We have officially become inured to mass shootings.

[jclay]

I'm generally ok with the stances in post 319.

[Dallas Tex]

I'm generally ok with the stances in post 319.

Mark this day as the first time Jclay & I have ever agreed about anything ;)

All kidding aside, the decorum of this discussion has been magnificent. This has been truly a discussion, and not a ‘debate’ with folks posting links to try simply end the discussion.

[e-RICHIE]

how so? and i ask that in the most open way i know how. truly not trying to be contentious, but does not the way you use "enlightened" imply that gun owners are somehow...not? that we have not evolved and become civilized? to me at least, the implication is that we are relics from another era and that we are clinging to a mindset you see as unnecessary in our modern times. i truly am trying to understand how you don't see that your quote above, at least in part, does not indicate this...and that it does not continue to act as a barrier to open dialogue on the issue.

please dispel this implication, if that is not the case.

My reply was to this comment:

>>> The person that uses a gun to harm you or your family: non-law abiding. The person that uses a gun to defend himself or his family from someone trying to do them harm: law-abiding.

In this case, neither gun owner is enlightened.
That's why I wrote "The person who needs no gun at all: enlightened."

Let's work towards that rather than continue this, "Well he has one so for me to be safe and protect my family, I should have one." saw.
When does that circle close so that we don't live in fear?
Can it close?

And as Glenn wrote, "Anyway, the more accepting we become of all crime, the more the fabric of our society breaks down."

[Dallas Tex]

But the =only good and smart option in that case is to escort your family to another door or window and flee while waiting for the police. Things are just that : things. You have an insurance policy. Trying to play the hero is the best way to put your family in danger.

And if that is not possible? Say you live on the 2nd or 3rd floor? Both doors open into the same hallway where the intruders are trying to bust down your door? Say you have a baby, are you really jumping out of a 3rd floor window rather than protect your family with a gun? I don't think protecting your family could be construed as 'Trying to play hero....'

[theflashunc]

And if that is not possible? Say you live on the 2nd or 3rd floor? Both doors open into the same hallway where the intruders are trying to bust down your door? Say you have a baby, are you really jumping out of a 3rd floor window rather than protect your family with a gun? I don't think protecting your family could be construed as 'Trying to play hero....'

Well clearly in that scenario you should be in your machine gun nest facing the door. Assuming you've sand-bagged around it properly and installed the requisite number of Czech hedgehogs.

[moondog-sparky]

My reply was to this comment:


In this case, neither gun owner is enlightened.
That's why I wrote "The person who needs no gun at all: enlightened."

Let's work towards that rather than continue this, "Well he has one so for me to be safe and protect my family, I should have one." saw.
When does that circle close so that we don't live in fear?
Can it close?

And as Glenn wrote, "Anyway, the more accepting we become of all crime, the more the fabric of our society breaks down."

thank you for the clarification. i recognize what you are getting at and i think it is a noble goal - zero gun violence and no need to defend our selves from such violence (what we all want, no matter our disagreements on this thread). i just feel that the use of enlightened (in such a way as to indicate no need for a gun at all because one is above the fray), does indicate that all others with a gun, for whatever reason, are well... unenlightened, or somehow lacking in moral clarity. again, i respect your clarification here and i don't disagree that this universal enlightenment is the better state of mind. i might say that should guns magically disappear tomorrow, person-on-person violence will not disappear - it's been here since the dawn of man (i know you know this, so i'm not lecturing). if it isn't guns it will be knives as the weapon of aggression / defense. or clubs, or rocks... we're human. and, sadly, we can be violent at times and universal enlightenment is not on the near horizon. thus, the need for self protection. we may disagree in the tool, method and level of response, but surely we all recognize the need for self defense, should it ever come to that.

i also agree with Glenn and "Anyway, the more accepting we become of all crime, the more the fabric of our society breaks down." i might ask those on this thread who have questioned people who may be involved in confrontations such as bike theft (just give them the bike...it's only property, right?) or home invasion (better to exit out the back window for safety, right?) at what point does simply walking away and accepting crime make our society better? doesn't the position of many on here to avoid physical conflict at all (most?) costs go against the above statement? sure, in the short term bloodshed and violence are avoided, but does this not "teach" criminals that they can, in fact, get away with it? i don't endorse full on killing as the sole means to secure my property or protect my family (never been in this position), but at what point do we turn into sheep in order to maintain the moral high ground?

and please don't interpret my thoughts above to indicate i am ok with the status quo or that i believe we shouldn't strive for a better society with less violence and less perceived "need" for guns as protective tools. i absolutely want those things - as people before us have for hundreds of years. we just aren't all that enlightened yet as a species.

[e-RICHIE]

...we just aren't all that enlightened yet as a species.

I could write a novel about this, or simply quote my mother (RIP).
See it done.

thank you for the clarification. i recognize what you are getting at and i think it is a noble goal - zero gun violence and no need to defend our selves from such violence (what we all want, no matter our disagreements on this thread). i just feel that the use of enlightened (in such a way as to indicate no need for a gun at all because one is above the fray), does indicate that all others with a gun, for whatever reason, are well... unenlightened, or somehow lacking in moral clarity. again, i respect your clarification here and i don't disagree that this universal enlightenment is the better state of mind. i might say that should guns magically disappear tomorrow, person-on-person violence will not disappear - it's been here since the dawn of man (i know you know this, so i'm not lecturing). if it isn't guns it will be knives as the weapon of aggression / defense. or clubs, or rocks... we're human. and, sadly, we can be violent at times and universal enlightenment is not on the near horizon. thus, the need for self protection. we may disagree in the tool, method and level of response, but surely we all recognize the need for self defense, should it ever come to that.

i also agree with Glenn and "Anyway, the more accepting we become of all crime, the more the fabric of our society breaks down." i might ask those on this thread who have questioned people who may be involved in confrontations such as bike theft (just give them the bike...it's only property, right?) or home invasion (better to exit out the back window for safety, right?) at what point does simply walking away and accepting crime make our society better? doesn't the position of many on here to avoid physical conflict at all (most?) costs go against the above statement? sure, in the short term bloodshed and violence are avoided, but does this not "teach" criminals that they can, in fact, get away with it? i don't endorse full on killing as the sole means to secure my property or protect my family (never been in this position), but at what point do we turn into sheep in order to maintain the moral high ground?

and please don't interpret my thoughts above to indicate i am ok with the status quo or that i believe we shouldn't strive for a better society with less violence and less perceived "need" for guns as protective tools. i absolutely want those things - as people before us have for hundreds of years. we just aren't all that enlightened yet as a species.

[Dallas Tex]

Well clearly in that scenario you should be in your machine gun nest facing the door. Assuming you've sand-bagged around it properly and installed the requisite number of Czech hedgehogs.

I have two condos in dallas. The 'sneak out the back scenario' wouldn't work for the one i live in or the one that i lease out.

Maybe you'd prefer to put the safety of your family in the hands of the folks trying to break down your down in the middle of the night? What is a czech headehog ?

[Matthew Strongin]

thank you for the clarification. i recognize what you are getting at and i think it is a noble goal - zero gun violence and no need to defend our selves from such violence (what we all want, no matter our disagreements on this thread). i just feel that the use of enlightened (in such a way as to indicate no need for a gun at all because one is above the fray), does indicate that all others with a gun, for whatever reason, are well... unenlightened, or somehow lacking in moral clarity. again, i respect your clarification here and i don't disagree that this universal enlightenment is the better state of mind. i might say that should guns magically disappear tomorrow, person-on-person violence will not disappear - it's been here since the dawn of man (i know you know this, so i'm not lecturing). if it isn't guns it will be knives as the weapon of aggression / defense. or clubs, or rocks... we're human. and, sadly, we can be violent at times and universal enlightenment is not on the near horizon. thus, the need for self protection. we may disagree in the tool, method and level of response, but surely we all recognize the need for self defense, should it ever come to that.

Person on person violence will continue, but it will likely be diminished and/or the worst consequences (read: deaths) will decrease. It's not like every gun death would become a knife death.

i also agree with Glenn and "Anyway, the more accepting we become of all crime, the more the fabric of our society breaks down." i might ask those on this thread who have questioned people who may be involved in confrontations such as bike theft (just give them the bike...it's only property, right?) or home invasion (better to exit out the back window for safety, right?) at what point does simply walking away and accepting crime make our society better? doesn't the position of many on here to avoid physical conflict at all (most?) costs go against the above statement? sure, in the short term bloodshed and violence are avoided, but does this not "teach" criminals that they can, in fact, get away with it? i don't endorse full on killing as the sole means to secure my property or protect my family (never been in this position), but at what point do we turn into sheep in order to maintain the moral high ground?

I don't think people who are willing to prioritize their safety are endorsing crime. They're choosing their well-being first and using other legal channels, such as calling the police and filling a report, over defending an inanimate object.

[mzilliox]

But ask yourself an honest question. It’s 4am two guys are trying to beat down your door. You call the cops. I’ll use my urban neighborhood as the example, the cops are about 20 minutes away, maybe more. As the person tasked with protecting your family, would you honestly rather have Kung-Fu training, a knife, or a gun ?

martial arts training and samurai sword if im being honest. inside a house? limited space? impossible to escape the length of a samurai blade? ill give you 2 guns. wtf are we talking about.

[mzilliox]

OK, how much power do you need to do the job? Howitzer? Or is it reasonable to dial it back a few clicks? Because that's what many of us are proposing.

There is no discussion to outlaw all firearms. There is a discussion to regulate certain types of firearms.

What is the appropriate tool to address a home invader crackhead? Some high caliber, high capacity AR, or a 9mm pistol, or something else?


You also asked for solutions, as if none have been presented. So here are some, again:

- universal / comprehensive background checks
- waiting periods
- national standards for firearms education
- tax on firearms
- tax on ammo
- strict requirements for personal liability coverage

Please rank and pick the ones you think might be helpful, and feel free to add your own options.

yes, but can you offer solutions or only take away my guns? im still waiting for sensible solutions. oh wait. let me actually take some time to read

[Dallas Tex]

you have to realize the odds are in your favor when you dont own a gun, its simple probability. .

If its that simple, take a moment and explain to me how my family is safer not having a gun in the house when people are breaking down the door trying to harm my family? Bear in mind, my defensive gun has been in my home for years with no problem.

[moondog-sparky]

Person on person violence will continue, but it will likely be diminished and/or the worst consequences (read: deaths) will decrease. It's not like every gun death would become a knife death.



I don't think people who are willing to prioritize their safety are endorsing crime. They're choosing their well-being first and using other legal channels, such as calling the police and filling a report, over defending an inanimate object.

i agree completely on your first point. i don't subscribe to the theory that if we removed all guns we'd suddenly have have mass "knifings" instead of mass shootings. i see person-on-person crime of the general violent flavor as very different than mass shootings (different motivations altogether). rather, i was speaking on the position of self defense - the need for this won't disappear even if guns do.

i did not intend to suggest that those who don't engage in direct self defense or confrontation endorse crime. sorry if it came across this way. i just feel strongly that, when given the chance to do so, people should stand up for their property and lives. how, when, and to what level that response may be is entirely up to the individual, of course. but in my opinion every time someone tells me "it's just property" and act like any defense of an inanimate object is somehow irrational or unjustified, i cringe. and while i support our boys in blue, i do not believe they can be relied upon 100%. just not possible for them to address everything, everywhere, at all once.

[Dallas Tex]

martial arts training and samurai sword if im being honest. inside a house? limited space? impossible to escape the length of a samurai blade? ill give you 2 guns. wtf are we talking about.

Without a doubt that would be by far the coolest method of self defense.

[davids]

If its that simple, take a moment and explain to me how my family is safer not having a gun in the house when people are breaking down the door trying to harm my family? Bear in mind, my defensive gun has been in my home for years with no problem.

If it's that simple, take a moment and count up the number of home invasions your family has been subject to.

You are less safe with a gun in your house. The Good Guy With A Gun argument is a fantasy. Not only that, it once again ignores the true statistics about gun violence:

• Two thirds of gun deaths are suicide. Research shows that suicide tends to be an impulsive action and that if the means are not easily available the impulse often passes without self-harm. Suicide rates are higher in homes with guns.
• One third of gun deaths are homicides. Having a gun in your home makes you much more likely to die by gun. It makes women more likely to be shot or killed by their abusive partner. It makes children more likely to die by gun. Homicide rates are higher in homes with guns.
• Statistics show that the US gun homicide rate is twenty-five times higher than comparable high-income countries.

I repeat: You are less safe with a gun in your house.

[theflashunc]

I have two condos in dallas. The 'sneak out the back scenario' wouldn't work for the one i live in or the one that i lease out.

Maybe you'd prefer to put the safety of your family in the hands of the folks trying to break down your down in the middle of the night? What is a czech headehog ?

Time to sell the condos and move if that's a legitimate fear. Or, I dunno, invest in a sturdier door? Higher taxes that pay police who will show up promptly when called in an emergency?

Lots of ways to solve the proposed scenario that don't involve going John McClane on someone.

Czech hedgehogs are the iron implements used in WWII to slow down or block armor from advancing. If you've seen the opening of Saving Private Ryan, you've seen many Czech hedgehogs.

[mzilliox]

If its that simple, take a moment and explain to me how my family is safer not having a gun in the house when people are breaking down the door trying to harm my family? Bear in mind, my defensive gun has been in my home for years with no problem.

you know what tex, i will. i have hardly told anyone thi story, as i am embarrassed by it, but if it teaches anyone any lessons, who cares if im embarrassed? i grew up in san bernardino. we held for some time the highest per capita murder rate in the world. neat huh? at my high school graduation, bullets literally flew past me at a party hitting 3 kids. kids took guns to school. what im saying to you is that i lived in the worst part of the worst part of a place in america that could be considered just above 3rd world status. just set and setting so you know im not talking about delaware or new brunswick or some crap.

my dad had a shotgun for "self defense". granted, his idea of teaching gun safety was if you ever touch my gun ill knock your head off, which i admit is not good gun safety for a kid. but would it have mattered to a curious 11 yr old? most likely not, as i was playing duck hunt at the time on nintendo, you know, developing stupid kid brain and all that. one day i had a friend over and my folks were out for a little bit. guess what curious 11 yr olds got up to? what is powerful and shiny and wonderous to a boy? a gun!

fuck, it was loaded. lets just say to this day i have nightmares about what if i had pointed the gun toward my buddy instead of a desk?

yup, lots of warnings here, dont keep your gun loaded, keep your gun out of reach of your kids, etc etc. DONT HAVE A GUN AT ALL. but tell me this, if the gun is unloaded and out of reach of your kids, how the heck do you think you are gonna be able to stop a criminal? "hold on sir, please hold your aggression until i can unlock and load my weapon?" so how is a gun which is safe from kids, a tool for stopping home invasions? and how is a tool for stopping home invasions not a danger to curious and foolish children

i know i know, you aren't those kinds of people, your kids know better, they are smarter than me, you are more aware than my family was, we were just a stupid anomaly not at all representative of statistics.

there, there is a very personal story of why i think you are wrong in measuring risk. it doesnt make you wrong, it just means my calculations and formulas are significantly different to yours i guess.

and i wasnt kidding about martiaL arts and a sword. i think if someone were actually serious about wanting to have a good home invasion plan, if you really thought it were a possibility, it would necessarily involve martial arts training, well before owning a gun. this seems oh so very obvious to me.

[Cookietruck]

maybe dallas is different, but around here all the home invasions happen when nobody is home...i guess because the people know that they are much more likely to get away with it that way. seems, these people aren't breaking into homes to do harm to people, but to grab a few appliances so they can head down to the pawn shop and get a little cash in their pockets.
as far as home protection, seems a pistol would be ok, not sure why you'd need some kinda semi auto with a 20,30 or 100 round magazine.

anyways, if i lived out in the country, i mean really out in the country, i'd have some guns. sometimes you gotta kill a sick animal or something. i always figured if someone wants to do harm to you, they are going to figure out a way to do it.

[davids]

I sometimes feel like I've wandered into a house of mirrors.

People think they need guns to protect themselves from people with guns.
So they buy guns.
Now there are more people with guns.
So people think they need guns to protect themselves from people with guns.

It's like they're doing their best to turn their worst fantasies into realities. It seems perverse to me.

And before you accuse me of being some naive suburbanite - I've lived in the middle of a major city for my entire adult life, almost 28 years of which was in the middle of the 'hood. It was a multi-ethnic, lower-income neighborhood. It was a high-crime neighborhood. I was the victim of a few crimes over the years, including a stolen car, an attempted break-in and a stolen tire. I also made many good friends, shopped at the local Korean fishmonger and Vietnamese & Dominican restaurants, and raised a child there.

[Dallas Tex]

you know what tex, i will. i have hardly told anyone thi story, as i am embarrassed by it, but if it teaches anyone any lessons, who cares if im embarrassed? i grew up in san bernardino. we held for some time the highest per capita murder rate in the world. neat huh? at my high school graduation, bullets literally flew past me at a party hitting 3 kids. kids took guns to school. what im saying to you is that i lived in the worst part of the worst part of a place in america that could be considered just above 3rd world status. just set and setting so you know im not talking about delaware or new brunswick or some crap.

my dad had a shotgun for "self defense". granted, his idea of teaching gun safety was if you ever touch my gun ill knock your head off, which i admit is not good gun safety for a kid. but would it have mattered to a curious 11 yr old? most likely not, as i was playing duck hunt at the time on nintendo, you know, developing stupid kid brain and all that. one day i had a friend over and my folks were out for a little bit. guess what curious 11 yr olds got up to? what is powerful and shiny and wonderous to a boy? a gun!

fuck, it was loaded. lets just say to this day i have nightmares about what if i had pointed the gun toward my buddy instead of a desk?

yup, lots of warnings here, dont keep your gun loaded, keep your gun out of reach of your kids, etc etc. DONT HAVE A GUN AT ALL. but tell me this, if the gun is unloaded and out of reach of your kids, how the heck do you think you are gonna be able to stop a criminal? "hold on sir, please hold your aggression until i can unlock and load my weapon?" so how is a gun which is safe from kids, a tool for stopping home invasions? and how is a tool for stopping home invasions not a danger to curious and foolish children

i know i know, you aren't those kinds of people, your kids know better, they are smarter than me, you are more aware than my family was, we were just a stupid anomaly not at all representative of statistics.

there, there is a very personal story of why i think you are wrong in measuring risk. it doesnt make you wrong, it just means my calculations and formulas are significantly different to yours i guess.

and i wasnt kidding about martiaL arts and a sword. i think if someone were actually serious about wanting to have a good home invasion plan, if you really thought it were a possibility, it would necessarily involve martial arts training, well before owning a gun. this seems oh so very obvious to me.

Thanks for sharing. makes everything more understandable & human. FWIW, I never kept a gun in the house until my daughter was off to college. For the same reasons you list.