turned out the perpetrators knew the victims and were aware they had no guns in their house.

[John Cuthber]

That's interesting, but it's not information that would be provided by the study which MonDie sought.

[Moontanman]

That's interesting, but it's not information that would be provided by the study which MonDie sought.

 

 

I understand that, it was just random info.

[Phi for All]

Carrying a long gun inside the city limits is called going to the terror of the public and it is enforced.

 

Actually, the way Going Armed to the Terror of the Public is written, I'm not sure your normal shotguns and rifles are covered. The word "dangerous" could cover a multitude of weapons, including a sword worn on the hip. The word "unusual", while also applicable to my sword, doesn't seem to describe most shotguns or rifles. Perhaps the unusual bit was added to cover extended magazines.

 

I'm guessing it's pretty difficult to determine if someone who walks down the street with a shotgun in the crook of his arm is doing it for protection or to terrorize his fellow citizens. Do you have to point a weapon at someone for them to be terrified that you're carrying it around in public?