Chapel Hill Shooting: Gun Control Problem No One is Talking About

[circlethesquare]

The David Pakman Show

[Hoyt]

1. But gun toters say they are more polite when they strap a gun, or two, on to go out in public. N/t

[spin]

2. I definitely notice that I became more polite when I started legally carrying a handgun. ...

Those who have carry permits that I have talked to have had the same experience.

However there are now an estimated 8 to 11 million people who can legally carry in our nation. Obviously some will suffer from anger management problems and misuse their firearms. Let's say that one person in every thousand who legally carry might fly off the handle and shoot someone for no good reason. That would mean that there are between 8000 to 11,000 such individuals walking around with with a gun strapped on.

If that were true why don't we have far more shootings in parking lots and at traffic intersections than we do? I doubt that even 100 such incidents occur nationwide each year.

Another question is how many times do firearms save lives when legally carried. Unfortunately accurate statistics on this subject are impossible to find. Still you can do a search and find a good number of such stories. Most of these stories involve situations in which the handguns were fired. Most encounters where an individual legally carrying a handgun is attacked end when he shows that he is armed. No shots are fired. All ends well when the attacker turns and runs rather than mugging or raping his victim.

Of course gun control advocates will mention those rare incidents in which a firearm is misused in anger or the shooter feels he was threatened but was wrong. Such incidents often receive national attention while most defensive shooting only are reported in the local news and those incidents where no shots were fired receive no attention.

Obviously we need to insure that only honest, sane and responsible citizens can legally carry and it appears we are doing a good job or there would be far more shootings by legal citizens than there are.

Overall the concealed weapons programs in the states of our nation have proven to be an amazing success. People who legally carry concealed are far more responsible than police officers. But to be fair to the cops they face far more dangerous situations where they may have to make a life or death decision in a second than the average citizen will ever have.

[Hoyt]

3. Nothing polite about strapping a lethal weapon on and practing to shoot people. Sorry.

Zimmrrman, Dunn, Reeves, the gun nut in North Carolina, etc., all said the same thing.

[spin]

5. Lets suppose you took a survey of 10 million people who had attended a good ...

driver safety school. Most would say that they had become better drivers. More polite, more aware of what was happening around them and more responsible about obeying traffic laws.

I would suspect that this group would actually have a far better driving record than a similar group who did not attend such a class. They would also say they learned to practice defensive driving which is what gun owners call situational awareness.

Many states that allow concealed carry require the applicant for the license to attend a concealed weapons class. People who have completed these classes are statistically far more responsible with their weapons than gun owners who didn't. They rarely misuse their weapons.

But the 10 million drivers who attended the driver's safety training course will still have accidents and in some cases will be responsible for them. A few will also suffer road rage and turn totally irresponsible.

The same will be true of those who have completed a concealed weapons class and have carry permits. A few will fail to use their weapons in legitmate self defense to stop an attack from a person who plans to severely injure or kill them.

There is no way you can take a large group of people and make them into accident free drivers.

There is also no way you can find to give a similar number of people the right to carry a weapon in public and not have a few who will not misuse their privilege.

The question is does allowing trained people to carry in public a good idea or a terrible idea. It seems that since concealed carry became common all over our nation, the crime rate has dropped. Surely if allowing people to carry concealed was a bad idea, the crime rate would have increased and at least one state would have repealed the law. That hasn't happened. In fact some states allow citizens to carry without a license or training which even I find questionable. Still it doesn't seem to have caused any serious problems.

[Hoyt]

6. Walking down the street with a club is not polite, same with a gun. Sorry.

[spin]

7. When I walk down the street while carrying my concealed handgun I am just as polite ...

and respectful to others as I am without it. The fact that the handgun is concealed means it doesn't disturb or intimidate anyone. To do so would be, in my opinion, impolite.

If you met me how would you determine that I was being impolite because I was legally carrying a handgun. After all it is concealed so that you would never be aware that I was carrying.

I hope you don't walk down streets fearing every person you pass might be legally carrying a firearm. You have often suggested that people who do carry are overly paranoid. It seems to me that if anyone is, it's you. You don't have to waste your time worrying about those who legally carry. They are no threat to you. You have a much higher chance of winning the lotto than you do of having a person with a carry permit pointing his handgun at you. (Unless of course you are attacking them with the intention of putting them in the hospital or six feet under which would be very impolite.)

[Hoyt]

8. Zimmerman thinks he's a nice guy too. I trust fellow citizens and have no need for a gun on my hip.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 09:35 AM - Edit history (1)

I have had a few gun lovers pull one on me though. Handled it without a gun. Sorry, with a few exceptions, decent people don't arm themselves.

[spin]

11. Few gun owners would do what Zimmerman did because we don't go looking ...

for trouble. If we see something suspicious happening in our neighborhood we call the police and let them handle it.

You state you have had "gun lovers" pull guns on you. What did you do to cause this? Did you attack them in a manner that led to their believing you were about to seriously hurt them? I seriously hope and doubt you are not a criminal but if you are I totally understand why you would oppose people carrying guns.

Perhaps the people who drew down on you were actual criminals and not honest gun owners. Most criminals are not gun lovers. Guns are just a tool of their trade like a hammer is to a carpenter.

Out of curiosity how did you handle those situations. I would love to hear about them as I love a good story.

[Hoyt]

12. When you strap it on, you are looking - or more likely - preparing to shoot someone.

And, most gunners have practiced/trained to shoot people. Ever used a target that resembles people? Worse, even our own Gungeoneers have discussed what to say - or not say - after a toter shoots someone.

[spin]

13. Of course I practice using silhouette targets. ...

So do the police. Perhaps you believe every cop is looking for a chance to shoot someone. If so, you are wrong. Most cops hope they never have to shoot another person and the same is true of those who have concealed weapons permits.

There now are an estimated 8 to 11 million people in our nation with a carry permit. If we are as blood thirsty as you suggest, why aren't there far more shootings by legally armed civilians?

I'm somewhat disappointed that you didn't tell me of what happened in those incidents where guns were drawn on you. I was looking forward to enjoying your story.

[Midnight Writer]

9. Had to laugh at "rare instances in which a firearm is misused"

Around 30 thousand times a year in US. This includes homicides, accidents, and suicides and a handful of righteous killings. More than ten times the number of folks killed by terrorists on 9-11. In which of these instances is a firearm not misused?

But I accept your point that you are a responsible gun owner (and carrier). Now look around you. Remember that "challenged" kid in your high school? How about that emotionally unstable guy that lives down the street and shouts at the neighborhood kids. How about the regular guy that gets old and suffers from dementia? How about the guy who collects Nazi memorabilia and has an arsenal in his basement? How about the gang-banger who is itching to prove his street cred? How about the guy who is just sick and tired of his wife's bitching, or his co-worker's harassment, or his boss's bullying? Where do you draw the line, and how do we know when someone is carrying who is the good guy with a gun and who is the bad guy with a gun? How do we know when a good guy is about to become a bad guy? Have you ever seen a bad situation in a bar that would be better if just more of those drunks were holding guns?

Look at the Aurora theatre shooting. Dark room, lots of noise, people panicking and running every which way.
Would a cadre of good guys with guns have been helpful, or just add to the carnage?

[spin]

10. When you figure that there are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms and ...

80,000,000 gun owners in our nation, handguns are rarely misused. Also realize that while a handgun makes suicide easier, there are many ways to kill yourself.

I will grant that a person can be overcome by their problems and grab a gun and end their life while they may change their mind if they have to use another method. No firearms in civilian hands would reduce the suicide rate but the question is how much. In Australia the implementation of their gun laws caused the firearm suicide rate to drop by 65% over a decade. Banning all or most firearms would have an impact on suicide but would not totally eliminate it.

One thing that gun control advocates often ignore that firearms are also used for legitimate self defense and can save lives. Unfortunately it is difficult to obtain good statistics on how often this happens. Obama ordered the CDC to do a study on gun violence which is rarely mentioned by gun control advocates as it doesn't help their cause.

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted
08/21/2013 06:43 PM ET

Second Amendment: The White House asked the Centers for Disease Control "to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." We're pretty sure that what the CDC found wasn't what the White House was looking for.

***snip***

What that study revealed, though, does not fit in with the media-Democrat message.
"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals," says the report, which was completed in June and ignored in the mainstream press.

The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/082113-668335-cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative.htm

The study also showed that people who use firearms for legitimate self defense suffer fewer injuries than those who use other tactics.

If a law were passed this year that banned the civilian ownership of firearms and required them to be turned into the local police station you can be sure that the criminals, who do not comply with laws by definition, would ignore it. In fact the criminals would celebrate such a law as they would no longer have to fear being shot by an honest citizen. Criminals fear armed citizens more than they do cops.

Of course many law abiding citizens would refuse to turn their firearms in. Such a law might create 50,000,000 new criminals. The question is how do you deal with an otherwise honest citizen who just happens to keep his guns. Put him in jail for five years leaving his family without his income? Fine him $10,000 for each gun? The punishment would have to be very severe to insure most gun owners would comply.

At this time I feel the idea of banning firearms in this nation is a pipe dream and I believe gun control advocates are well aware of this. That why they say there is no plan to take away all firearms just some, like evil looking black rifles. Of course if that were to happen they would next wish to ban all handguns. Step by step they would ban types of firearms until they accomplished the goal of disarming America.

The 80,000,000 firearm owners are well aware of this incremental approach to banning all firearms. Therefore they show up at the polls and vote against any candidate who is for gun control. It most cases that is a Democrat. If you don't believe the attempt to pass a new assault weapons ban last year didn't cause Democrats to lose seats at the local, state and national levels in the midterm elections then you are simply ignoring reality.

[Midnight Writer]

14. I agree

The genie is out of the bottle, as there are as many guns out there as there are people. However, there is no bill in Congress by anyone of either party to confiscate firearms in the US. There are proposals to ban sales of new weapons of certain types (so-called assault weapons), but no serious (as in having a chance in hell of getting out of committee) proposals to ban or confiscate firearms, nor have there ever been, to the best of my knowledge. (Perhaps you can correct me on this)

I live in a rural, low-crime area, and gun ownership is the rule here rather than the exception. But the crime blotter here is troubling, as there are so many incidents in which you can't help but believe would not have happened if not for the presence of a gun.

A teenage boy (Honor student, Doctor's son) shot himself when his girlfriend broke up with him

A drunk and disorderly patron at a local bar shot the bartender who refused to serve him more

A man showed up at the retail store his ex-wife worked at and shot and killed her and two of her co-workers

Another teenage boy, when his girlfriend's father forbid him from dating her, brought a gun to her house to confront the Dad. Dad was not home, but he got into a fight with the girl's brother. Shot him dead.

A retired police officer (a really nice guy I knew personally) shot his wife and then himself

A teenage boy defended his mother from her boyfriend, who had struck her. The boyfriend came back later with his shotgun. A struggle ensued, and the teenage boy had the lower part of his face (chin and left jaw) blown off. He survived, but is horribly disfigured

Another bar, another night. A man got into an argument over a pool game. He went to his car, got his gun, and waited in the parking lot for his adversary. Unfortunately, he shot the wrong guy. Fortunately, the guy lived.

A local prominent lawyer got cut off in a grocery store parking lot. He grabbed his gun and made the other driver put it in his mouth before police arrived. He was arrested and no one was hurt.

A man barricaded his house with his wife and two small children inside, and then started shooting at neighbor's homes and passing cars. After a 14 hour stand-off with police, he surrendered peacefully and no one was hurt.

A man returned to the plant he was fired from and shot a supervisor (dead) and a co-worker (survived). He then shot himself.

A guy was showing his new gun to his buddy when it went off, shooting the buddy in the thigh

It is true that for every one of these incidents there are hundreds of gun owners that experience no problems at all. And background checks would be useless, since every one of these examples (except the mom's boyfriend) had no criminal or mental health background. However, these were people in a mental breakdown, an emotional crisis or a state of intoxication, something that could happen to any of us.

That is why I am against the expansion of open carry laws. These incidents all happened without that law. How many more would occur if folks were carrying guns everywhere? How can a citizen distinguish a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun, especially when that status can flip in a split-second?

I know this. If I am eating in a restaurant or shopping in a store, and a guy walks in with a gun strapped to his back or in a hip holster gun-slinger style or even in a shoulder holster, I am heading damn straight for the exit, because I do not want to be a part of what goes down next.

[spin]

15. The original approach to banning firearms was developed by Handgun Control Inc....

which later became the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

The object was to ban handguns and the tactics that would be used are shown in this mission statement by Pete Shields the founder of HCI

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).
http://gunscholar.com/gunban.htm

Obviously the attempt to ban handguns failed. Handguns were simply too popular. Realizing that, gun control advocates decided to pick out a different weapon to first ban, the evil looking black "assault rifles" such as the AR-15. At the time the AR-15 and other such rifles were frowned on by hunters as they were viewed as inaccurate and unreliable. Gun Control advocates enjoyed a feeling of success when the first Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994.

The problem with the first AWB was that it didn't really ban anything except for cosmetic items such as baronet lugs and flash suppressors. The manufacturers simply changed the appearance of their firearms and eliminated a few items and continued to make and sell them.

Some shooters wondering what all the fuss was about decided to buy rifles like the AR-15. The found these firearms had considerable advantages over conventional arms. Eventually they became quite popular and an aftermarket of accessories and parts sprang up.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to "sunset" in 2004. Today the AR-15 is Americas most favorite rifle and is used for target shooting, hunting and home defense.

But that didn't deter gun control advocates from trying to employ their incremental approach to banning all civilian owned firearms. Of course most refuse to admit their final goal but refer to bans on certain weapons as reasonable changes to our gun laws. The problem is that they can't fool the 80,000,000 gun owners who oppose any and all bans.

Last year there was a chance to improve our gun laws that might have successful had an attempt not been made to pass another Federal Assault Weapons Ban. We could improve our NICS background check system and find ways to stop the "straw purchase" of firearms and the smuggling of such weapons to the inner cities of our nation. We could find ways to insure that firearms are sold only to honest, sane and well trained individuals. We also could improve our mental health care system to better detect people who suffer from serious mental problems and better treat them. Unfortunately the discussion turned into a debate over another AWB and nothing of value passed through Congress.

I understand that firearms can be tragically misused. However as I pointed out in my post above firearms are also used legitimately for many reasons including self defense.

Perhaps I firmly hold this view since my mother defended herself with a firearm to stop an attacker who hid behind some bushes and rushed her while she was walking home from work in the 1920s. She pulled a small handgun from her purse and fired two rounds over his head. He ran. My daughter also used a firearm to stop an intruder breaking into our home by forcing a sliding glass door open. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he also ran. No shots were fired.

[Midnight Writer]

16. Of course there are gun control advocates who would ban all guns

But they would have a snowball's chance in hell of passing a bill out of committee, let alone passing a full Congressional vote. As you said, with 80 million gun owners, the political power is with the gun owners, not to mention the Constitutional protections that would have to be reviewed by courts that in the past have always upheld gun ownership rights. After that, you have the Executive branch. Do you think that even Obama would send Federal agents door to door throughout the nation to confiscate the 300 million plus guns that we own? Even the assault weapons ban in the past "grandfathered in" existing owners, merely banning new sales of such weapons. And as you pointed out, these weapons could still be produced and sold with minor modifications.

I have to totally disagree with you that last year's legislation might have passed if not for the assault weapons ban. The gun lobbies are very strongly against closing, say, the gun show loophole or the person to person sale loophole (which require no background check), are against any registration or tracking of gun sales, and have even defeated a bill to ban the hunting of domesticated animals.

You say we could find ways to insure that firearms are sold only to honest, sane and well trained individuals. I would like to hear your ideas for that, because I don't have a single one. And even if you had a reasonable plan to weed out the Bad Guys, again the gun lobbyists would fight it. In the examples from my last post, these were previously law-abiding folk who snapped. If you don't have a handy gun, you may punch somebody. If you have a gun at hand, God only knows.

I would love to see improvements in our mental health system, but unfortunately, since the mentally ill cannot afford an expensive lobbying and campaign strategy, I expect to see more cuts in funding. Last year Tom Coburn personally killed a Federal bill to provide mental health services to suicidal veterans. By the way, 22 veterans EVERY DAY kill themselves, mostly by guns.

I am not against gun ownership, and I support the right of anyone to defend themselves by any means necessary. But I am for registration. I am for mandatory training or perhaps a proficiency test, especially for those that carry. And I like the concept of smart guns (not mandatory), even though again the lobbyists are somehow against this.

I don't know if there is an answer, or at least one you and I will ever agree on. I suspect the high levels of gun violence in our country are more cultural than anything, since most comparable countries have a fraction of our gun violence rate. In Sweden, for example, there is mandatory gun ownership, but also mandatory military service and mandatory firearm training, and their gun violence is very low.

The bottom line is personal responsibility, as it is in so many areas of our lives. If you own a firearm, you must take the responsibility to learn how to use it, learn how to care for it, learn how to secure it, and most of all learn how to control yourself.

[spin]

21. The gun control movement realizes that it is impossible to ban firearms this year ...

or in the next 30. They hope to accomplish their goal of passing gun laws in our nation that are similar to those in the UK over decades. The plan is to chip away at gun rights little by little.

I still feel there was an excellent chance to improve our national gun laws last year. Most gun owners would like to see that the NICS background check system is improved to be more accurate and to insure that people who shouldn't be able to legally buy firearms are placed on that list in a more timely manner. Gun owners would also like to see an better effort made to stop straw purchases of firearms and the smuggling of these weapons to the inner cities of our nation.

We might have also addressed the mental health care problem in our nation.

But as Soon as Dianne Feinstein decided to try to pass another Federal Assault Weapons Ban any chances of passing anything flew out the window. Prior to that, the NRA was on the defensive but the possibility of passing another AWB allowed them to go on the offense. Donations and membership soared aiding in their effort to fight new gun control legislation.

You asked for ideas on how we could help guarantee that firearms are sold to only honest, sane and well training individuals. First we improve the NICS background check system by insisting the states provide the names of criminals and those legally adjudged as having severe mental problems and could be dangerous to others. We should provide federal funds to insure this happens in a reasonable amount of time. I advocate gun safety classes in high school. I also feel that anyone who buys a firearm or ammo should have a card showing that he has had gun safety training. It would be like the card a scuba diver has to have to get air for his tanks.

Smart guns sounds like a good idea. The problem is that a powerful firearm is a very hostile environment for electronics. When the military and the cops start using this technology, I will look into it. Not until then. Remember also there are an estimated 300,000,000 firearms in our nation that lack this feature.

Gun registration is the first step to gun confiscation. Gun registration is illegal in my state of Florida.

From the 2014 Florida Statutes:

790.335?Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
(1)?LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.—
(a)?The Legislature finds and declares that:
1.?The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4.?Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

I think we can agree on some items such as firearm owners must be willing to learn how to safety handle and use their firearm to to use for sporting purposes and for legitimate self defense as defined by the laws of their state. We also seem to agree on a training requirement for gun owners but that might be hard to implement.

[zeemike]

4. I don't disagree but it goes deeper than that.

It is centered around cars because cars have become an extension of personalities to a lot of people...thus road rage if someone insults your personality car by cutting you off or something.
I once saw a bumper sticker that said "you toucha my car I breaka you arm"
There is a kind of sickness in that.

[GreatGazoo]

17. For those who view the world as a dangerous place full of "idiots" their vehicle is a kind of

Transformer-esque suit of armor. 3000 to 5000 pounds of metal, 300 hp, etc. At extreme end of the range you have Hummers and 'coal rollers' who view Prius drivers as some kind of threat to their lifestyle. You also have that jerk in his Beemer that killed girls at UCSB while shooting selfies of himself at the wheel of a car that he hid his own tiny ego inside of.

For those who would use their car as a weapon, a gun seems a natural extension of that thinking.

Many studies have been done recently to tie car driven to personality and driving habits. BMWs repeatedly come up to top

Friday afternoons at 5:45pm is peak time for anger behind the wheel
Likeliest road rage culprits are men aged 35-50 with blue BMW cars
Drivers also reported run-ins with owners of Land Rovers and Audis

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2390373/BMW-drivers-really-aggressive-drivers-prone-road-rage-wheel.html#ixzz3Rp7lSNGG

Another study used people entering a crosswalk as cars approached and then sorted the actions of the drivers by car type. People driving beaters were the nicest drivers.

[zeemike]

18. Interesting article, thanks.

But that was in the UK...I am sure the top care here in the US is different but the colors may be the same.

[GreatGazoo]

19. here is another article (couldn't find this earlier) -- US data

http://www.carthrottle.com/post/a-massive-41-of-us-think-that-bmw-drivers-are-the-biggest-jerks/

[zeemike]

20. Kind of confirms that the BMW is the car choice for assholes.

The physiology behind that must be interesting.

But I might be biased on that because I hate cars. If I lived in a place with public transportation I would never own one... they are just stinky dirty pains in the ass IMO.