NYT - Is This Really How You Get Your Gun?

[texas_ex2000]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

First, I am not debating the merits of or arguing for or against the campus carry decision. I want to discuss Mr. Stone's "I'm terrible with guns, know almost nothing about them, yet I got a license!" thesis. And Zach, if you post here on Hornfans, we would like to hear from you.

One of these challenges lies in ensuring that license holders are actually responsible. While Republicans swear by their regulatory scheme, Democrats point out that it takes more training to become a manicurist than to carry a Smith & Wesson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Three states have unregulated conceal carry. Vermont (50th in gun homicides 0.3 per 100k capita), Alaska (25th in gun homicides 2.7 per 100k capita), and Arizona (11th in gun homicides 3.6 per 100k capita). For comparison DC, while not a state but still counted in the statistics, leads the nation in gun homicides per capita at 16.5 while having less than 50 conceal carry holders, a 3.6% gun ownership, and more law enforcement presence than most western nations. Illionois, which completely prohibits conceal carry, has a 2.8 gun homicde rate and is higher than both Alaska and Vermont. Vermont, 42% gun ownership and has the least restrictive conceal carry laws and is effectively the safest place in the United States.

The point is that "regulations/certifications" are simply riders to make conceal carry politically digestable. If you think any kind of certification issued by the government for anything means anything (how much more likely are you to be a vicitim of a distracted driver nowadays even though they've all passed their driving test) you're very niave. I guess I could give Mr. Stone a pass since he's still in that blissful college student stage.

I’ve lived in Texas all my life, but I’d never touched a gun — they actually scare me.

His entire editorial is the definition of selection bias. First, whatever your politics on guns may be, the fact he's lived in Texas his entire life and never even touched a gun signals to the reader that he lacks the ability to empahthize with other positions/ideas/people outside his little social circle - something that supports the credibility in any editorialist. Second, while some people applying for CCL may be relatively new to guns, they most likely are a small minority. And they certainly are not a president of "UT Students Against Guns on Campus" about to write an editorial for the NY Times about how unsafe conceal carry is.

“Fire!”

I shot. The gun flew back. My neighbors each hit the center, but I missed a foot too high.

“Fire!”

I didn’t realize I’d have to shoot again so soon. I hadn’t taught myself how to aim yet, and I wanted a few seconds to learn from the first shot. I also hadn’t learned how to deal with the recoil. Anxiously, I pointed and shot — a few seconds after my neighbors. I still missed.

That’s when the instructor yelled at me. “You need to line up your sights!” I had no idea what that meant. He explained that for me to aim properly the dot at the front of the gun needed to be inside the post at the back of the gun.

That was remarkably useful information.

“Fire!”

My next shot hit the center “X.”

Wow, you're soooo incompetent, yet:

To pass, you need 175 out of 250 points. If you fail, you get two more chances. I did pretty well in the end — I got 216 points.

Which brings me to his thesis, the very last sentence:

“Given that the system allows me — lacking firearm experience — to get a license, would you be comfortable if we sat with each other in class, upon learning I’m secretly carrying a gun?”

He passed the shooting portion, by his own admission he did well, he passed the written exam at 100% meaning he confirmed his understanding of the responsiblities of a CCL, and presumably if he passes the background check, he is not a criminal. Considering part of of the responsiblity of a CCL is to continue to practice, from an experience standpoint why wouldn't someone feel comfortable with him having a CCL?

We give 16 year olds much more responsibilty driving machines weighing several tons that can travel 100mph+ and kill dozens of people instantly without second thought. It's a free world and life isn't about wrapping ourselves in protective bubble wrap and storing ourselves in the china cabinet.

 

[Horns11]

We give 16 year olds much more responsibilty driving machines weighing several tons that can travel 100mph+ and kill dozens of people instantly without second thought.

Hence the gist of his editorial. He's saying that he passed a test in which he was basically fed all of the answers in about 5 minutes, and blew some of his field test shots poorly, yet is allowed the same privilege to carry as a crack shot.

16-year-olds have to go through at least 6 months of permit-carrying and pass a driving test that includes "auto fails" for things like hitting curbs and not checking blind spots. I'd say Zach's experience getting his CCL is probably not the norm, but drivers definitely have some loftier hoops to jump through. And, you know, the general idea of getting a driver's license isn't so that you can destroy targets with a car, or protect your family from an angry person with a car.

You're right about his editorial bias, but it is what it is: an editorial. I know we're never going to get rid of guns, but his takes on experience and "rights" are the types of issues that people should focus on in the gun debate. If neither side will concede that "guns on campus" is a good or bad idea, then try to meet to discuss the undiscussable: why there should be some norms in place rather than a free-for-all.

The point is that "regulations/certifications" are simply riders to make conceal carry politically digestable

Well then maybe it shouldn't be that way. If there are laws in place that basically do jack **** to prevent literally anyone from getting a gun, then why not discuss why they should change? If the goal of gun laws is to "appeal to Democrats but allow Republicans to continue their gun agenda," then does that warrant a discussion? You make it sound like Zach should have known all along that that's the purpose of getting licensed for anything.

He passed the shooting portion, by his own admission he did well, he passed the written exam at 100% meaning he confirmed his understanding of the responsiblities of a CCL, and presumably if he passes the background check, he is not a criminal. Considering part of of the responsiblity of a CCL is to continue to practice, from an experience standpoint why wouldn't someone feel comfortable with him having a CCL?

Guess you missed the parts where he talked about what the instructor said to get them to pass the written portion and his "relative" difficulty with the field test. He's saying that anyone could have done what he did. And that's kind of the scary part. If Zach was just "anyone" in class next to you in chemistry, and he had a bad day, I don't think fellow classmates would be worrying about how well he scored on the written and field portions of the CCL process.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Does anyone else imagine spaghetti western movies come to life when they hear pro-gun advocates push the "we'd be safer if everyone carried a gun" agenda?

Was the Wild Wild West (1781 - 1912) considered a really safe time period?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Hence the gist of his editorial. He's saying that he passed a test in which he was basically fed all of the answers in about 5 minutes, and blew some of his field test shots poorly, yet is allowed the same privilege to carry as a crack shot.

16-year-olds have to go through at least 6 months of permit-carrying and pass a driving test that includes "auto fails" for things like hitting curbs and not checking blind spots. I'd say Zach's experience getting his CCL is probably not the norm, but drivers definitely have some loftier hoops to jump through. And, you know, the general idea of getting a driver's license isn't so that you can destroy targets with a car, or protect your family from an angry person with a car.

Driving a car is 100x more complex than defending yourself with a gun. There are dozens of different right of way laws, several types of high-speed curves one has to learn to negotiate safely, there are multiple parking scenarios, the proper way to over take, change lanes, etc. etc.

You may try to make conceal carry complex, but it is not. You need to prove you understand where you are legally allowed to carry, how to carry safely, and when to use your gun. You also need to demonstrate that you can hit a target with your gun. For a woman who carries to defend herself against a would be rapist, that is all she needs to know. She does not need to know how to operate a pistol with a different action from the one she's chosen to carry. She does not need to know how to do a one handed clearing drill. She does not need to have the same level of expertise or marksmanship as a Texas Ranger or a Marine sniper.

If Zach ever had friends or families with guns or learned about them, he wouldn't ask the ridiculous "I’m a Responsible Gun Owner? Seriously?"

Well then maybe it shouldn't be that way.

I agree. We should follow Vermont's lead. It works for them. THEY HAVE THE LOWEST GUN HOMICIDE RATE IN THE COUNTRY.

Guess you missed the parts where he talked about what the instructor said to get them to pass the written portion. He's saying that anyone could have done what he did

Again, it's not complex. It's a natural right that every human being has. Every adult, quite frankly, is capable of understanding how and when to use a gun for self-defense and should be able to do it in practice. You believe in science right? Evolution? You do know that you are here because your ancestors fought for their survival everyday using lethal force?

Guns aren't just for FBI agents or Navy SEALs. They are for women, old people, handicapped people, people that live in rural areas, people that live in high crime urban areas, black people, gay people, straight people, muslims, jews, christians, business owners, home owners, rich people, poor people, parents, people that live by themselves, shooting/history/firearms enthusiasts, people that just want something to defend themselves with, etc., etc., etc.

If Zach was just "anyone" in class next to you in chemistry, and he had a bad day, I don't think fellow classmates would be worrying about how well he scored on the written and field portions of the CCL process.

So you're taking about potential mental health problems? I think you're a closet NRA member..we should be focusing on mental health. The best defense in that situation is another CCL, because police are at best 5 mins away. And the police have had a really good year in the press.

Does anyone else imagine spaghetti western movies come to life when they hear pro-gun advocates push the "we'd be safer if everyone carried a gun" agenda?

Was the Wild Wild West (1781 - 1912) considered a really safe time period?

If you were white, it was pretty safe. If you were black or Native American and weren't allowed to have guns, you were pretty much f

 

[texas_ex2000]

BTW, I mistaken said there are 3 states with Constitutional Carry. That is incorrect. In addition to Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona those really dangerous gun homicide states of Arkansas (3.3 GHPC 55% GO), Kansas (2.2 GHPC 42% GO), Maine (0.8 GHPC 41% GO), and Wyoming (0.9 DHPC 60% GO) also have permitless conceal carry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#U.S._States_that_have_constitutional_carry

 

[Seattle Husker]

BTW, I mistaken said there are 3 states with Constitutional Carry. That is incorrect. In addition to Alaska, Vermont, and Arizona those really dangerous gun homicide states of Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and Wyoming also have permitless conceal carry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#U.S._States_that_have_constitutional_carry

Coincidence that they are some of the most sparsely populated states with higher ratios of rural living?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Coincidence that they are some of the most sparsely populated states with higher ratios of rural living?

Are you suggesting that, clutch you pearls, it's not really guns that drive gun homicides?

We may be on to something!


SH, here's some research on homicide rates in the Wild West. Remember also that people all over the US, not just the Wild West, owned guns (except for black people).
https://cjrc.osu.edu/research/interdisciplinary/hvd/homicide-rates-american-west

 

[Seattle Husker]

As someone who grew up in rural Nebraska, I'm saying it's much harder to shoot someone when you know all your neighbors than in a densely populated city where everyone is foreign to each other.

I think you're neglecting one key point though. I'm not worried about a woman's ability to shoot a potential rapist. The bigger key is her ability to safely care for the gun when it's not in use. You are vastly underestimating the complexity of safely carrying and caring for a gun. Using the drivers license training analogy, evidently you don't feel defensive driving training is important either.

 

[texas_ex2000]

As someone who grew up in rural Nebraska, I'm saying it's much harder to shoot someone when you know all your neighbors than in a densely populated city where everyone is foreign to each other.

I think you're neglecting one key point though. I'm not worried about a woman's ability to shoot a potential rapist. The bigger key is her ability to safely care for the gun when it's not in use. You are vastly underestimating the complexity of safely carrying and caring for a gun. Using the drivers license training analogy, evidently you don't feel defensive driving training is important either.

A double action only revolver (e.g. Ruger LCR) requires hardly any maintenance. She cleans out the barrel, the cylinder, and oils it after the range. Taking care of shoes is more difficult. There are modern, safe, and reliable guns of every level of complexity a citizen desires.

And SH, your post sounds pretty sexist/mysogynistic. Unlike Zach who writes an editorial steaming pile, it's a very fair assumption that woman who decides to carry, probably the default assumption, takes that choice seriously and will approach maintenance of her sidearm with the same approach. I've never met a CCL who doesn't baby their gun. Maybe Zach should have interviewed his other CCL classmates to gauge their seriousness about their CCL and their decision to carry.

As someone who grew up in rural Nebraska, I'm saying it's much harder to shoot someone when you know all your neighbors than in a densely populated city where everyone is foreign to each other.

Again, I think you're on to something there.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Personally, I think that increasing the firearms proficiency requirements of carrying a gun is a perfectly fair point for debate. Nevertheless, these two snippets jumped out at me.

Hosting the university debate, I did my best to remain impartial.

Yeah, I'm sure you did, Bro.

Zachary Stone is a senior at the University of Texas at Austin and a founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus.

The CRs are dominated by dumb, spoiled brats who are mainly in the group to establish political and business connections and build their resumes rather than to actually promote the conservative agenda. They're Republicans mainly because their parents are rich, go to church, and live in the suburbs, not because they have any grasp of conservatism. At least in Texas, they are a worthless organization, and this is indicative of their stupidity. How big of a brainless dumbfuck does one have to be to agree to debate a gun control issue with an anti-gun activist as the moderator????? Does anyone believe that the UDems would have agreed to let an NRA lobbyist or spokesman host the debate? That would be like Hillary Clinton agreeing to let Sean Hannity host the general election debates. I'll bet the UDems took a piss on their face in this debate.

 

[UTChE96]

The left-wing position on gun control may be their most annoying position of all. First, they continually distort statistics by including suicide as gun violence which is ignorant at best. Second, they ignore the failures of existing gun control laws of which they were huge proponents such as No gun zones, Paris is a utopian vision of gun control, and California has the strictest gun control laws in the country. Next, they continually ignore the reality that criminals do not follow the f'n law. Why is that simple concept so difficult for the left to understand. They seem to understand that concept when it comes to drug prohibition but completely miss it on gun control. And finally, they never explain how the new laws they proposed would help prevent incidents like we saw in San Bernadino. These two terrorists had an arsenal of freaking pipe bombs! Explain to me how their pissant little gun control laws were going to stop that?

 

[texas_ex2000]

The left-wing position on gun control may be their most annoying position of all. First, they continually distort statistics by including suicide as gun violence which is ignorant at best. Second, they ignore the failures of existing gun control laws of which they were huge proponents such as No gun zones, Paris is a utopian ideal of gun control, and California has the strictest gun control laws in the country. Next, they continually ignore the reality that criminals do not follow the f'n law. Why is that simple concept so difficult for the left to understand. They seem to understand that concept when it comes to drug prohibition but completely miss it on gun control. And finally, they never explain how the new laws they proposed would help prevent incidents like we saw in San Bernadino. These two terrorists had an arsenal of freaking pipe bombs! Explain to me how their pissant little gun control laws were going to stop that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Rtc.gif

 

[ProdigalHorn]

It goes back to the bias that a lot of anti-gun people have, and I've heard them vocalize: "You don't buy a gun unless you want to shoot someone with it." There's a substantial group of people out there that actually do believe this to be true. Once you buy that, then you don't see it as "disarming the good guys". You see it as neutralizing a threat.

 

[texas_ex2000]

BTW, I do firmly believe a 3.6 per capita gun homicide rate is still entirely too big and we should be doing more to reduce that number.

I just feel that socio-economic factors have the biggest influence in that issue - not gun ownership, AR-15s, or conceal carry.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It goes back to the bias that a lot of anti-gun people have, and I've heard them vocalize: "You don't buy a gun unless you want to shoot someone with it." There's a substantial group of people out there that actually do believe this to be true. Once you buy that, then you don't see it as "disarming the good guys". You see it as neutralizing a threat.

I don't think they necessarily believe you want to shoot someone with it. I think they believe gun ownership is a crutch for ignorant people who have irrational fears - economic fears, fears of racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, etc. I think Obama's comment about clutching to one's guns and religion was pretty revealing of the Left's mentality about guns.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And SH, your post sounds pretty sexist/mysogynistic.

Uh, I was simply responding to the scenario you laid out (see below). Insert the male in that scenario or any other scenario.

For a woman who carries to defend herself against a would be rapist, that is all she needs to know. She does not need to know how to operate a pistol with a different action from the one she's chosen to carry. She does not need to know how to do a one handed clearing drill. She does not need to have the same level of expertise or marksmanship as a Texas Ranger or a Marine sniper.

My points are as follows:

1. The presence of guns for defense has a corollary effect in an increase in accidental shootings and successful suicides. I'd be curious if anyone has any data for successfully using a weapon for defense? There are many an anecdotal stories of the weapon being used incorrectly for defense and wounding/killing an innocent person but I haven't seen any data. Have you looked at the suicide success rate for guns over other methods? There is a reason the US is second only to Japan for suicide death rates.

2. Again, if you truly cared about safety you wouldn't be arguing against stricter gun safety rules for CCL. Wouldn't you rather be sure the "right" people have guns as opposed to everyone? "Right" being defined as trained with a defensible reason for a CCL.

3. Does anyone believe these rules will stop criminals from getting their hands on guns? Not as long as they are so prevalent as to buy them on Craigslist or a gunshow without any sort of background check. Heck, as long as the private sell process is opaque it's impossible to even constrain a wannabe terrorist from getting a gun. Again, I don't feel the end goal is to outlaw guns but simply to make them more challenging to get. As San Benardino showed, the friend bought the guns then simply gave them to the couple. Should the government have been able to know that they were collecting thousands of rounds of ammo too? I don't know but the question should be asked.

4. If I were King, I wouldn't restrict all guns. Hunting rifles have a real and valid use. I'm not even against CCL and pistols. The bar should be raised though for who gets them though. When was the last time a hunting rifle was used to perpetrate a mass murder?

 

[Phil Elliott]

Next, they continually ignore the reality that criminals do not follow the f'n law. Why is that simple concept so difficult for the left to understand.

They understand it, they just don't care. Gun control is about CONTROL, not making us any safer.

The instance of violent crime among CCL holders, nationwide, is statistically zero. Any argument against letting them carry their guns, anywhere, is a non-starter for me.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Nothing to see here, move along:

 

[texas_ex2000]

Uh, I was simply responding to the scenario you laid out (see below). Insert the male in that scenario or any other scenario.



My points are as follows:

1. The presence of guns for defense has a corollary effect in an increase in accidental shootings and successful suicides. I'd be curious if anyone has any data for successfully using a weapon for defense? There are many an anecdotal stories of the weapon being used incorrectly for defense and wounding/killing an innocent person but I haven't seen any data. Have you looked at the suicide success rate for guns over other methods? There is a reason the US is second only to Japan for suicide death rates.

2. Again, if you truly cared about safety you wouldn't be arguing against stricter gun safety rules for CCL. Wouldn't you rather be sure the "right" people have guns as opposed to everyone? "Right" being defined as trained with a defensible reason for a CCL.

3. Does anyone believe these rules will stop criminals from getting their hands on guns? Not as long as they are so prevalent as to buy them on Craigslist or a gunshow without any sort of background check. Heck, as long as the private sell process is opaque it's impossible to even constrain a wannabe terrorist from getting a gun. Again, I don't feel the end goal is to outlaw guns but simply to make them more challenging to get. As San Benardino showed, the friend bought the guns then simply gave them to the couple. Should the government have been able to know that they were collecting thousands of rounds of ammo too? I don't know but the question should be asked.

4. If I were King, I wouldn't restrict all guns. Hunting rifles have a real and valid use. I'm not even against CCL and pistols. The bar should be raised though for who gets them though. When was the last time a hunting rifle was used to perpetrate a mass murder?

You know SH, I don't think we're all that far on this one.

I think the gap here is perceptions on the complexity/difficulty/level of maturity to handle a gun. I would argue till the cows come home that a car is 100x more complex mechanically, 100x more difficult to maintain, 100x more likely to kill you, 100x more deadly to other people, and requires much more maturity to operate. What we have today is this perception shared by a whole swath of people that firearms are these evil, sinister looking, loud, instruments of murder. It's because fewer and fewer people have served in the military and grow up in rural areas. To that lost generation, guns are tools that are deadly and should be respected, but also everyday tools used to protect your family, for hunting and sport, for historical collecting, and for completely fun target shooting. And because of that, people have lost perspectives and skills on how to do things themselves without relying on the government to tell them how to do it.

It's like making biscuits. No one knows how to make biscuits anymore. We can send rovers to Mars, but people are lost on how to make a soft buttermilk biscuit. People are mistified when they have one I baked as if I practice withcraft. It's not difficult folks.

No offense ShAArk, we let AIR FORCE people carry guns.

I mean guys...am I taking crazy pills here?

To the rest of your arguments about self defense statistics...you tell me. Numerous posters here have presented reams of data showing that increasing gun ownership and conceal carry haven't led to more deaths or murders.

Should the government have been able to know that they were collecting thousands of rounds of ammo too?

This illustrates my first point about the cultural divide in this country and the lack of empathy and fear it has caused. You buy a few jugs of .22LR and you'll have "thousands" of rounds of ammo. That doesn't make you a terrorist. That makes you a regular dude outside of Lockhart.

 

[Phil Elliott]

If the gun control crowd is really serious about getting rid of guns, the first thing they need to do is get Obama to shut up about gun control. Every time he blames a shooting on "too many guns", gun sales spike.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Wouldn't you rather be sure the "right" people have guns as opposed to everyone? "Right" being defined as trained with a defensible reason for a CCL.

No. Because the presence of police and their 7+ mins response time in my community does not negate my right, not reason, to defend myself and family.

Heck, I think the right to defend you family and your life is more fundamental than the right to vote. Yet, we're not stipulating that only the "right" people are allowed to vote.

 

[Horns11]

Yet, we're not stipulating that only the "right" people are allowed to vote.

But some people are saying that. That's a discussion for another thread.

I think this thread took a weird turn into "ban the guns mwah ha ha!" and that's not what the editorial was about.

You may try to make conceal carry complex, but it is not. You need to prove you understand where you are legally allowed to carry, how to carry safely, and when to use your gun. You also need to demonstrate that you can hit a target with your gun.

I agree that the complexity of using a gun and knowing basic facts about gun safety is not Mensa level. I don't think it's about complexity. I think it's about creating useful legislation that actually does more than feed multiple choice answers to people and allows for a lot of "oopsies" on the field test. Japan has a lot of people and they manage to create more hoops to jump through for the purpose of owning just a shotgun for hunting/trap.

For a woman who carries to defend herself against a would be rapist, that is all she needs to know.

Kind of a leap there, considering over 80 percent of rapes are committed by a man with whom the woman is already acquainted. But I'll give you the other 20 percent... you're right that's all she needs to know. But my concerns aren't with defending yourself.

I agree. We should follow Vermont's lead. It works for them. THEY HAVE THE LOWEST GUN HOMICIDE RATE IN THE COUNTRY.

It's Vermont. It has fewer people than Fort Worth and they're all descended from the same three founding father families. Of course they're not shooting each other. Hence, the reason for little-to-no regulation. I was saying we need to go in the other direction. There shouldn't be a lot of opposition to laws that require a bit more stringency in how to acquire weapons.

You do know that you are here because your ancestors fought for their survival everyday using lethal force?

So I guess you're just a "state of nature" advocate who thinks that self-preservation is the highest order, whereas I'm more of a "let's do what we can to fix it so people don't get hurt" kind of person. One of my high school teachers shot and killed a thief (from her front porch) who was trying to steal her car back in the early 90s. Recently, I asked her about it, and she gave a similar response to yours. My life and property. Very Mad Max... or maybe very Hobbesian. I respect that she knows how to use guns and protect her property, but I also think of the slim chance of accidents if it happened to someone else.

So you're taking about potential mental health problems? I think you're a closet NRA member..we should be focusing on mental health. The best defense in that situation is another CCL

I don't think my example talked about mental health at all. Let's say Zach got dumped by his girlfriend the previous night and got drunk. Is he mentally unstable? Would a clinic have caught his mental instability between midnight and 10 am? He's not taking any CCL tests or caring about gun safety or renewing his license at that point, but he sure has access to a gun. As to "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" being the only way to address it, why should anyone else in a chemistry class and a lab due that day have to worry about packing heat before heading off to class? Oh yeah, because someone else in the room might have a gun and a bad day. The added stress of that scenario alone is why campus carry isn't a fantastic idea.

As for the mental health aspect, the GOP candidates for 2016 who have all discussed the need for greater mental health awareness have all gone against legislation that would do so. I'm looking at you, Mike Huckabee. Arkansas ranked last in the country by the NIH in mental health treatment under his watch. What measures do you think a state can implement to "focus on mental health?" What does it cost? Who do you round up and prevent from accessing guns? You said that it should be easy for average people to get guns... how easy will it be to prevent mentally ill people from using them? Despite the obvious fact that mentally ill people are more likely to be shot than people who aren't.

Next, they continually ignore the reality that criminals do not follow the f'n law. Why is that simple concept so difficult for the left to understand.

I think everyone understands that. My scenario of Zach losing his cool and shooting someone during chemistry makes him a criminal after the fact. Same for Adam Lanza. Before either of those incidents, they fell into the "good guy with a gun" category. Maybe it should be tougher for "good guys" to get the guns.

I just feel that socio-economic factors have the biggest influence in that issue

No argument there, except for maybe socioeconomic factors plus anger and alcohol. But if that's the answer, and we keep the status quo in terms of how to acquire weapons and its relative ease, then we're just going to have to accept random gun violence at its current level and stockpile ammunition just in case. Self preservation.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I think this thread took a weird turn into "ban the guns mwah ha ha!" and that's not what the editorial was about.

No. It's about the "Hey guys!!! I'm a self-identified person that knows nothing about guns (yet have very strong opinions about them) and I got a conceal carry!!!" The whole point, which is argued with empirical data, is that guns and conceal carry are not complex nor lead to more gun homicides.

I don't think it's about complexity. I think it's about creating useful legislation that actually does more than feed multiple choice answers to people and allows for a lot of "oopsies" on the field test.

Driving a car is much more complex and the written test is as difficult/easy if not simpler than that of CCLs across this country. Someone affirms their knowledge of the law as it was taught to them. What other burden of proof are you going to put on them? And define "useful?" As Phil's and my data, from completely different sources btw, illustrate CCLs are not going out terrorizing communities with their stupidity.

Kind of a leap there, considering over 80 percent of rapes are committed by a man with whom the woman is already acquainted. But I'll give you the other 20 percent... you're right that's all she needs to know. But my concerns aren't with defending yourself.

Now you're being disengenious. I'm talking about my girlfriend's roommate who was raped in the parking lot of her work by a complete stranger...my co-worker who was almost kidnapped...my 2x b-school classmates who were mugged at gun point in New Haven walking back from the library...my cousin who was assaulted by an armed robber at a video game store.

I don't know what you're talking about, but this whole issue is all about defending yourself.

It's Vermont. It has fewer people than Fort Worth and they're all descended from the same three founding father families. Of course they're not shooting each other. Hence, the reason for little-to-no regulation.

Those are per capita metrics 11. And...so what you're saying again is guns are not what really causes violence. Got it.

So I guess you're just a "state of nature" advocate who thinks that self-preservation is the highest order, whereas I'm more of a "let's do what we can to fix it so people don't get hurt" kind of person.

Nope...that's not the point of that at all. You should read it again. It's that everyone is capable of defending themselves and has that confidence in them. If you're a senior citizen, or handicapped, or never thought about owning a gun, but would like something to defend yourself with while you wait for the police instead of being a victim, DO NOT LISTEN TO HORNS 11. Buy yourself a gun, take a class, practice with it, go to friends who own guns and ask them to teach you. You are completely capable.

I don't think my example talked about mental health at all. Let's say Zach got dumped by his girlfriend the previous night and got drunk. Is he mentally unstable? Would a clinic have caught his mental instability between midnight and 10 am? He's not taking any CCL tests or caring about gun safety or renewing his license at that point, but he sure has access to a gun.

Of course you have statistics and empirical data that shows this to be an epedimic with the wave of CCL holders? Correct? I didn't think so.

I think everyone understands that. My scenario of Zach losing his cool and shooting someone during chemistry makes him a criminal after the fact. Same for Adam Lanza. Before either of those incidents, they fell into the "good guy with a gun" category. Maybe it should be tougher for "good guys" to get the guns.

The biggest "after the fact" FUBAR is a 7 min police response time.

I'm pretty sure Adam Lanza stole that gun...as in he broke the gun laws. And when you look at the gun homicide data, the overwhelming majority of gun murder victims are not Sandy Hook/Adam Lanza type shootings. It's disengious when discussing policy when I can name a half dozen close friends and family who have been acosted by an armed assailaint and then for someone else to bring up Adam Lanza. Making it tougher for good guys to get guns - you're just suffocating yourself to death in bubble wrap.

 

[Horns11]

I don't know what you're talking about, but this whole issue is all about defending yourself.

Except it's not. You even said so in your first rebuttal paragraph with your diatribe about knowing nothing about guns and still getting a CCL. Zach's entire editorial has nothing to do with defending yourself. I agree that defending yourself is important and that guns can play a role in that defense. I just think it should be more difficult for people to get guns.

Those are per capita metrics 11. And...so what you're saying again is guns are not what really causes violence. Got it.

And it's still Vermont. You can say it's per capita all you want, but I know the makeup of the people who live in Stowe and it's a lot different than the type of people who live in suburbs and cities. I already agreed with you on my last post what causes the violence (socioeconomic factors in addition to anger/alcohol). And of course the guns don't "cause" violence... but they sure don't help keep the rates of violence down, either.

It's that everyone is capable of defending themselves and has that confidence in them. If you're a senior citizen, or handicapped, or never thought about owning a gun, but would like something to defend yourself with while you wait for the police instead of being a victim, DO NOT LISTEN TO HORNS 11. Buy yourself a gun, take a class, practice with it, go to friends who own guns and ask them to teach you. You are completely capable.

Sheesh. Where did I ever say don't buy a gun? Now you're just making stuff up to go with your "me and my police wait time" attitude. I think if people fall under the fear-mongering category that you place them (would like to defend yourself instead of waiting for the police), they can go ahead and buy all the guns they want. I just think that there should be more strict regulations in place to assure that it's not simple to buy them or simple to acquire a license to conceal them.

Of course you have statistics and empirical data that shows this to be an epedimic with the wave of CCL holders? Correct? I didn't think so.

Why would it need to be an "epidemic?" Based on the empiricals I saw from a simple Google search, CCL holders have killed over 650 people since 2007, including 14 cops. What's the harm in preventing it from happening once or twice due to tougher standards on the field test or written test or longer background check or no-private-sales laws? Oh yeah... your police call wait time. Wouldn't want legal things getting in the way of your imminent danger.

It's disengious when discussing policy when I can name a half dozen close friends and family who have been acosted by an armed assailaint and then for someone else to bring up Adam Lanza.

First, I, too, have known people who have been attacked and/or killed, but that's truly not what the editorial was about, nor my OP. Second, was Adam Lanza a criminal that morning before he took his mom's gun and killed her? Calling it "stealing" in the legalese even though they lived in the same home doesn't change much. If someone is going to use the "criminals don't follow laws" defense every time anyone brings up gun control, then like I said, they'll have to genuinely admit that **** happens, offer up thoughts and prayers, and just go buy more ammunition in the name of self preservation. I put myself in the "I'd rather do something other than that" category, and I think lawmakers have the ability to do so.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If the gun control crowd is really serious about getting rid of guns, the first thing they need to do is get Obama to shut up about gun control. Every time he blames a shooting on "too many guns", gun sales spike.

It's a catch-22 for sure.

Now you're being disengenious. I'm talking about my girlfriend's roommate who was raped in the parking lot of her work by a complete stranger...my co-worker who was almost kidnapped...my 2x b-school classmates who were mugged at gun point in New Haven walking back from the library...my cousin who was assaulted by an armed robber at a video game store.

No offense but lets make sure we never meet up in real life because clearly you are walking under a dark cloud.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I put myself in the "I'd rather do something other than that" category, and I think lawmakers have the ability to do so.

Fine and dandy. It's just that you offer NO PROOF that the "something other than that" that you are in favor of actually helps anything. You just go along with the left's assumption that it will because they say so.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Fine and dandy. It's just that you offer NO PROOF that the "something other than that" that you are in favor of actually helps anything. You just go along with the left's assumption that it will because they say so.

Can we agree that "the left" has never had a chance to truly implement its policies?
Gun-free zones border on gun zones. Background check provisions get enacted with gaping loopholes like gunshow and private owner sales. The FBI is forced to do background checks manually because of the NRA's limitations of being legally restricted from setting up a national database. Whether rightly or wrongly, the NRA stands in the way of any meaningful gun restrictions. Meanwhile, the US leads the industrialized world in gun violence outside of a few truly lawless countries (i.e. Mexico).

 

[theiioftx]

Unless there was nothing but gun free zones, would not at least one always border with a gun zone? That speaks to the logic employed by liberals with gun control.

None of the above liberal policies stop criminals or lunatics.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Unless there was nothing but gun free zones, would not at least one always border with a gun zone? That speaks to the logic employed by liberals with gun control.

None of the above liberal policies stop criminals or lunatics.

That was an example. Let's say the gun free zone was a city. Is it easier to protect that school at the middle then? Liberals aren't claiming there is a silver bullet to limiting gun violence. Conservatives seem to be advocating that if there is no silver bullet then we shouldn't attempt anything. The world is black and white to conservatives while centrists recognize it's actually gray.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Can we agree that "the left" has never had a chance to truly implement its policies?

No, we cannot agree. The left has implemented very stringent gun control in places like Chicago, or Washington DC, and those places have very high gun violence rates compared to a place with considerably less gun control, such as Houston.