America certainly has no deficit of fast-food joints and oil-smudged parking lots. Or, for that matter, blood.
Sitting here on the curb, gazing across the sweltering asphalt at a midtown Jack in the Box, I realize that this place now has a ghost. The stain of death is probably here, too, though I’m hard-pressed to find it. Most likely, it has been scrubbed away on the anxious orders of management.
That the murder occurred at this midtown eatery was pure coincidence. It could have happened anywhere. Especially in Arizona.
But it was right here, late on the afternoon of Aug. 1, that random fragments of frustration, resentment, indignation and impulse all collided into a white-hot moment. This constellation burst into reality, and then it was gone. And in that dissipation, Benny Alvarez Casarez Jr. lay dying, next to his black Ford Mustang. He had turned 50 the month before.
The authorities are talking road rage. It’s thought that the killer squeezed off multiple shots from within his Toyota Tundra before careening away.
There was no shortage of witnesses to the murder of Benny Alvarez Casarez Jr. They included employees of a nearby Mexican restaurant. “I saw the police when they got here, and they tried to give him CPR to get him back,” one told KOLD Channel 13. “He was face down, and they just put him face up. I don’t think he was alive anymore.”
Around midnight on Aug. 2, police captured 24-year-old Andres Fernando Buelna in a motel off Grant Road and Interstate 10. He was booked on suspicion of first-degree murder. My cursory search through a Superior Court database turned up little on Buelna, except for a civil medical case.
A TPD spokeswoman declined to discuss any prior criminal record, nor would she offer specifics about the weapon, except to describe it as a handgun.
It is often said, with passion, that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. True enough. But it is not often said that knives don’t kill people. Or, for that matter, that tire irons brandished in rage don’t kill people. Of course they do, when taken in hand. Yet there is something in their lack of immediacy—the absence of sudden and shocking animation—that always removes them from this argument.
With good reason. It’s hard to imagine Andres Fernando Buelna allegedly killing Benny Alvarez Casarez Jr. with a knife or a tire iron from within the cab of his truck. No, that would have required brutality at close quarters—a fierce gallop across the asphalt, and a hard look in the eye.
Perhaps time enough to change the collision of possibilities. Perhaps not.
Ask the multitudinous, often prickly fans of the Second Amendment, and they will offer another possibility: That a well-armed, well-trained passer-by might have gauged the situation in seconds, and taken Buelna out. That, they will say, is why we need more guns rather than less.
It could be truth. Or, in this universe of possibilities, it could be just another random notion, based on the mythos that nourishes gun worship. But in Arizona, that mythos has long been a matter of pure faith.
In recent legislative seasons, state lawmakers have found reasons to override local ordinances forbidding guns in city parks. They’ve voted to let the adult citizenry carry concealed weapons sans permits or training, and to allow citizens to take guns in bars.
In a case of déjà vu all over again, our state is increasingly being compared to the Wild West. But that’s an intriguing misnomer; many frontier Arizona towns boasted stricter gun laws than we have today. Consider that Tombstone’s infamous shootout erupted because the local marshal—Virgil Earp—attempted to enforce a prohibition on guns in public.
That’s not to suggest that laissez-faire gun policy doesn’t also enjoy deep roots here. Indeed, the Arizona Constitution harbors a gun-rights provision rendering its federal counterpart wimpishly vague by comparison. “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired,” reads the Arizona document, “but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
The state Constitution was drafted in 1910, and we’ve been on the vanguard of steadily expanding gun rights ever since. Even the modest controls of Arizona’s frontier towns were eventually swept away, under the stance that they violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Arizona lawmakers have also played decisive roles in fighting federal gun legislation, including the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—better known as the Brady Bill—so named for President Ronald Reagan’s press secretary, who was shot in the head during a 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.
Among other things, the act established a database known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is supposed to contain the names of people who are not eligible to purchase firearms.
Support of the contentious measure nearly cost then-Arizona Democratic Sen. Dennis DeConcini his job, after a recall was begun against him.
While Arizona may not be the only state to harbor a vibrant—and sometime truculent—gun culture, it’s certainly at the forefront of a national movement dating from the 1970s, arising in response to that era’s flood of restrictive gun legislation. The lawmaking flurry followed the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.
Before that time, gun culture, as exemplified by the National Rifle Association, “was a hobby culture, a sportsman’s culture,” says Brian Anse Patrick, a communication professor at the University of Toledo, and author of Rise of the Anti-Media: In-forming America’s Concealed Weapon Carry Movement.
“But since about 1970, it has turned into an identity movement,” he says. “Gun owners suddenly perceived that they were under some form of attack by the gun-control agenda.”
Nowhere were the results more raucous than in the NRA, “where the members took over the leadership, threw out the old guard, and they became a political organization. Since then, things have never been the same.”
The NRA and similar groups have subsequently enjoyed great sway in Arizona, influencing everything from firearms regulation to wildlife policy. “They act in concert, and they’re well-informed,” he says. “That’s why they win.”
Ironically, they may even see long-term gains from tragedies such as the January mass shooting in Tucson that wounded 13—including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords—and left six people dead, among them U.S. District Judge John Roll, and 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green.
The reason is simple: Such events typically spark new proposals to restrict firearms, which in turn revitalize gun-rights groups. “Those things remind gun people why they organized in the first place,” says Patrick.
Still, re-energized gun-rights advocates don’t always prevail—even in Arizona. For instance, when Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed a pair of bills last session that would have allowed guns on college campuses and into public buildings, some firearms advocates viewed her move as a sop to the anti-gun crowd.
We’re the Tombstone of the United States of America. … I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in this state … carry weapons whenever they want, and that’s almost where we are. … The Legislature is proposing students and teachers be able to carry weapons. … Colleges should be run by college presidents, not the Arizona Legislature.
—Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik
Soon after Jared Loughner’s shooting spree, there were charges and counter-charges about what had allegedly inspired the 22-year-old schizophrenic.
Gun-rights folks noted that Giffords herself has been a Glock-owning supporter of the Second Amendment. Gun-control advocates pointed out that conservative political gadfly and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin had posted crosshairs on her website, targeting Democrats who supported President Obama’s health-care bill. Among those targets was Gabrielle Giffords.
There’s also a contingent steadily arguing that a single armed citizen, arising amidst the chaos of that January day, could have crisply put an end to Jared Loughner. There are others who call that ludicrously wishful thinking.
Charles Heller puts himself firmly in the first camp. He’s a spokesman for the Arizona Citizens Defense League, a Tucson-based gun-rights group. And he says that one citizen, so armed, actually did happen upon the scene. This gentleman was preparing to draw down on someone with his 9-millimeter Ruger, before realizing that Loughner’s gun had already been seized and emptied of bullets.
According to Heller, a “target” can be “neutralized” in 1.9 seconds from seven yards away. Loughner kept shooting for 31 seconds. “That would have been 29 seconds of shooting that he did not do,” Heller says.
Richard Mack agrees. He’s the former Graham County sheriff who has since fashioned a career as a gun-rights advocate. He’s the author of the book From My Cold Dead Fingers: Why America Needs Guns. In 1994, Graham went to court, questioning the constitutionality of the Brady Bill’s mandate that local law-enforcement officials run criminal background checks on gun-buyers. His case began in the courtroom of Judge John Roll, who ruled in his favor. Mack later took his successful fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For Mack, the Loughner shootings were personal. “Judge Roll was killed, and he was my judge,” Mack says. “I guarantee you that if I had been there, Judge Roll would be alive today, and so would that precious little girl.”
The former sheriff now lives in Fredericksburg, Texas, where he works for a tea party-affiliated group. And his opinions about guns remain black and white. “They symbolize something very near and dear to my heart,” he says, “and that’s freedom.”
He’s writing a new tome called The Magic of Gun Control. “And what I’m expressing in the book is, plain and simply, that there is no magic,” he says. “Why do we look at history and think that now, gun control will work in America, when it’s never worked anyplace else to provide peace, safety, security, freedom—or to make sure that the individual is protected?
“There is not a chief of police or a sheriff in Arizona or anywhere else in this country,” says Mack, “that can guarantee you that they can be there in time to save you from an armed assault. The only other option is that you defend yourself.
“When criminals get caught in the commission of a crime, it does a lot more than anything these vapid politicians can dream up.”
Indeed, those “vapid” politicians thought up the NICS background check. And despite his history of mental problems, that system did not raise red flags over Jared Loughner. He strolled out of the Tucson Sportsman’s Warehouse on Nov. 30, 2010, clutching a new Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun.
If we are a nation of guns, then Arizona is the flagship. In 1994, the state Legislature passed a law permitting residents to carry concealed weapons—as along as they were also toting a state-issued permit. In 2000, then-NRA president Charlton Heston was invited to give the legislative session’s opening invocation.
More-recent sessions saw the passage of bills allowing the possession of concealed weapons without permits or training, the designation of a state handgun—the Colt Single Action Army revolver—and the strengthening of the ability of people to defend their homes or vehicles with firearms.
The Legislature also passed measures that block cities and towns from banning hunting within their boundaries (except in proximity to occupied structures), prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting gun ordinances more restrictive than state law, and ensure the right of citizens to carry guns in parks and preserves.
Many city and county leaders consider the new laws a state power-grab.
“I think local control is an important tenet that we try to defend,” says Tucson Ward 3 Councilwoman Karin Uhlich. “It seems to me that the scales are absolutely tipped toward the unrestricted use and carrying of weapons” regardless of the city’s wishes.
As an example, Uhlich points to a solar-power array planned for Tucson Water property in Avra Valley. “There is a question about whether the new state statute will compel us to allow hunting on that property,” she says. “Our responsibility to the local residents—and to the broader public—is to make sure we’re using the assets to the best interests of the public. And allowing hunting around a large solar array is in direct conflict with that.”
Over at the Tucson Police Department, worries about a more profusely armed populace are downplayed by Sgt. Matt Ronstadt.
“We haven’t changed in the way our folks approach people in the street,” says Ronstadt, a department spokesman. “It has always been with a primary focus on making a safe approach—and with the assumption is that everybody is armed until you’ve determined otherwise.
“That said,” Ronstadt continues, “I think there was some concern when the conceal-carry permitting process was changed. In doing that, I think it eliminated one of the more-valuable parts of the law, which was the mandated training. Although that training was minimal, it was some training that people were required to go through prior to obtaining that carry permit.”
In the meantime, there’s hardly a shortage of hardware out there: Between August 2010 and August 2011, the Tucson Police Department took in 1,425 firearms. The number included guns that had been stolen, and guns used to commit crimes.
It’s a mistake to assume that Arizona’s new gun laws occurred in a vacuum. For better or worse, behind every measure was a lobbyist carefully shepherding his legislative flock. Among them was Todd Rathner, who has long handled the NRA’s issues in Arizona. There was also Heller’s Arizona Citizens Defense League, which is now considered the state’s ascendant gun-rights group.
The Defense League’s success is due to “hard work by five dedicated board members and a whole bunch of volunteers,” says Heller. “It’s just plain shoe leather and sweat.”
It’s also about a lot of face-time at the state Capitol. “We have two full-time lobbyists,” he says. “That’s why we’ve eclipsed the NRA—we’re there every day the Legislature is open, and several days when it’s not. We’re the local boots on the ground.”
That dedication has earned some obvious victories. But there have been defeats as well, such as when Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed the measures that would have allowed guns on college campuses and in public buildings.
The governor called the bills “poorly written.” But Heller saw something else behind the governor’s move.
“It was a reaction to the January shooting,” he says, “the pressure she was getting from it. She had tremendous pushback. When you throw that big of a rock in the water, you’re going to make a lot of waves.”
Regardless, he says the measures were already sandbagged by the time they reached Brewer’s desk. For instance, the law allowing guns throughout campus had been winnowed down to just permitting guns in common areas.
“We would have preferred clean bills,” Heller says.
Which raises this question: What prompted such compromise among legislative leaders proudly steeped in gun-adoration? “Many Republicans lost their spine,” Heller says. “‘Republican’ does not necessarily mean ‘gun-friendly.'”
Nor, as it turns out, are all Democrats gun-hostile—particularly not those in rural, largely conservative districts where guns for hunting and self-protection are common.
“There’s a lot of agreement in supporting Second Amendment rights,” says Jennifer Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party. “Where you see light between Democrats and Republicans is in some of these extreme measures, like guns in bars or guns on campuses, or removing training” for concealed-weapons permits.
“But Arizona Democrats are going to run the gamut,” Johnson says, “from the Navajo Nation all the way down to the border. And they represent a lot of viewpoints. We are a big tent.”
Big enough to contain the ambitions of state Sen. Steve Gallardo, a Phoenix Democrat representing a largely poor district with more than its share of gun violence. To help keep firearms off the street, Gallardo introduced a measure last session that would have required vendors and private sellers at gun shows to conduct the same background checks that are now demanded of gun shops. That would include screening buyers who are younger than 18, mentally ill or have criminal records. Currently, gun-show sellers only need to ask for ID when selling weapons.
Gallardo’s measure followed an investigation by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in which undercover agents easily bought guns at shows—even after mentioning that they’d be unable to pass background checks.
The loophole bill was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it was stalled by chairman Ron Gould, a Lake Havasu City Republican. “Ron Gould just sat on it,” says Gallardo. “He refused to let it out.”
Sen. Gould didn’t return a phone call seeking comment.
Gallardo says he wasn’t surprised. “The current makeup of the Legislature has no intentions of regulating any type of firearm, including the gun-show loophole. They’re just not going to deal with it.”
He blames a lack of education among the public. “I think people need to understand what goes on at these gun shows,” he says. “It’s not only what’s being sold in the gun shows; it’s what’s being sold in the parking lots of these gun shows. They have these gun shows every month.
“Unfortunately, the Legislature refused to actually hear the bill, but we’re going to continue to raise the level of debate on this issue.”
Among Gallardo’s staunchest backers was Hildy Saizow, president of Arizonans for Gun Safety. Among other things, her decade-old grassroots group does crime-prevention work in high-risk neighborhoods. In the last legislative session, it also worked the state Capitol.
“We don’t have a lot of resources for lobbying, but we feel very strongly that we need to have smart policies that really address gun violence,” Saizow says. “It’s a particular problem in Arizona, because we have a very high rate of gun deaths compared to other states. And it’s particularly problematic among youth. For the 15-to-17 age group, gun deaths are the No. 1 injury. It used to be traffic accidents, and now it’s become gun deaths.”
Actually, according to the Arizona Department of Health Services, these two leading factors have traded places more than once in recent years.
Her group visits middle school classrooms in tough parts of Phoenix where gun violence is common. They ask how many students know someone who’s been shot.
“You can’t believe the number of hands that go up,” Saizow says.
That effort is also being taken on by medical organizations such as St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, which participates in Chicanos por la Causa’s TRUCE Project. The program helps young people learn to resolve conflicts nonviolently.
For hospitals, such involvement is a no-brainer.
“Violence-caused injuries are the second-leading cause of injury to young adults that we see at the hospital,” says Pam Goslar, St. Joseph’s injury epidemiologist. “When you see that with teenagers and young adults over and over again, all of our trauma surgeons want to see something done to prevent that violence.”
There is also a cost to the hospital and society, she says, since most victims of such violence don’t have commercial insurance. “They’re either not insured at all, or they’re already on (Arizona’s Medicare system).”
St. Joseph’s is also planning to participate in a December gun-buyback day.
To Hildy Saizow, hitting those tough neighborhoods is the important work. But this year, the Legislature provided a distraction when it moved to allow guns on campus and in public buildings.
“We decided that we really had to focus on stopping these measures that are just really out of touch with what the public wants,” she says, “out of touch with common-sense approaches to violence, and really against the social compact.
“For decades, we have all agreed that there are some places that guns don’t belong. That’s in schools and in public places. So when the gun lobby really made the push to put guns in those areas, we said, ‘That’s enough.'”
There has also been pushback on campus, by organizations such as Students Against Guns in Education. Jay Sanguinetti is the group’s co-president, and a UA psychology grad student who also teaches classes. He traveled to Phoenix to lobby.
He says the proposal to allow guns at state universities was disturbing. “Our first sort of visceral, gut-level reaction was that we didn’t want to teach classes in front of people where some might be armed, and some aren’t. It started there, and the more we discussed (the law), the more objections it raised.”
He says that SAGE has the support of most faculty members. But the concern doesn’t end there.
“We began noticing that most of the students—undergrads and graduate students—we were talking to were also very uncomfortable with it. They had the reaction of, ‘Why would anybody want to do this in the first place?'”
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Arizona has topped national rates of gun-related deaths since 1981, when the stats were first recorded.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, in 2009, guns accounted for 60.1 percent of all murders in Arizona. Statewide, there were 4,053 aggravated assaults involving firearms, and guns were used in 3,671 robberies.
A report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns details a strong correlation between weak gun laws and interstate gun-trafficking. The findings point out that states with the weakest gun laws are the top suppliers of trafficked guns and firearms found at crime scenes.
In 2009, Arizona experienced 3.04 gun murders per 100,000 people. While we can’t complete with the District of Colombia—with its astounding 18.84-per-100,000 annual homicide rate—or Louisiana’s average 10.46 per 100,000 gun murders, many question whether the tide of firearms flowing through Arizona is actually making us safer, as gun-advocates argue.
But numbers or not, those advocates cite their interpretation of the Second Amendment—and note that the courts have generally agreed with them.
“We’re not in the business of telling people to buy guns,” says Charles Heller of the Arizona Citizens Defense League. “We’re in the business of making it easier for them to assert their rights.”
But attitudes toward gun restrictions are changing: A poll by the conservative firm American Viewpoint found that nearly half of all Arizonans would support more-restrictive gun laws, while only 5 percent would oppose additional restrictions. That includes 35 percent of people who own guns.
Fifty-three percent support stricter gun laws as a means to prevent mass shootings. It also found that 69 percent of respondents opposed the idea to allow guns on college campuses.
Those numbers leave Heller unmoved. “I don’t know if the majority of Arizona citizens are behind us, and I don’t care,” he says. “I care that the Constitution is behind us. We’re not in a popularity contest; we’re in a constitutional-rights contest.”
I meet Danielle Duarte for the first time in a midtown park. It was just a few weeks after her father, Benny Alvarez Cazarez Jr., was gunned down in that Jack in the Box parking lot. She’s friendly and upbeat, the way people can be when they’re stubbornly treading water in a sea of unanswerable questions.
In an earlier phone conversation, she described her dad as a jack of all trades who worked on cars and did metal fabrication. He was very street-smart and always keyed in to his surroundings. She can’t figure out why he would have pulled into that parking lot, and possibly confronted his killer.
“For him to get out of that car is mind-blowing to us,” Duarte says. “He was always mellow and pretty easy-going. He was always in the moment.”
Benny Alvarez Casarez Jr. had just celebrated his 50th birthday, on the Fourth of July.
To do something positive, Duarte has printed bumper stickers prodding drivers to pause and breathe deep before they, too, roar into the road-rage trap.
And she’s still working through her feelings about guns. It’s the national debate, writ small and quite personal. On the one hand, she says, people kill people. On the other hand, maybe there are too many guns, making that habit all too easy.
Her dad had his own opinion on the matter: “He would always say, ‘All it takes is a split second. You can be at the wrong place at the wrong time.'”
Duarte falls silent for a minute. “There are two sides to this,” she says. “There’s gun control. Then there’s also just that sense of being responsible and respectful. It’s the Golden Rule—treat people the way you want to be treated. And I think we’ve lost a lot of that.”
This article appears in Sep 15-21, 2011.
Actually Britain has less violent crime than the US.
When I lived there the police, the Bobbies, didn’t even carry guns and I have not heard that they carry them now. With increased immigration, crime has increased. The British version of our SWAT teams are well armed. The recent riots in Britain were carried out by these immigrants. But Britain is a more peaceful, civilized country than U.S.
The friends I had there found it surprising American citizens carry guns. Not one person I asked about firearms had ever even seen a gun except in photos. They were not hunters and would never have use for a firearm for protection they said.
Violent crime includes offenses other than murder.
“UK is violent crime capital of Europe”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law…
“The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11…
I moved here from a gun-control utopia precisely because Arizona was NOT a gun-control utopia. I’d rather read 100 whiny articles like this in the “progressive” lamestream media than live one more week in a nanny-state tyranny. Arizona treats its adults citizens like ADULTS — go figure.
Poor jesse, the UK Government database shows you are ignorant, or a liar, you choose which.
Or you can go to Home Ofiice UK, Their goernment database, and look in their “Crime & Statistics” menu. There you will find their version of the FBI UCR database. There you will find how they went from 820 VCR Violent crimes reported per 100k people in 1997, the first year of their gun ban, to 1,667 vcr per 100k people in 2009. Their murders did not go down either.
So much for less guns equals less crime BS.
You do realize a country 20% of our population as England is, has almost as many reported violent crimes as the US does eh? Look it up, the data is there!
While in the US, our database shows in 1997 a 611 vcr per 100k people has fallen in 2009 to 429 vcr per 100k people. A real reduction in violent crime of 30% and murders reduced 20%.
But hey, in the US that occurred with an increase of 9 mil households owning a gun, increase to 80 mil people owning a gun, 13-16 more states implementing concealed carry, 35 states implementing concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol, 3 states and 71 universities implementing concealed carry.
So much for more guns equal more crime BS.
Just because you dont encounter an issue never, ever means it does not occur.
Another article quoting yet another study about as valid as a barroom poll at 11:00 PM …
to suggest Gallardo is some how respected is to suggest a turd in a punch bowl is a really a decorative accouterments … you can put a ribbon on a donkey dick sadly it’s still a donkey dick … well … until it’s an article in The Tucson Weakly … which seems to see donkey dicks as eye candy …
I find it amusing that the people who so freely attack the second amendment of the constitution are the same people who rabidly defend other amendments. Religion has caused more death throughout history than any other single issue, yet freedom of religion is defended as sacred. Free speech has incited people to violence over the years, yet people always consider it an issue never to be mentioned. If you asked liberals to give up freedom of the press they would probably turn purple, yet it has been a propaganda tool for governments the world over to justify their use of violence against their citizens and other nations. Recent protests at the TUSD meetings discussing Ethnic Studies were met with tolerance. The students were not clubbed and jailed because they were exercising the right of assembly even though it disrupted the business of the school district. Should they have all been jailed and the meeting continued? I don’t think so, but as long as rights are not being respected, why not?
My point is that any right can be abused, and any freedom can cause pain and conflict, but all our freedoms are important. The people who lobby against my second amendment right to own and bear arms wouldn’t like to be locked up for expressing that opinion any more than I would like my rights violated because they don’t like guns.
Tim’s real problem is with freedom, not with guns. He sees freedom being abused and people being hurt, and instead of blaming the people doing the hurting of innocents, he blames the freedom. Fundamentally he is no different than the prohibitionists who insisted that when alcohol was banned in the 1920s that utopia was just around the corner.
Rollin wit my mutha f-n strap on the side of me….
We don’t have a “firearms lobby” in this state, the AZCDL group you cited (and tried to smudge” is a grassroots organization and hardly has the funding to be considered “lobbyists” in the usual sense. They’re a group of hard-working folks trying to keep AZ from turning into a liberal and violent “gun-free” state like the dumps on its western and southern border. Its not surprising to see a Tucson publication fail to see the merits of an armed public, after all, when the recent Giffords shooting occurred the entire crowd was a bunch of sitting ducks because none of them had the common sense to take responsibility for their own safety (legally carrying a firearm or other tool). The same people who ignorant scream that “the public shouldn’t be armed because we have police to protect us” should take note that the entire Giffords shooting was done and quelled by the bystanders minutes before the cops even showed up. As long as criminals have guns and roam our streets, it is a DISSERVICE to the public to prohibit them from being allowed to protect themselves. Maybe Tucson wouldn’t be such a crime-ridden trainwreck if more people would stop acting like a bunch of CA granola-munchers and start taking some initiative to taking care of themselves. Tucson is right in the middle of this border violence and hack journalists like Mr. Vanderpool still have their head so far up their posterior than they can’t see the light. How about doing a nice hit piece on La Raza and the crap they are pulling in Tucson? Oh wait, that’s OK because they are attacking US sovereignty and ARE A LOBBY that IS FUNDED (by our own gov’t no less). This report is a nice “hit piece”, but hardly anything that even resembles journalism.
Basically, the “public” here in AZ likes their guns, but the liberal crybabies who flocked here from Californistan and elsewhere are scared by guns and any car bigger than a Prius. The public has spoken and if you don’t like it be sure not to let the door hit your hippie backside on the way out
Just a passing thought …
“U.S. Border Patrol agents have discovered a cache of several high-powered weapons along the Rio Grande river including a rocket launcher, assault rifles and plastic explosives, authorities said.”
Your comment anxiously awaited – now which lobby would it be that wants these kind of weapons along the border? Grijalva? Gallardo? La cocha Dee Dee? Tres putos de Mexico?
In the late 90’s it was a different story at the Arizona legislature. The anti-RKBA lobby, the ACLU, DPS and the Police Chiefs Assoc. were lobbying hard for more restrictive measures.
There were a lot of bills introduced by anti-RKBA zealots for lobbyists on the opposite side of the issue.
What caused their demise? They were too extreme in their wants, put another way, they wanted restrictions placed on those who own firearms that went way beyond what the People would tolerate.
This caused a ‘movement’ among individuals and they began showing up at hearings to defeat these restrictive bills and asking lawmakers to introduce bills that would repeal current restrictions.
At first their only success was to stop the anti-RKBA zealots in their tracks and defeat their bills. This showed a small group of individuals that when legislators were confronted with valid arguments, they would err on the side of RKBA. Their steadfast support for the individual right to bear and keep arms led to their reelection and the election of a new ‘breed’ of lawmaker that supported the position of the right of the individual to bear and keep arms.
This ‘new’ movement (it existed before and is what enabled the CCW permit law) began to grow. The repeal of old laws on the books began to take place and now today we enjoy the RKBA our State Constitution requires.
Herein lays the danger: Making the same mistakes the anti-RKBA zealots made by pushing the envelope and turning the tides.
Are there laws on the books I would like to see repealed? You betcha! But we must take it one step at a time and repeal those most onerous to our RKBA while writing new restrictions on subdivisions of the state from disobeying the current laws and holding them accountable.
An example is the City of Tucson. Only Councilwomen Scott moved to repeal Tucson’s ordinance disallowing self defense in its parks with a firearm for non-CCW permit holders after a 2010 law went in to effect. Councilmen Kozachik & Cunningham’s childish reaction and their refusal to repeal the ordinance shows their arrogance. This must be dealt with in future legislative sessions.
Well, that was a rant. These guys obsess over their basically useless weapons — useless unless they want to kill someone — like some guys hang on their nether parts. I don’t care for the constitutional argument as if it was settled law; it’s not and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment will get tossed around as soon as there’s a change in the Supreme Court. That’s not the point. The point is that people who go all crazy and paranoid when you even mention the possibility of controlling dangerous users and uses of guns are, well…crazy and paranoid. Like the insane Jack Nicholson character in THE SHINING, they’re writing “The brown flox lept over the sleeping dog” a thousand times, as if their puny arguments will bring back the wrongfully murdered or relieve the rest of us who aren’t so flaked of fear that one day we will be wrongfully shot and murdered, just to satisfy someone’s paranoia or someone else’s bloodlust.
PS Come to think of it, I bet that the guys who obsess over their tubes of death _are_ the same guys who obsess over their other tubes. I know I’m not the first to draw the analogy, but you get the same arguments from each about “keep your hands off my….”
Jake,
I really hope that when you are assaulted by one of our local criminal elements, that you defend yourself with your psycho-babble hyperbole. One guess on the outcome of that situation. No matter how much you wish it every night before you put on your pajamas and go to bed, the really bad people out there don’t give a rat’s ass about your feelings. When some ‘non-law-abiding-citizen’ just happens to make their way into your house in the middle of the night, it wouldn’t seem like your choice of words would stop them from raping and killing you. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me; you know it – so why don’t you believe it? There’s a title reserved for people who think the way you do Jake: Professional Victim.
don’t care if people own guns. I have guns kept at my fathers house as my wife is not for having them in our home. That being said hand gun raffle alienates lots of independence who may not endorse rampant gun rights. GOP IS TRYING TO MAKE LOCAL CANDIDATES FAIL!
The author approaches the debate from the wrong side, presuming that it is the right one. We have not been “expanding” the right to keep and bear arms, we have been RECOVERING it from constitutionally-proscribed intrusions. As much as I disagree with “selective incorporation” (if the 14th Amendment, by its plain language, didn’t incorporate all of the Bill of Rights, then it did nothing at all), the stated have now been bound by the McDonald holding to the declaration, “…the right…shall not be infringed.”
This is not “expansion”, it is restoration. As the SCOTUS held, the right is a) inalienable, b) exists independent of the Constitution, and c) applies universally no matter in which state one lives.
Until the author gets his perspective right, any argument he makes is null and void.
1. Gabrielle Giffords is a gun owner.
And a lot of good it did her. Even if she’d been holding it in her hands it wouldn’t have helped her.
2. In countries where there are stricter gun-onwership laws there are fewer gun-related crimes and deaths.
Both of the above are facts. But the minority’s delusional obssession that more guns equals being safer is something all of us pay dearly for every day.
Funny, I’m more afraid of getting shot by a crazy, intolerant, aggressive, hateful conservative than I am of getting my house broken into. I am nervous about going into bars which allow guns. What’s to stop some drunken douchebag with a gun from going postal on me for looking at him the wrong way? Or a road-rage-fueled drive-by shooting (as evidenced by the article above)?
Personally, my material possessions are far less important than my sanity; If I accidentally killed another human being, even if they were entering my home illegally, I don’t think I could live with myself (hmmm… perhaps I actually have a soul). Besides, according to the gun-loving Christian right, wouldn’t it be “God’s” will, if my demise should come from being killed by a gun-toting home intruder?
Do tell, where are the statistics about this epidemic of Tucsonans just breaking into people’s houses to hurt them, anyway? Is it really such a common occurence that we should feel the need to be prepared to kill on site?
Seriously, I’m not some tree-hugging hippie. I absolutely support gun-ownership for hunting, those living in rural areas and for sport. But allowing unlicensed and untrained persons to carry guns around in public in a large city just doesn’t sit well with me. My political beliefs are closer to the middle than the left – by most standards I’m considered quite wealthy, and I don’t love paying so much taxes; I do agree with reducing federal government and giving states more control over their own affairs.
It would be a dream to be able to just move to another state if you don’t agree with those who surround you, wouldn’t it? I’m sure many right-wingers would love to live in a place that allowed unlimited gun rights, no taxes, no entitlement programs, deregulation of every industry, banishment of all illegal aliens, corporate welfare, and integration of church and state. And I’d love to live in a state with gun control, abortion rights, gay marriage, deregulation of drugs and alcohol, universal healthcare, multicultural diversity and freedom of religion. Let’s make THAT happen!
And Kingjoey: I’m stuck here temporarily because of work, but don’t worry, in a couple of years I’ll take my (sizable) tax dollars, consumer spending power and charitable contributions with me when I get out of this state full of hateful, intolerant vigilantes.
Gwen,
You said: “2. In countries where there are stricter gun-onwership laws there are fewer gun-related crimes and deaths.
Both of the above are facts. But the minority’s delusional obssession that more guns equals being safer is something all of us pay dearly for every day.”
Might I ask where your evidence is to back up your facts? And fyi, an academic study did find that more guns equals less crime. Here’s the study, read it for yourself: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLS/lott.…
If you’re going to quote something you found online, or something someone told you, it would be nice if you could back it up with some evidence instead of hearsay.
In places without water there are very few deaths by drowning. In places without food there are very few deaths from obesity induced heart attacks. Your point is rather dull, there is plenty of violence and death in places where guns are forbidden to the average person and almost without exception it is the small/weak/old that are the victims.
Your utopia sounds a lot like Mexico, the common peon is not allowed the means of self defense (to protect corrupt politicians and drug lords) and has that worked out great for them; the corrupt politicians and drug lords. Our government helps the criminals buy and smuggle in guns and their government supplies helpless victims. That in a nutshell is what you seem to want.
singerM,
This is quite the reply, so I’m going to break it up, element by element.
1. You said: “Funny, I’m more afraid of getting shot by a crazy, intolerant, aggressive, hateful conservative than I am of getting my house broken into.”
So you’re not afraid of getting shot by a crazy, intolerant, aggressive, hateful liberal? How about a centrist? Libertarian? Communist? Socialist? I find it funny how your post is oozing with intolerance, aggression and hatefulness towards those who hold a different view from yourself. A classic case of projection.
2. You said: “I am nervous about going into bars which allow guns. What’s to stop some drunken douchebag with a gun from going postal on me for looking at him the wrong way? Or a road-rage-fueled drive-by shooting (as evidenced by the article above)?”
First, if it makes you nervous to go into bars which allow guns, then don’t go. Nobody is forcing you to patronize these establishments. Second, your next two sentences can be answered easily: both of these types of behavior are already illegal. But according to your logic, the laws stop people from doing this, so I guess we’re all safe now here in the land of make-believe.
3. You said: “If I accidentally killed another human being, even if they were entering my home illegally, I don’t think I could live with myself (hmmm… perhaps I actually have a soul).”
I would also feel bad about killing another human being ACCIDENTALLY. That’s why they have this neat thing called gun safety. It teaches people to be safe and responsible with firearms so ACCIDENTS do not happen. In regards to your comment about having a soul, I would infer from your statement that if you were to be involved in a traffic collision where you ACCIDENTALLY killed someone who was driving ILLEGALLY (maybe the person from the bar who has road rage), that your soul would be revoked from you. I would also infer that you would not be able to live with yourself in that situation either.
4. You said: “Do tell, where are the statistics about this epidemic of Tucsonans just breaking into people’s houses to hurt them, anyway? Is it really such a common occurence that we should feel the need to be prepared to kill on site?”
If you are looking for crime statistics, there are many places you can find them easily. You will have to do your own footwork on that though. I suggest starting with the FBI crime statistics which you can find with a simple search on Google. In regards to your second sentence, the short answer is: yes. Contrary to some people’s belief systems, we do not live in a society free from violent crime.
5. You said: “I absolutely support gun-ownership for hunting, those living in rural areas and for sport. But allowing unlicensed and untrained persons to carry guns around in public in a large city just doesn’t sit well with me.”
So how do you feel about unlicensed and untrained people wielding 2 tons of metal at high speed, running around a large city? I am referring to drivers, of course. Do you really believe that passing a 20 question written test, and a driving test that covers the absolute basic skills is enough to make the public-at-large feel safe? Cars kill more people annually than all other inanimate objects combined. And do you actually believe that a card or a piece of paper issued by the government makes a person responsible and safe? I’m also wondering how you feel about people who have more training than 99% of the police being armed and public? (I’m taking assumption that you know that police officers receive very little firearms training, and only have to qualify on paper with their service weapon twice a year.)
6. You said: “It would be a dream to be able to just move to another state if you don’t agree with those who surround you, wouldn’t it?”
It’s not just a dream, it’s reality!
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” – United States Constitution
Also: Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), and Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869)
So you are free to leave Arizona whenever you want (barring any judicial or statutory prohibitions).
I hope my response wasn’t too crazy, intolerant, aggressive, or hateful for you singerM.
Gwen,
My apologies. The correct URL for the Lott/Mustard study is here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/467988
Gwen,
Here’s a link to a free, PDF version of the study: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41… (I was unaware at the time when I posted the last link that a payment of $14.00 was required to view the submission.)
The title is: Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns
singerM,
I just came across this article, and immediately thought of you. Now I know this happened in Glendale, but it still carries my point. Please read this article about a recent home invasion: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/201…
Touché, Johnny. Touché.
I was on a bit of a rant. For the record, I’m not strictly against gun ownership. I question the need sometimes, especially for carrying in public in an urban space. I’m not absolutely convinced either way.
You certainly “served me” on several points, but I’ll respond where I can:
1. “I find it funny how your post is oozing with intolerance, aggression and hatefulness towards those who hold a different view from yourself.”
I think my paranoia about getting shot by someone having a bad day or being irresponsible is as valid as yours about needing to be able to defend yourself “just in case.”
But yes, instead of “conservatives,” I should have said, “Gun Owner,” or “Gun Carrier.” It was wrong of me to make the generalization there. But wouldn’t you agree that someone who would shoot another person over their political beliefs, or in a bar for looking at them the wrong way, or in a drive-by shooting, could legitimately be called intolerant, aggressive, or a douchebag? 🙂
I do believe the majority of all people are well-intentioned and good in their hearts. But let’s not pretend that most throwing around hostile statements in the public discourse, like, “I’ll just have to use my gun on all those wimpy commie hippies if they keep trying to take away my gun rights!” are conservatives/right-wingers. That’s where my prejudice comes from… conversely, I have yet to meet or hear of a liberal or left-leaning individual that engaged in death threats – over any issue.
3. All of my *trained* gun-loving friends (and I have quite a few) say they would shoot to kill if someone entered their home. I’ve been told it’s best to completely annihilate the person because there’s a chance they might have a gun and shoot you after you’ve… oh… say… shot them in the leg or something.
5. “So how do you feel about unlicensed and untrained people wielding 2 tons of metal at high speed, running around a large city? I am referring to drivers, of course. ” I assume by making this statement you are saying that requiring a license and training to drive a car is not a deterrent to idiots getting behind the wheel, and by the same token gun regulation is not a deterrent to idiots carrying in public… kind of like saying the death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime? Sure, I’ll concede on that point.
6. “It’s not just a dream, it’s reality!” Correct me if I’m mistaken, but don’t Federal Laws apply to All states in the Union? No matter what state you move to, you’re subject to them, whether you agree with them or not (case in point: gun control, or lack thereof). I was trying to say that if states had ultimate authority over some of these hot-button, uber-controversial issues, our crazy infighting and vitriol might ease up, and people could just live their lives without feeling persecuted, oppressed or attacked, whichever side they happen to be on. Sorry if that sounds naive, but if the political situation gets any worse in our country, it just might be the way to achieve some modicum of collective happiness and peace!
Sorry Johnny, just saw your second comment after I posted mine.
You know, I read the article and it made me very sad; my heart goes out to the woman and her child.
And so I put myself into the situation if I’d had a gun… First off, who answers the gas man at the door with a gun in their hand? Do you whip out your gun every time someone rings the doorbell? Chances are my gun would be in my bedroom, under my bed or in a nightstand. I probably wouldn’t even have a chance to get to it in time if they caught me off guard and were close enough to stun me before I could make a run for it.
I think a gun would have been pretty useless in that case.
Besides, unless I called for someone to come out to my house, they have no legitimate reason for coming into my home. They wouldn’t get past the view of my peep-hole.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have never had any problem taking away someones gun. The reason for this is that I have trained for this for over thirty years. Its amazing how easy it is to do this once you have the necessary martial arts training. It is all determined by the way people move and think. The best thing to do is go into a bar where people are allowed guns, take it away from he or she and shoot them with their own gun. Why, because it should be obvious that they are in there drinking, reflexes and mental function impaired. The same goes for people roused from sleep, watching TV, reading, looking at computer etc. I will guarantee you that the majority of you who think that your gun will protect you have neither the skill, training, alertness or will to do what is necessary to make it a reality. I have taught classes showing people whose job is to carry a gun how easy it is to take theirs away. More policemen get shot by their own weapons by a large margin than get shot by other peoples weapons. It is a criminals job, full time, to use his weapon. Where is your gun right now? How long will it take to get to it. Is it loaded? Your child can probably get to it easier. Will it be dark? Is it a family member sleepily wandering around for water or going to the bathroom. A neighbor, come over for something. Do you practice when you are cold , tired,drunk, horny, back killing you, barefooted, just out of shower, naked ? I doubt it. You would be better off with a baseball bat, provided you practice with it. If you are angry, threatened, scared you will be at a disadvantage. Most of you are out of shape. How many of you practice what to do in a fire, or even to change a tire. Do it in the next freezing rainstorm. Walk the walk, gun fanatics, mouth will not save your lives. All that gun will do is give you a false sense of security.
ZKen,
That’s great that you have martial arts training (and who knows what else you claim to have on the internet) and all, but I have a feeling that you’d have a hard time bobbing and weaving out of the path of a bullet.
Oh, and for the record, it is *illegal,* I repeat, *illegal* to possess a firearm while consuming alcohol in the State of Arizona at any establishment that serves it, so your whole theory about drunken, gun carrying idiots that you can just walk up to and disarm is pointless. Yet another ignorant dolt who thinks the bars out here are full of drunk hicks shooting their guns off into the ceilings…
Ken, your mouth sure walks the walk of an anti gun zealot, you do lie pretty good, but not good enough.
There are no national statistics on how many times officers’ guns are taken away. But the FBI says that of the 616 law enforcement officers killed on duty by criminals from 1994 through 2003, 52 were killed with their own weapon, amounting to 8 percent.
http://www.policeone.com/close-quarters-co…
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
In the world of mathematics and statistics, something you are apparently ignorant or disdainful of, 8% is never a majority unless you are screwed up on drugs and believe your are Alice in Wonderland where real physics and therefore real mathematics apply.
This assertion that criminals are superior is again a load of ka ka, otherwise, the numbers of deaths and injuries caused by crimes would be astonishing.
As it is, the government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 that 80% of all violent crimes committed in the US each year are committed by career criminals/gang members.
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs32/32146/i…
Suicidal people kinda speak for themselves.
Shall we review police studies in Chicago and NYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.
http://www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooti…, http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public…, http://www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_1…
So when are you going to address those two groups responsible for over 95% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.
Lets not forget some more government data and studies DOJ Firearms use by offenders, where bad guys documented they fired their weapons 15-18% of the time they used them.
Example, 2008, FBI UCR 1.38 mil violent crimes reported, 381k involved a firearm.
Oh and then we go to the best documented records of people hitting their target under pressure, referencing multiple police firearm discharge reports (google NYC & Virginia Firearm Discharge reports), one sees they only fire their weapons 15% of the time and when shots are fired, hit their targets 15% of the time on average. So wheres your data the criminals are better shots eh? Oh thats right, all you have is BS unsubstantiated belief, lol, ROOKIE!
Dont forget this other government report, USDOJ National Victimization report 2008, it shows in 2008 alone, 4.8 mil violent crimes were not reported. Why is that important, read on ROOKIE!
In 2008, CDC & Hospital databases show 12.252 murders by firearms, 70,000 plus injuires.
So knowing that at best, cops and or criminals, sometimes hard to tell the difference, at best fire their weapons 15% of the time they have them pulled
That means, out of 381,000 violent crimes committed with a firearm, that at worst case, the criminals should have killed and injured at the same rate as the police eh?
381,000 x 15% = times shots fired = 57,150
57,150 x 15% = times shots hit target =8,573 death and injuries.
But wait, government records show 82,252 total deaths and injuries occurred, oh thats right, the government acknowledges over 70% of violent crimes ARE NEVER REPORTED.
So do you have proof that this rate of non reporting changes for only ONE category of reported violent crime einstein? ROTFLMFAO, no, you anti gun zealots never do!
See one must work off the actual number of deaths and injuries to find out the probable number, so lets see you work back off the actual numbers einstein.
82,252 murders and injuries/ 15% x 100 = total # of times shots fired
Total number of times shots fired/15% x 100 = total number of incidents.
Calculate at your own risk, but unfortunately for you, it coincides with the fact the government acknowledges, over 70% of violent crimes are NOT reported, and incidents of self defense where no shots are fired, rarely get reported and you can’t prove otherwise.
Lets review the following ACTUAL 10 mass shootings, and note what the body counts were where resistance occurred versus no resistance.
October 16, 1991, Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen, TX, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 23 murdered, 20 injured.
April 20, 1999, Columbine, “Gun-Free”: 2 gunmen, 13 murdered, 24 injured. Many were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech, “Gun-Free”: 1 gunman, 32 murdered, 25 injured. Most were murdered AFTER the police were “on scene”.
Feb 14,2008 Northern Illinois University, 1 gunman, 5 dead, 18 injured, gunman kills self long before police arrive to engage.
Nov 5 ,2009 Ft Hood Texas, 1 gunman, 13 dead, 30 wounded. Military personnel on base are BANNED from having a weapon, but the shooter did, and it was almost 9 minutes before police responded
Gun Free Zone 5 incidents
Defenseless victims murdered: 86
Defenseless victims injured: 117
December 17, 1991 Shoney’s Family Restaurant, Anniston, AL: 3 gunmen, 20 hostages, one ARMED customer (Thomas Glenn Terry). Police finally arrived to find one dead robber, one wounded robber and the third had fled when the shooting started. NO INJURED INNOCENTS.
October 1, 1997, Pearl High School: 1 gunman, 2 murdered, 7 injured: Stopped by ARMED vice principal.
January 16, 2002, Virginia Appalachian School of Law: 1 gunman, 3 murdered, 3 injured. Killer was stopped when confronted by two ARMED students.
Dec 9 2007, Colorado Springs, New Life Church, 1 gunman 2 murdered, 3 injured, gunman stopped when armed woman shoots gunman, who then turns gun on self and commits suicide, while 100 other church members are in church.
May 4th, College Station Georgia 2 gunman, 10 victims, 1 dead gunman, 1 victim wounded. The 2 thugs robbing a party begin discussing if they have enough bullets to do the job. One man retrieves his firearm, kills one thug, chases the other off.
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance 5 incidents
murdered: 7
Where murderers encountered ARMED resistance; injured: 14
Wow, where no resistance occurred 9 plus times higher body count.
Yep, a higher body count is morally superior to a lower body count based on Kens beliefs.
Then to add injury to insult for Kens unsubstantiated beliefs, we see from just four websites of many that collate self defnse incidents…
Keep & Bear Arms
KC3
Armed Citizen
The American Rifleman
.. and we see an average of 80 successful defensive gun uses per month. These are all based on police incident reports, and since the NRA and or 80 mil law abiding gun owners are not in charge of ANY SINGLE POLICE DEPT, so save the bias claims for the village looking for their lost idiot!
SO now that you know where to look for the data, please show everyone how the criminals even when they suprise their intended victim are 100% guaranteed to kill you einstein. Lets see all those instances where the intended victim was disarmed and shot by their own weapon, LOL, it is a lesser percentage than the police and you have no proof to show otherwise.
Heck, even in anti gun nazi land Chicago, we see incidents where the bad guy suprised their intended victim first, yet the bad guy was the one killed. 80 yr old army vet and a 60 something yr old store owner within 10 days of each other in June 2010, shot and killed their attacker who fired first, right during the same week the US Supreme Court ruled on McDonald vs Chicago.
Lets see, 30 to 35 million civilians are former military, uh so how many of those minds and skill sets were wiped completely clean like in the fictional movie Total Recall eh?
No, you have not provided, nor has any anti provided any proof that the criminals are oh so superior experts in anything other than choosing to break the law.
Also, tell ya what, have not seen an acquantance of mine for 20 years, he is probably retired now, but everyone knows him as Chico. See when the Indiana State police put you through their academy, they would send a group of 6 to 7 cadets into a dark room, telling them their was a bad guy they need to aprehend and it was their asssignment to bring him out. In the 12 years I was there in that time, no group of cadets ever pulled Chico out of that room. He was indeed a specialist, and they are few and far between, not the rule.
So until you can prove your inferrence that ALL criminals are specialists and experts with their weapons etc, by disproving all that government data provided, you are nothing more than an emotional biased liar!
singerM and ZKen,
Answers to your questions, in general:
Yes, I have my gun with me at all times (with exception of those places I am not permitted to carry), and it is always loaded and ready to go. I have been trained to use a firearm under any circumstance, and have done so many times. I do not ‘shoot-to-kill’; I use my weapon to match and stop the threat, which is well within the legal limitations of using a firearm. I have military and law enforcement experience, and I am very aware of what I can and cannot legally do with my firearm.
What this all comes down to is this: if you choose to own/carry a firearm, YOU are legally responsible for your actions with that firearm, in ALL situations. Just because firearms training is not longer required by the State to get your CCW, does not mean that it is acceptable to own/carry a firearm without, at the very least, the proper safety training. Once again, YOU will be held responsible…not anyone else.
For example, driving; I also have a CDL with every endorsement, and have been a professional driver for well over 10 years…all without a single accident. Why? Training and RESPONSIBILITY.
Unfortunately, we cannot legislate responsible behavior. However, the laws are already on the books about being responsible for your actions. There are some people out there (like the road-rage shooting example) who CHOOSE to be irresponsible and reckless with their firearms. But to blame the firearm is wrong. The firearm is an inanimate object that does not choose anything for itself. People CHOOSE to drive drunk, yet we don’t blame the car for killing innocent people (and I have SO many stories of what drunk drivers do to innocent people…I was there to see it all as a first-responder).
This entire gun-control debate comes down to RESPONSIBILITY. You either choose it, or you shun it. I don’t have much of a problem reacting to some irresponsible person with a firearm. My experience and training give me an exponential advantage. My instincts are automatic due to my training (military and law enforcement). A firearm is a TOOL, and should be treated as such. There is the proper time to use that tool, and until then, it should not be used, period.
We would have a much better society if people could simply take more responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately, those days seemed to have passed. It reminds me of the 70’s, when littering was a national problem. I remember seeing people throwing their trash right out their car window onto the street; like it was normal and O.K. to do so. After the trash started piling up (didn’t take long), people started to take responsibility, and they stopped littering (except the irresponsible ones, and they’re still around.)
The answer to our problem is individual responsibility. All the laws in the world will not achieve this goal. It takes each and every one of us to step up and be responsible, and not only with guns, but with everything else. I truly miss the days when people were respectful and responsible, in general. I hope to see those days again during my lifetime.
ZKen,
You said “The best thing to do is go into a bar where people are allowed guns, take it away from he or she and shoot them with their own gun.”
I infer from your comment that your decades of ‘martial-arts training’ did NOT teach you a single thing about what the law has to say about this. I am not a lawyer (yet…working on it!), but I can say this:
What you advise people to do is considered, at the very least, theft and aggravated assault; and at the most, murder in the first degree (premeditated homicide). What is seems that you do not realize, it not everyone in a bar, even if they have a firearm, is drinking. For example, if a police officer, in uniform, was in a bar investigating something; applying your statement to this situation, I would guess that you would go up to that police officer, steal their firearm, and shoot them with it, simply because they are armed in a bar?
So maybe that’s extreme. Let’s back off here and look at the legal consequences to your actions, if you choose to follow your own advice. First off, you WILL be arrested. There is an overwhelming chance that you would serve a VERY long time in PRISON. You will also most likely be SUED by the person you shot, or their family. I guess your extreme martial-arts training didn’t teach you that there are legal consequences for your actions, no matter how right you THINK you are, because you THINK you can take away anyone’s gun under any circumstance. The dojo does NOT replicate real life, no matter how much you close your eyes and pretend.
You might want to stop your martial arts training for a bit and learn some responsibility before you attempt to disarm law-abiding citizens. And as mentioned in another comment, drinking while possessing a firearm is a crime, but it is NOT a capitol crime, and it DOES NOT give you ANY right to exercise justice upon ANYONE.
One last thing: there is a very large difference between fighting and self-defense; the former is ILLEGAL, the latter is LEGAL. If you know the difference, please respond with all the elements of the crime of aggravated assault (which, with all your massive martial arts training, would be MOST applicable towards you when you decide you need apply your type of justice on the world). I will, however, help you out with your journey to responsibility…here are the state laws concerning “justification”: http://www.azleg.gov/arizonarevisedstatute… Scroll down to chapter 4 – Justification. I really hope you have a seriously good lawyer…with your attitude you will need one.
Ah yes, struck a chord didn’t I. I probably should have said, the best or worst, thing to do, if you are a Bad or crazy person, is to etc. because,. etc. First of all I was careful not to use buzz word purgatives, (like Nazi, zealot,einstein, emotion based liar etc.), to describe people on any side of the issue, it always weakens your message when you project the things that you fear the most about yourself onto someone else. It does remind me of something that my Uncle, who was a Marine sniper scout, from Makin Island to Iwo Jima, said: You can always tell a Marine, you just can’t tell him much.” The same applies to the people that think “Compromise ” is a dirty word. I describe a “gun fanatic” as someone who wants guns with no reasonable use for defense, target shooting or hunting. Like an Ak-47 or automatic shotgun or sniper rifles. For close in defense,in a home, a pistol is probably best. Of course the downside is its ease of use by young family members. Number two, I gave all of you the credit to read and interpret the obvious. That is, that the gun carrier has obligations, responsibilities and the moral imperative to know what carrying a gun involves. You are preaching to the choir. And you are proving my point. You gentlemen with military experience, with police training and understanding of the consequences should be training and enlightening the “gun fanatics” who have none of the understanding or desire to shoulder the responsibility for a gun. And, as we said in our Police classes, no matter how much you think you know, there will always be more you need to know. Wedge, Joh. d. and Jar , you are in the minority of gun owners. And that is the sad truth. As John Wayne said: “No excuses, it is a sign of weakness”,. I have not made impunitive statements about your gun training or abilities but I will give a piece of advice that may save your lives. If someone puts their hand on your gun, don’t try and grab the gun, or punch them, lay your hand over their hand, the hand that controls the hand controls the gun, where you guide that hand, that hand will go and so will the bullet that comes out of it. Thirdly, if you think that I am promoting the abilities of ALL criminals then you didn’t read what I said. You fell into the trap of “projection” thereby justifying any issues you may have. All you need is one self destructive personality, with or without criminal intent, to attack you and then the majority of gun owners would not be prepared to deal with all the consequences that all of you so elaborately explained. Fourthly, you again proved my point, a dojo does not replicate real life, it does prepare you a lot better than real life, which is normally peaceful, at least in U.S. So, feel free, to train yourselves, and educate your fellow gun owners. Next, JohnnyD., you should be capable of reading my comments and understanding that I was addressing the problems of a person that chooses to carry a gun for defense or even decoration, not the person doing the attacking. You, I presume, were addressing people carrying guns as well as people with bad intent. God forbid someone breaks into your home when you are in the shower or making love to the old lady. Did you remember to lock the door before? You only got one pistol then, lol. In the martial art I practice the levels of response depend on discerning the intent of the attacker. Lastly, get a sense of humor, “jarhead” you are going to need it when you try to use your cherry picked stats. from the web. I can pull up plenty where police, military, experienced people shot themselves in the leg or ass drawing their gun, ask the gun range people to tell you their horror stories. You three, of all the responders, know that its not the “gun haters” that kill people, its the “gun irresponsible” that kill people. And, in case you chose not to notice it, I never said I thought you shouldn’t own a gun or guns, I just said what you said and keep learning and take your experience as just a beginning. I think it was Mark Twain that said: “There are liars, goddamned liars and statisticians.”
“I describe a “gun fanatic” as someone who wants guns with no reasonable use for defense, target shooting or hunting. Like an Ak-47 or automatic shotgun or sniper rifles.”
There you go, making gross generalizations. All three of those general categories of firearms can be, and ARE, used for all three purposes. The fact that you do not know that shows the limitations of your knowledge. Furthermore, what you recognize as “reasonable use” or “need” is irrelevant with regard to rights.
“You gentlemen with military experience, with police training and understanding of the consequences should be training and enlightening the “gun fanatics” who have none of the understanding or desire to shoulder the responsibility for a gun.”
You presume that “gun fanatics” are either dangerous or untrained. You are making gross stereotypes and projecting all sorts of undefined, but undoubtedly nefarious, characteristics to this class of people.
“All you need is one self destructive personality, with or without criminal intent, to attack you and then the majority of gun owners would not be prepared to deal with all the consequences that all of you so elaborately explained.”
Show your evidence for this statement or be prepared to be accused, correctly, of stereotyping and/or projection.
“I can pull up plenty where police, military, experienced people shot themselves in the leg or ass drawing their gun, ask the gun range people to tell you their horror stories. “
Jarhead is WAY ahead of you because he DOES provide statistics that you choose to ignore. You, on the other hand, are making the mistake of thinking that the plural of anecdote is “data”.
I’d like to know who’s public opinion you are talking about I work at a very large company and I asked 57 employees what they thought of your article and only 3 agreed with what you wrote,you journalist should have to have real facts before you write articles like these,I even asked 12 employees at another company and none of them agreed with your article, so who’s public desire are you speaking of
ZKen,
You said: “Marine sniper scout”
The correct term is Marine Scout/Sniper.
—-
You said: “I describe a “gun fanatic” as someone who wants guns with no reasonable use for defense, target shooting or hunting. Like an Ak-47 or automatic shotgun or sniper rifles.”
Let’s break this down, element by element:
Your definition of a “gun fanatic” is someone who does not have a valid reason (defense, target shooting, or hunting) to want a gun.
So given your reasoning, one could infer that:
A ‘free speech fanatic’ would need a valid reason to want to talk, or print, or generally express themselves. (First Amendment)
A ‘private home fanatic’ would need a valid reason to not want to house soldiers during peacetime. (Third Amendment)
A ‘privacy fanatic’ would need a valid reason to not want the government to search their private property against their wishes without a warrant. (Fourth Amendment)
A ‘double-jeopardy fanatic’ would need a valid reason to object to being charged with the same crime more than once. (Fifth Amendment)
A ‘fair-trial fanatic’ would need a valid reason to want to face their accusers in court. (Sixth Amendment)
et al.
The inherent flaw with your reasoning, is that it assumes that the Constitution of the United States is the granting authority of our inalienable rights. This position is flawed and incorrect. The Constitution of the United States was written to PREVENT the GOVERNMENT from trampling on our NATURAL rights.
You provide examples of ‘unreasonable’ weapons: AK-47, automatic shotgun, and sniper rifles.
First, the definition of a firearm is:
a weapon that expels a projectile through the action of exploding gases.
Now that we have the definition, we can cover what you consider ‘unreasonable’.
Since reasonableness is subjective in its nature, it cannot be used to provide an accurate standard to base your claims.
Therefore, your definition of ‘unreasonable’ is subjective. The classification of weapons as unreasonable is dependent upon your personal beliefs instead of concrete fact.
So, we can deduce that since ‘reasonableness’ is subjective, then no weapons of any kind can be
considered ‘unreasonable’. For example, we can say that gravity is a force that we all deal with on a daily basis. This is an objective fact. However, we cannot say that one religion is better than the rest, because that is determined by each individual’s point of view, thus making it a subjective opinion.
To conclude, your definition of ‘unreasonable’ does not stand up to the marker of objectivity, and is simply your opinion, and not in any way fact.
Therefore, the firearms that you listed, being within the definition of a firearm, cannot be any more ‘unreasonable’ than any other firearm that can be defined as such.
So for you to ban those firearms due to their ‘unreasonableness’, you would also have to ban every other firearm that can be defined as such, including those used for “defense, target shooting, or hunting.”
—-
You said: “For close in defense, in a home, a pistol is probably best”.
For close-in home defense, the overwhelming majority of firearms defense experts recommend a shotgun.
A pistol is not only less accurate, but is also more prone to over-penetration, which can easily lead to innocent bystanders being shot accidentally.
—-
You said: “Number two, I gave all of you the credit to read and interpret the obvious. That is, that the gun carrier has obligations, responsibilities and the moral imperative to know what carrying a gun involves. You are preaching to the choir. And you are proving my point.”
What exactly is your point? I have yet to find the main idea of your comment, besides how you seem to be enjoying yourself whilst you inflate your ego. Any thorough analysis of your comments so far will only show that you attempt to posture yourself as some expert in firearms retention and self-defense. You have yet to provide any solid evidence to support your arguments; which you also seem to change sides on with each subsequent posting.
—-
You said: “If someone puts their hand on your gun, don’t try and grab the gun, or punch them, lay your hand over their hand, the hand that controls the hand controls the gun, where you guide that hand, that hand will go and so will the bullet that comes out of it.”
You should really learn to proofread what you write. Contrary to your belief system, bullets do not come out of hands.
Inferring that you’re referring to the gun, at what point during this little dance you just described, does the gun exit the holster (or storage area)? After all, the only way one cannot “try and grab the gun” is if the gun is not out of the holster (or storage area).
To play devil’s advocate, let’s say the gun is on the nightstand, and bad guy number 1 is attempting to take possession of it.
According to your advice, the good guy should NOT “try and grab the gun, or punch [the bad guy]”, but should simply lay their hand over the hand of the bad guy. That sounds to me like a recipe for disaster.
—-
You said: “Fourthly, you again proved my point, a dojo does not replicate real life, it does prepare you a lot better than real life, which is normally peaceful, at least in U.S.”
Once again, what is your point exactly?
How exactly does a dojo “prepare you a lot better than real life”?
You said: “…a dojo does not replicate real life”
So given your statement, how can someone receive BETTER training than real life, if that training doesn’t even replicate real life?
If you’re training for something better than real life, then what exactly are you training for? Is there something beyond real life that only those who train at a dojo know?
And since when has the United States been “normally peaceful”?
You don’t get around much, do you?
—-
You said: “Next, JohnnyD., you should be capable of reading my comments and understanding that I was addressing the problems of a person that chooses to carry a gun for defense or even decoration, not the person doing the attacking. You, I presume, were addressing people carrying guns as well as people with bad intent. “
Actually, I was addressing you. After all, YOU are the one who said “The best thing to do is go into a bar where people are allowed guns, take it away from he or she and shoot them with their own gun.”
Presumption is the act of asserting that something is true, without evidence to support your position.
You presumed that I was “addressing people carrying guns as well as people with bad intent.”
Your thinking is flawed in this matter. Your statement focused on two distinct and separate groups of people; those who carry guns, and those with bad intent.
If you will go back and read my post to you, it should be obvious that I was addressing neither group.
Your statement about bars and guns, that I quoted above, should be enough for anyone to reason that you would be included in the group that contains those people with “bad intent”. I say this because your statement would qualify you for one of the two necessary elements to any crime: mens rea. Your post would provide very strong evidence of your “criminal mind” in a court of law.
—-
Last one, I promise…You said: “In the martial art I practice the levels of response depend on discerning the intent of the attacker.”
I just wanted to add my version of your statement:
“In the self-defense I practice, the level of response to an attacker depends upon what I am legally justified to do in that certain situation, and what is the appropriate amount of force necessary to end the threat, which usually must be decided upon in a split second. Because of this, thorough knowledge of not only your legal rights, but also of the difference between self-defense and assault is critical.”
One more thing here; if you were to use YOUR statement in a criminal proceeding to defend yourself, I can almost guarantee that the jury will vote to convict you. It is becoming more and more clear to me that you have very little sense of the legal notion of self-defense. A word of advice: you might want to start learning.
You all must, I mean must, read the September issue of Atlantic Monthly about the history of gun control and who advocated the most vociferously to not regulate gun ownership….the Black Panthers! Return later with your comments about the essay.
Reading all these comments, I get the feeling that there are a LOT of people who spend a WHOLE LOT OF TIME thinking about guns. Hmm.
Bob
Bob, exactly my point made earlier: these people are dangerously obsessive. I think many own guns because they are disturbed. The copious amount of verbiage displayed here is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of babble dispensed in support of owning a killing machine. There are now 2500 militias in the nation, armed to the teeth. Add to their numbers all the addled sorts who fondle their guns before going to sleep at night, and you have a vast number of potential violent actors.
I’m sure there are nice gun owners who only hunt or who keep their guns locked up just for personal protection. It’s the obsessed, off-balance keepers of the right to dispense rapid violent death who are of concern.
PS For those who stil live by the mythology that the six-gun built Arizona, as typified by the legend of the Earps and the OK Corral in Tombstone, I recommend a read fo the new THE LAST GUNFIGHT by Arizona historian Jeff Guinn. Here’s a quote from the Amazon review:
“The gunfight did not actually occur in the O.K. Corral, and it was in no way a defining battle between frontier forces of good and evil. Combining newfound facts with cinematic storytelling, Guinn depicts an accidental if inevitable clash between competing social, political, and economic forces representing the old West of ruggedly independent ranchers and cowboys and the emerging new West of wealthy mining interests and well-heeled town folk.”
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Gunfight-Shooto…
Guns have created havoc in Arizona since the Spaniards showed up 400 year ago. It’s difficult to identify one noble act carried out in our state using firearms. Mayhem, death, and destruction. Probably as I write, someone with a gun is murdering someone else with a gun somewhere in Arizona.
The gun lobby’s sophism and the pathetic warnings about being assaulted by someone with a gun is disgusting. Thanks, Tim Vanderpool and TUCSON WEEKLY for speaking for the increasingly worried majority.
Gee wiz, Joh. D. , for a guy that hates the word “fanatic”, you sure obsess a lot about guns, what you think about what other people should mean, or say, or what is reasonable, subjective, the definition of a firearm, or whether it is sniper scout or scout sniper. They say, that the first thing you write “types” you. Unfortunately, my first two words “The Best” was intended to mean, “most effective” as opposed to good. It got attention thou. Shake up the complacent gun or for that matter any weapon toter.
You sure like to cherry pick. I could have said all kinds of things about what I thought is responsible and what a person needs training in. Did you want to presume something else? That, is what my point was: The need for gun owners to know the law, get training, keep training and quit rationalizing about what you can and cannot do with a gun. You are so eager to disagree and preen that you can’t see when someone is agreeing with some of what you say. Did you want to try and beat down and smother with cherry picked quotes in the hopes of obscuring some other agenda?. It took you 46 paragraphs to say the same thing while wandering all over the map while you told everyone this is what you would do while absolving anyone and especially yourself from that responsibility. In other words, you are a pedant. Hello, all these comments are opinion because we can’t show our proofs in person or a court of law. I would love to see your definition of : a reasonable show of force as subjective to your opinion of what is reasonable in a court of law. I was fishing for reaction by pointing out how vulnerable most gun owners are when they think that owning a gun is the same as knowing how, when and where a gun is appropriate, safe and sane. We probably wouldn’t need police, laws and taxes if everyone had guns. Of course, the most ruthless, evil and greedy would have the biggest and best. Hey, sort of like Mexico or Somoli The reason we have laws that restrict “unreasonable behavior” is dictated by the abusers, not the abused. I would challenge you any day to pick 100 gun owners and test them to see if they would know what to do and when they would be legally justified to do it and what the appropriate response would be and give them 5 seconds, much less a split second to do it. Yep, you would be much more of a criminal mind to think of them as being reasonably responsible for that gun than I would for saying how dangerous a self serving rationalization can be. . By your, uh, subjective definition of a firearm I would be able to say an RPG is one. I guess it is not so subjective after all. Not according to the law. It amuses me to see that you are the very kind of” hide behind the rules”, pedant that most irresponsible, selfish people despise because they see you as elitist. How ironic. Oh well, I guess this all proves it is far more civilized to use words and writing instead of guns. If you can’t laugh at yourself than you don’t deserve to laugh at others.
Jake,
Where is this “increasingly worried majority” that you speak of? You’d think that since this group is a “majority,” we’d have pretty strict gun control, since a majority can get things done at the polls and make things happen legally. However, just the opposite has happened over the last decade or so. Absurd firearms restrictions have been being dismantled all over the nation, one by one. Concealed carry has expanded to 49 out of 50 states, and more states now than ever have “right to carry” policies and “Constitutional carry.” And yet, this all somehow happens with a “majority” which agrees with your opinion? Right…
ZKen,
It amuses me that you can’t even bother to look up and try to understand the difference between the word ‘subjective’ and the word ‘objective’, but yet you still manage to type your meaningless responses. Let me help you understand my posts:
Here are the definitions from dictionary.com, so you don’t think I’m making it all up, again…both of these definitions are within the context of my post.
Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought
Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
It is obvious that I can sink your argument repetitively, as long as I choose. It is also obvious that you cannot seem to write at an objective, rational level. Please do not blame others for your lack of education and understanding. You can argue all you want with your weak, subjective mind; the facts will not change.
I have one more of your unintelligible comments to respond to, and then I will put this to rest since you cannot seem to make a rational argument for any point of view.
You said: “I would love to see your definition of : a reasonable show of force as subjective to your opinion of what is reasonable in a court of law.”
Your statement make absolutely NO SENSE: “…a reasonable show of force as subjective to your opinion”?
Let me help you understand…”subjective to your opinion” means the SAME THING. You might as well have said ‘your opinion to your opinion’. Please refer to the above definition of SUBJECTIVE.
As for “reasonable in a court of law”, my opinion does NOT matter in a court of law. The OBJECTIVE law is what matters in a court of law, and is the standard that people are judged against.
It is obvious that you have something to say that you feel is important. However, your SUBJECTIVE reasoning of how fast YOU will be with your ‘martial arts’ expertise, has absolutely NOTHING to do with how someone else will react in a situation. I find your responses to my posts to be very hypercritical. I’m really beginning to think that maybe you might also want to visit the definition of projection again…all of your hyperbole is exposing your subconscious insecurities.
One last thing…I’m sorry I only wrote a short response to your post. I actually chose to restrain myself, given that I didn’t think you would understand what I was saying; You have proven my assumption correct.
Jake,
In response to your last post, I have a few words.
You said:
“…these people are dangerously obsessive. I think many own guns because they are disturbed. The copious amount of verbiage displayed here is, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of babble dispensed in support of owning a killing machine
…Add to their numbers all the addled sorts who fondle their guns before going to sleep at night, and you have a vast number of potential violent actors
…It’s the obsessed, off-balance keepers of the right to dispense rapid violent death who are of concern
…The gun lobby’s sophism and the pathetic warnings about being assaulted by someone with a gun is disgusting. Thanks, Tim Vanderpool and TUCSON WEEKLY for speaking for the increasingly worried majority.”
Let’s look at a definition:
paranoia:
–noun
1. (Psychiatry) a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.
2. baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.
Now Jake, I know you’re going to twist this around so it fits your unrealistic view of the world. But I’m going to let you in on a little secret: criminals are REAL…the boogyman is NOT REAL. Criminals like to hurt people. The boogyman does not because he’s IMAGINARY.
It’s nice to know that when the real bad guys come knocking, I can just shoo them away with my “killing machines”, and they’ll just make their way on down to your house Jake, since you choose to base your thought process in the land of make-believe, where nothing bad ever happens to good people like you…but only if you wish hard enough every night before you go to bed.
A question for you Jake: would you be opposed to putting a sign up in your front yard that reads “This house is unarmed. We do not believe in firearms. We will not fight back under any circumstances”? If so, I will be happy to purchase such a sign for you, and I’ll even be happy to install it, free of charge. Since you don’t believe that criminals don’t use guns to assault people, then I don’t see why you would have any objection to putting up a sign? Show your support for the anti-gun lobby Jake; put up a sign today!
ZKen,
I just couldn’t help myself. I had to write one more response. Since you chose to refer to me as a “pedant”, then I will be happy to oblige you and point out how much of an ignoramus you have proven yourself to be. The following are actual “cherry picks” from your posts, in your writing.
“…for a guy that hates the word ‘fanatic’…” Please tell me where you found this gem amongst my posts…I have yet to find it.
“It got attention thou” Thou – (from wikipedia.com): “The word thou is a second person singular pronoun in English. It is now largely archaic, having been replaced in almost all contexts by ‘you’.”
Let’s try again: “It got attention you”. Nope; still doesn’t work.
“The need for gun owners to know the law, get training, keep training and quit rationalizing about what you can and cannot do with a gun.”
Rationalizing: To make rational.
Rational: reasonable, sensible
Let’s try again: “The need for gun owners to know the law, get training, keep training, and QUIT BEING REASONABLE about what you can and cannot do with a gun.”
“I would love to see your definition of : a reasonable show of force as subjective to your opinion of what is reasonable in a court of law.”
Already covered this one…just wanted to say that ‘pedant’ is beginning to fit you, if only you actually knew what you were talking about.
“Yep, you would be much more of a criminal mind to think of them as being reasonably responsible for that gun than I would for saying how dangerous a self serving rationalization can be.”
How exactly can someone be “a criminal mind”? And once again with the ‘rationalization’. I was unaware that being reasonable was not only dangerous, but self serving, especially when coupled with responsibility.
“By your, uh, subjective definition of a firearm…”
I loved this one. Since you think my definition of a firearm is subjective, then what, do tell, is your subjective definition of a firearm? In all of my years being around firearms, NOT ONCE has ANY firearm discharged a projectile by any other means except by expanding gases caused by an explosive action. Sounds like that is an OBJECTIVE definition, not subjective as you claim, since it is not only fact, but it is also NOT my opinion.
You continued “…I guess it is not so subjective after all. Not according to the law.”
Yes, you are correct. It is NOT subjective, and never was. And just out of curiosity, what exactly does the law say about this? I’ll give you a hint: in Title 13 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, there are 2 separate definitions of what constitutes a firearm. One is in chapter 1, the other is in chapter 31. Why don’t you go take a look and stop guessing what the law says?
And last, but not least: “It amuses me to see that you are the very kind of” hide behind the rules”, pedant that most irresponsible, selfish people despise because they see you as elitist. How ironic.”
So I guess since I “hide behind the rules”, then you must consider yourself someone who does not ‘follow the rules’?
And for the record, I am very happy that “most irresponsible, selfish people despise me”, for whatever reason they have. If someone chooses to be irresponsible and selfish, then they have what’s coming to them. If someone hates me because I choose to be responsible, selfless, and EDUCATED, then oh well; I certainly will not lose any sleep at night over it.
I’m wondering though, where exactly is the irony that you see in that statement?
This has been a fun exercise in futility, but it is pointless to argue with someone who purposely chooses to be ignorant and subjective. Have fun with your ‘martial arts’, and make sure to take everyone’s gun away with your hand that expels bullets. It must be nice when your opponent just stands there and lets you do all this neat stuff to them, just like in the dojo.
Yesterday, 80 million gun owners in the U.S. did nothing.
All you have to do is study the comments of the paranoid and ruthlessly obsessive weapons fanatics herein to realize that the future of this state is indeed a grim one. As soon as it is financially feasible, my family will be leaving Arizona, never to return. I feel nothing but pity for those of you who can’t escape.
Blood in the streets!!! Crazy, paranoid gun owners everywhere!!! Random shootings every day, all over the state!!! Be afraid!!! They’re out to get you!!!
Really?
I’m still waiting to see all this happening…
Could SOMEONE who is anti-gun PLEASE point out where this is happening? I’ve been all over the state and I’m still looking. Wait, wait, wait…I’ve been looking in the wrong place. All I have to do is look up to see that the sky is falling…
That is correct Joh. D… You can’t help yourself, that is why you are a pedant. Try going back through what you write and take out all the petty comments, things you understand and imply that others don’t, and repetitions. If you open yourself up to alternatives will that not help you be a better gun owner? Can you rely on youth when it is gone, on strength when it is gone, on a gun when it isn’t there, jams up, hangs up on your holster. If you live in the land of justification what will you do when others feel that your justifications are not just. If something is obvious, true and right why does it need justification? Insecurity about ones ideas makes one fearful to let the idea stand on its own merit. It ends up sounding like excuses. Will fear and insecurity be your mantra. I suppose that when you target practice someone is shooting back at you. That is why it is called a Martial (preparing for war) Art (projecting the possible) into potentially real situations. Have you noticed how empathy, compassion, kindness and sympathy don’t seem to enter into gun comments. Maybe that is why an exchange of ideas is never futile. Consider it a challenge in expressing yourself and your feelings. If you feel frustrated, try teaching a whole class of” I don’t want to be here Police officers or soldiers” that there is more to handling a gun than pointing it. I don’t have to prove anything to any of you. Life will do it, when you are tired, distracted, overconfident and inflexible. I, and many others, could show you how to be a better and less vulnerable gun handler but it requires a person to see inside themselves and have the desire to tell the difference between wants and needs. A gun is just a tool, not salvation. All of you, cultivate a sense of humor, you are going to need it. And quit hiding behind, “ALL” Everybody, and Stereotyping to justify your positions. It is not what I said but only what you want to imply. No person of reason applies ALL to all individuals. I like to think that there are exceptions to every rule. The problem with paranoia is that it tends to give one a stiff neck. See, an attempt at a “looking over your shoulder” joke. If anyone is interested, there is an excellent book: In Search of The Warrior Spirit” by Richard S. Heckler that anyone who handles weapons and deals with them should read.
ZKen,
“That is why it is called a Martial (preparing for war) Art (projecting the possible) into potentially real situations.”
“Preparing for war”? Really? Which war are you preparing for? Once again, you have exposed your lack of understanding of the difference between self defense and assault. You don’t seem to understand that “preparing for war” is generally NOT a term you would want to use in a criminal case you’re defending.
The POINT of my comments, that you STILL choose to ignore, is that MAJOR legal consequences usually follow a self defense use of a firearm. But my comments are falling on deaf ears, since you live in a world where the good guy is always identifiable and righteous, and the bad guy gets his ass kicked by some martial arts person such as yourself.
You are a prosecutor’s dream defendant. It wouldn’t surprise me if you chose to represent yourself when you end up in court for using your ‘martial arts war skills’ to assault someone.
And just for the record, if I used my real-life, actual combat skills, that I actually used during REAL wartime (I am a veteran), in everyday life to defend myself, I’d be sitting on death row. Society-at-large is NOT a war zone. But why should I even keep writing…you don’t care. It’s nice to know that you live somewhere where not only is war a constant threat, but also where laws of civilized society do not exist.
ZKen,
“If something is obvious, true and right why does it need justification?”
First, this statement is subjective. It is based on your ideas, not fact.
Second, the reason why it needs justification, is because in our civilized society, we have these neat things called LAWS. Now I agree with you that one needs to do what one deems necessary in a bad situation, however, it is the consequences of your actions that will haunt you long afterwards while the prosecuting attorney tries their best to throw you in prison for a long, long time.
I have found that the majority of people who make a conscious effort to learn to defend themselves generally choose to ignore the legal consequences of putting their training to use. I also agree with you that constant honing of your defense skills is a very good idea. But in ANY self defense situation, the ‘before’ and ‘during’ phases are not the only ones we need to train for. These two phases usually only last minutes, sometimes seconds (as you pointed out), but it is the third ‘after’ phase that I am shedding light upon. This ‘after’ phase will usually last months or years, and can include not only criminal charges, but also civil action against you, and has the very real chance of not only taking away your freedom (prison time), possibly your life (death row), but also your possessions (lawsuit).
This phase is very real, and affects anyone who chooses to defend themselves. Learning how to protect yourself from the physical side is needed, yes, but learning to protect yourself from the legal side is also greatly needed. It is simply the other side of the coin that is usually ignored.
Not so sound patronizing (again), but do you also teach the legal ramifications of the techniques that you teach in your martial arts classes?
Unfortunately, the society we live in has a very aggressive legal side to it, and the gun owners especially NEED to learn legal self defense in addition to physical self defense.
You and I have our differences in opinion, that is obvious. I only hope we can agree on this issue.
I apologize for my mistakes: “ideas” should be “ideals”, and “so” should be “to”. I caught myself that time.
In reply to Joh. D. As a Vietnam veteran I know what Post Traumatic Stress is. The best thing I ever did when I got back was to go back to school and deal with my anger and attitude by joining a defensive Martial art that taught me how to defend myself without a gun. I liked the philosophy and camaraderie, the same things I missed in the military. I am far more aware of the limitations and applications of what I practice than you are of what you practice. Your tendency to fixate on words that trigger your anger is a red flag. I realize that my observations of the unreliable nature of guns and how legal consequences often don’t prevent misuse of said guns upsets your carefully constructed sense of security. It shouldn’t, just add more awareness to it. Actually, I do care or I wouldn’t keep trying to give you alternatives to explore. Veterans always get a pass in my book because very few people who haven’t been there understand what you have gone thru. We never look at the world the same once you have fought in the rest of it. That resentment toward unappreciative countrymen is hard to deal with. Fortunately for me, all my older relatives served in WWI, WWII and Korea and helped me thru it. Don’t assume others won’t try even when they don’t or can’t directly relate. Police, firemen, and other service responders do. But, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t get help or find people that you can relate your experience and frustration to. I know what kind of world I live in and I choose not to let the bad parts of it dictate how I respond to it. Normally I wouldn’t have time to respond on line to issues and comments but this week I have home projects with down time. Just remember, don’t find enablers, look for empathy. You have a lot of unresolved issues.
Good luck.
ZKen, let’s begin:
First, you stated “I am far more aware of the limitations and applications of what I practice than you are of what you practice”. This prejudiced statement shows that you still choose to hold the ‘I’m right, he’s wrong’ position; and once again, you have failed to provide ANY evidence to support your statement.
How exactly are you aware of the “limitations and applications” of what I practice? Do you even know what I practice? How can you weigh my “limitations and applications” against your own, when you cannot provide any solid evidence that mine even exist?
Second, you stated: “Your tendency to fixate on words that trigger your anger is a red flag”. Until you brought it up, I was completely unaware of my supposed ‘anger’ that you describe. Here I was trying to have a rational, objective argumentative conversation with you, and instead of responding in a lucid manner, you judge me as being ‘angry’, with once again, no basis in fact.
Third, you stated: “I realize that my observations of the unreliable nature of guns and how legal consequences often don’t prevent misuse of said guns upsets your carefully constructed sense of security”. Once again, making judgments without any basis in fact. Yes, guns can be unreliable. But it can also be said that events do not usually play out the way you want them to, such as when you practice in the dojo. Also, I have never claimed a “carefully constructed sense of security”. Once again, your subjective thinking is getting the best of you, and coloring how you see my comments.
It’s really too bad that you have such a hard time understanding clear, rational thought as presented in objective prose. In other words, you’re only choosing to accept what you believe to be true (subjective), and not what is actual fact (objective). This is also known as a ‘cognitive illusion’.
Fourth, you stated: “You have a lot of unresolved issues”. Once again, where is the solid evidence that you base your opinion upon? If anything, my opinion of you would be the same. Based on the limited evidence (your writing), it seems to me that you are subconsciously projecting your inadequacies and fears upon everyone else, so that you have something or someone to blame for your shortcomings. The pattern is self-evident in this case. But I am not writing this to pass judgment based upon my limited evidence of your continuing mental illness.
You implied that I have PTSD. I do not, sir. I do commend you for being proactive in dealing with your own demons by choosing martial arts. This, however, does not automatically make everything you do ‘correct’ and everything else ‘incorrect’. No matter how much you want to have faith in your sport, self defense is NOT a martial art, nor is a martial art self defense, at least in civilized society. I offer the writings of Marc MacYoung as prima facie evidence (and of course, there is much more solid, real world evidence available…but in the interests of brevity…); or for a more scientific viewpoint, I offer the works of Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. Both authors are excellent resources on the objective nature of fighting and self-defense.
The way I have been (generally) responding to your posts is referred to as ‘critical thinking’. This is something you may want to look into, since just the simple idea of metacognition would give you great insight to why you color the world with your preconceived biases.
I am only attempting to show you that there is more to this than the limited belief system you adhere to so voraciously. I choose to think rationally and scientifically, basing my decisions on fact and evidence, whereas you choose to think subjectively and irrationally, and base your decisions on faith and hearsay. One thing is for certain; we agree that we disagree.
The Weekly should give Vanderpool a raise. Look at all the discussion his article generated.
People are obviously upset about something!
Keep those cards and letters coming. OXOXOXO
JohnnyDefense, “increasingly worried majority” because we, having more than one issue on the plate — a couple of wars in case you hadn’t noticed, an economy about to plunge into depression, almost 20 percent of people out of work and the rest facing layoffs, not to mention global problems like climate change — can’t afford to contribute as much as you one-issue guys to crooked politicians (including the US Supreme Court, which now accepts contributions to favorite causes) and sway them as you do. Let’s be real. This isn’t about what people want, it’s about what money wants. And you guys give a hell of a lot, as if your lives were on the line — which they are, but not as you state it.
Yes, you could put a sign up on our place and you know what, we don’t have guns on our property that are what most criminals are looking for when they break and enter; they don’t want our piddly belongings or us. We’re not worth a murder rap. Put up a sign on your place that says you’re armed and I’d give you five to one you’d be more likely than me to be dead within the year. Of course it matters if you’ve drugs on the premises, which I’m not saying you have, but plenty of gun fanciers do. They’re defending their right to be targets.
Here’s an interesting article from Newsweek reprinted in Daily Beast, “2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson,” meaning the assassination attempt on Gabby Giffords and her friends with the now-famous Glock with extended magazines. It’s from March 13, 2011, six months ago, so extrapolating, the number should now be 3,610 if the trend continues. I know, a mere fraction of those killed driving automobiles — but killed without even the goal of getting from A to B — and that doesn’t include the far more numerous woundings, which as Laughner’s crime demonstrated, can be just as life-destroying even if they don’t kill.
Based on 2009’s figures, we must be entering the hurricane zone of shootings, as in that year 9,146 were murdered by firearms (per The Guardian, Jan 10, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/20…). Arizona, which is admittedly not at the top of the list for murder by gun, nevertheless in 2009 toted up 197 firearms murders, 60.% of all murders in the state, or 2.99 murders per 100,000 residents. These numbers, which vary depending on the stats one reads, do not include accidental shootings and those not intended to harm but merely frighten — and again, those that wounded but did not kill. Suicides were not included and there are plenty committed by people with guns. Nor do these figures include people murdered with guns but whose bodies were taken from the crime scene, as so often happens in drug wars.
According to The Economist, hardly a leftist rag, 30,000 Americans die each year after being shot for whatever reason. (It also reveals that there are an estimated 300 million guns in America, one for each inhabitant, young and old — so why are more being bought by the millions each month?) (The Economist, “The blame game,” January 31, 2010, http://www.economist.com/node/17902699?sto….
So the oft-heard defense that things are quiet around here despite there being four or five guns — or a dozen, who knows? — per human being in Arizona just doesn’t cut it. In our state, hundreds die each year, are murdered, with firearms. Others are maimed and traumatized. Others are just OCD having let firearm fetishes become a sort of addiction; that’s not good.
…And what good does this massive investment of Americans’ shrinking discretionary incomes produce? Still waiting for a convincing answer. It prevents a dictatorship from happening by force? The gun-owners of America have a little surprise coming: if the Tea Party prevails and we end up with a fascist regime, especially if there is an incident threatening those in power, you are going to see your guns confiscated quicker than you can draw. It’s happened that way in every fascist regime. First the extremists encourage strife and fear to gain power, then they use that chaos as an excuse to come down hard once they’re in charge. Personal weaponry is the first thing to go.
You’re playing right into the hands of those who will profit from your blinkered, myopic devotion to your toys and the support you so lavishly shower them with. You think they’re on your side, but they’re not. To them, you’re just peasants and your pitchforks will have to be confiscated lest you might do something stupid. But that won’t happen. Most gun-owners will voluntarily surrender under duress. Packing is all about denying that that is the case, that behind each gun is a frightened person who when Glocks come up against assault rifles, know when to shut up and shut down.
Meanwhile a lot of people are dying from gunshots on the outside and anxiety within. It makes no sense.
Oops, I erred in my calculation based on the March 13, 2011, Newsweek article reprinted in the Daily Beast. If 2,405 had died since the shooting in January — that is, in two months since the attempted assassination of Gabby — it’s about 1,200 deaths a month. If six more months have passed, and the trend line is consistent, it means 7,200 more deaths by shooting have occurred in the USA, or a total of about 9,500, a number consistent with The Guardian figures, a little ahead of 2009’s tally. Three more months should bring us up to around 13,000 to 14,000 deaths, probably tending toward the high end because crime is increasing as poverty and drug use are ascending. Maybe The Economist’s 30,000 dead-by-gun-violence figure isn’t too high; maybe it’s not high enough. Yup, we’re a worried majority all right, and with good reason.
“Of course it matters if you’ve drugs on the premises, which I’m not saying you have, but plenty of gun fanciers do.”
Liar.
You are talking about criminals, not lawful gun owners.
“
Meanwhile a lot of people are dying from gunshots on the outside and anxiety within. It makes no sense.”
I guess you haven’t bothered to notice that about 60% of those “gun deaths” are suicide and that about 75% of the remainder is due to criminals. That leaves only a tiny number for accidents and from the “regular gun fanciers”.
Jake,
My rebuttal:
First: “JohnnyDefense, “increasingly worried majority” because we, having more than one issue on the plate — a couple of wars in case you hadn’t noticed, an economy about to plunge into depression, almost 20 percent of people out of work and the rest facing layoffs, not to mention global problems like climate change — can’t afford to contribute as much as you one-issue guys to crooked politicians (including the US Supreme Court, which now accepts contributions to favorite causes) and sway them as you do”
Let me please point out that it was “Admiral Ackbar” who responded to your “increasingly worried majority”, not me; but that’s alright.
Second, in regards to the “increasingly worried majority”, you refer to this as if it actually exists; which of course, if it DID EXIST, then you and your MAJORITY would already be in charge. It’s real simple: when the MAJORITY votes for something, it PASSES. That’s how a majority works Jake.
Third: “a couple of wars in case you hadn’t noticed”…really? I dont’ see any WARS. What you describe is referred to as a military engagement, not a war. Only CONGRESS can declare war Jake (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution. Something else you missed in school.)
Fourth: “an economy about to plunge into depression” Jake, we’ve already plunged. We’re there. Ground Zero.
Fifth: “…almost 20 percent of people out of work, and the rest facing layoffs”. Let’s break this down into its two parts. There is currently (as of this writing) about 11-12% of people unemployed. That’s about as “close to 20 percent” as you are to go out and buy a firearm. Second part – “…and the rest facing layoffs” implies that when the rest of the employed people in America get layed off, the only people to survive will be those who are business owners, and those who do not need to work to earn a living.
So, since this is your scenerio Jake, I have one question: Who exactly is going to run the massive logistics of this country? Do you really think that say, Warren Buffet or Bill Gates is going to drive tractor-trailers across the country, delivering all the perishable and non-perishable items that people consume on a daily basis? Who is going to run the factories? You can kiss the government goodbye, because I seriously doubt there will be ANY politicians around who will work for FREE. Sounds like a great scenario Jake.
Sixth: “…global problems like climate change” I don’t even think I’m going to touch on this one Jake. But I can tell you that the issue is unresolved (even though you believe otherwise), simply because there are just as many scientific studies that refute the ever growing list of unscientific studies that supported climate change to begin with. Not to mention “Climate-gate”.
So let’s say for a moment that all of this is true, and your ideas of the country come to pass. I would think that it would be even MORE beneficial to own firearms, simply due to the influx of looters and mobs alone. With no police or military to protect you (remember, they were laid off), who is going to save you from certain doom at the hands of these roving bands of criminals Jake? Certainly not me.
Seventh: “Yes, you could put a sign up on our place and you know what, we don’t have guns on our property that are what most criminals are looking for when they break and enter; they don’t want our piddly belongings or us.”
Ok, give me your address, and I’ll have that sign made for you right away. I am NOT kidding. It’s nice to know that criminals are only interested in stealing guns, and not “piddly belongings”. With all the burglaries I’ve seen in-progress, I have not seen a SINGLE GUN carried out of a building by the burglars. Out of all the robberies, not a SINGLE GUN even asked for from the victims. I would really love to see that story in the news Jake: “Burglars break into homes, steal only guns; all other valuable possessions untouched.”…or “Robbers hold up people at Reid Park – Demand Guns – Victims Keep Their Cash and Valuables”. Too bad this kind of ‘selective’ crime only happens in your very narrow mind. If it were real, then I guess I wouldn’t need a gun after all, right? Oh wait – one last thing…what about rape, murder, white collar crimes, sex crimes…please Jake, do tell what guns have to do with those crimes?
Eighth: “Put up a sign on your place that says you’re armed and I’d give you five to one you’d be more likely than me to be dead within the year. Of course it matters if you’ve drugs on the premises, which I’m not saying you have, but plenty of gun fanciers do. They’re defending their right to be targets. “
I do have a sign Jake. And it’s been longer than a year. You lose. I’m still alive. Too bad.
So I take it that you are implying that the majority of gun owners also keep drugs at their house? Could you PLEASE provide the empirical research data on that statement? Pretty please? With sugar on top? Oh wait, I forgot. This, again, only exists in YOUR MIND.
I’m beginning to think we need to revisit that definition of “paranoia”.
Ninth: “Here’s an interesting article from Newsweek reprinted in Daily Beast, “2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson,” meaning the assassination attempt on Gabby Giffords and her friends with the now-famous Glock with extended magazines.”
Yes, I’m sure it’s interesting Jake; but it is NOT a SCIENTIFIC STUDY. In case you haven’t noticed yet, most media is BIASED in some way. It’s nice that you choose to look at only that information that supports your delusions.
But just in case, exactly how many of those “2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson” were criminals in the act? How many of those were killed by police officers in the line-of-duty? How many of those were killed in self defense? Let’s see those numbers Jake. I’d bet 10 to 1 that “Newsweek” didn’t publish that; and since you didn’t provide your source, then of course we can’t say either way.
Side note here: In the article from the Daily Beast that is quoted above, it says “Over the last two decades, the pro-gun lobby has outspent gun-control forces by a factor of 20 to 1, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; in 2008 alone, the NRA and its allies shelled out $2.4 million, or 41 times what the other side was able to spend.”
(Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011…)
Let’s read between the lines here Jake. If the gun lobby was able to spend 41 times MORE than the anti-gun lobby, then which side is MOST LIKELY the MAJORITY? Hmm…tough one huh?
Ok, back to your quoted article:
There’s something REALLY important missing from your little news article Jake. VERIFIYABLE FACT. Where are the studies to support those numbers? I’ll give you a hint: they’re not in the article. Go ahead, read it again. NOT THERE. Since that’s the case, then I guess if I said that 4,403 people were killed by rogue soft drinks since the Tucson shooting, then you’d believe me right? Because after all, it’s in print, so it MUST BE TRUE.
You might want to look up the word “gullible” Jake. It applies to you.
Ok, on to the next article. It quotes the FBI crime statistics from 2009. Finally we’re getting some ACTUAL scientific data.
Here’s what you said about it: “Based on 2009’s figures, we must be entering the hurricane zone of shootings, as in that year 9,146 were murdered by firearms (per The Guardian, Jan 10, 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/20…). Arizona, which is admittedly not at the top of the list for murder by gun, nevertheless in 2009 toted up 197 firearms murders, 60.% of all murders in the state, or 2.99 murders per 100,000 residents. These numbers, which vary depending on the stats one reads, do not include accidental shootings and those not intended to harm but merely frighten — and again, those that wounded but did not kill. Suicides were not included and there are plenty committed by people with guns. Nor do these figures include people murdered with guns but whose bodies were taken from the crime scene, as so often happens in drug wars.”
Now, before I go any further, I have something to add from the SAME FBI crime statistics (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/…
Please read VERY carefully Jake:
Under the paragraph titled “Data Collection” you will find these words:
“Justifiable homicide—Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:
The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.
The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.
Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are TABULATED SEPARATLY FROM MURDER AND NONNEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER.” [my emphasis]
What does this mean Jake? It means that the statistics you quoted ONLY APPLY TO CRIMINAL ACTS OF MURDER; it does NOT apply to justifiable SELF DEFENSE.
I have to touch on one more thing before I move on; your statement: “Nor do these figures include people murdered with guns but whose bodies were taken from the crime scene, as so often happens in drug wars.” Let me ask you AGAIN Jake, where is the verifiable scientific data to back up your claim? And another question: If the bodies are taken from the crime scene, then how does anyone but the criminal know that there was a body to begin with? Habeas Corpus Jake. Show me the body!
I was unsuccessful after many attempts to read the article in the Economist, so I cannot comment on it…YET. I’ll get back to this at a future date.
Eleventh: “In our state, hundreds die each year, are murdered, with firearms. Others are maimed and traumatized. Others are just OCD having let firearm fetishes become a sort of addiction; that’s not good. “
Once again, where is the scientific data to back up your claims? And let me point out AGAIN that murder IS NOT justifiable, whereas self defense IS JUSTIFIABLE. I would be happy to point you to the applicable law in Title 13, Arizona Revised Statutes if you care to read it over.
“Others are just OCD having let firearm fetishes become a sort of addiction…”
And you studied psychology where exactly? Let me guess, online magazines? Could you PLEASE point out WHERE in the DSM-V, or even any subsequent edition, it says that OCD, fetishism, and addiction are related to each other, and are manifested together, especially in gun owners. I’ll be waiting for your answer on this one, since this wasn’t covered in my college psychology classes.
Twelfth: “…And what good does this massive investment of Americans’ shrinking discretionary incomes produce? Still waiting for a convincing answer. It prevents a dictatorship from happening by force? The gun-owners of America have a little surprise coming: if the Tea Party prevails and we end up with a fascist regime, especially if there is an incident threatening those in power, you are going to see your guns confiscated quicker than you can draw. It’s happened that way in every fascist regime. First the extremists encourage strife and fear to gain power, then they use that chaos as an excuse to come down hard once they’re in charge. Personal weaponry is the first thing to go.”
You might not want to begin a paragraph with an ellipsis Jake. Just saying.
Ok, let’s start this one with another definition:
Fascism: “a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism, etc.”
(Source: http://www.yourdictionary.com/fascism Def. 2)
Dictatorship: “A dictatorship is a government by a single person or group who holds unrestrained authority in using the powers and resources of the state, is not bound by any fixed legal or constitutional rules and whose governance does not answer to the general population or their elected representatives. It is a government that does not allow a nation to determine its own political direction by popular election.”
(Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/dictators…)
I don’t know Jake. I think it would be kind of hard for the Tea Party to gain control and usurp the Constitution. After all, you can’t have Federalism AND Fascism. They just don’t work together…sorry.
“… especially if there is an incident threatening those in power, you are going to see your guns confiscated quicker than you can draw”
You mean like the democrats did during the Clinton administration? I guess they must have been super-secret fascist tea party advocates. Shh! Don’t tell anyone Jake!
“First the extremists encourage strife and fear to gain power, then they use that chaos as an excuse to come down hard once they’re in charge. Personal weaponry is the first thing to go.”
Once again, just like the democrats? Can we say “Clinton Gun Ban”? C’mon Jake, they can’t ALL be secret society tea party members.
Thirteenth: “Packing is all about denying that that is the case, that behind each gun is a frightened person who when Glocks come up against assault rifles, know when to shut up and shut down.”
First, work on that grammar Jake (“…who when”?). Second, how exactly do you know what “packing” is all about, since you refuse to “pack”? Are you going to tell me that you know what women want too? (I’d really like to know the answer to that one!)
If you are referring to the IHOP incident, the gun owner in question (with the Glock) chose not to shoot for his own reasons, which you will NEVER know, since you cannot enter his mind and find out.
It’s so nice to know that you believe so much in your little fantasy world, where everything happens the way you think it does, without any hard facts to back up your assumptions. Show me the FACTS Jake. I want to see actual, verifiable, repeatable scientific data Jake. Then and only then will I even begin to listen to what you have to say.
Unsupported conclusions are where you end up when you believe everything you read without performing the due diligence to check the underlying data for fact. This is also known as “faith”. My one and only question is: how do you know FOR CERTAIN that what they are telling you is fact if you refuse to verify the information?
I’ll be waiting for that data Jake…
If you want to fight gun violence, arrest AG Eric Holder and impeach the President.
“Mexico wasn’t told of US link to guns found at crime scenes”
“…U.S. officials also kept mum as other weapons linked to Fast and Furious turned up at dozens of additional Mexican crime scenes, with an unconfirmed toll of at least 150 people killed or wounded.”
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/art…
Good story, Tim. If nothing else, hopefully it helps us continue the conversation we must have as citizens of this state.
And while it’s noble to defend our Constitution and our rights outlined within, it’s also our responsibility to address public health and safety concerns.
The most disappointing aspect in regards to our rights to firearms and seeking gun control is that we seem to have forgotten how to talk to each other in a calm, sensible manner.
There’s a big difference between advocating for gun control or security restrictions and banning guns. But too often broaching the subject at all is met with anger and suspicion.
Why is this goofball claiming to know what my desire is?
“A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, ‘Be thou a slave;’ who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”
Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes & Punishments, translated from the Italian with a commentary, attributed to M. de Voltaire, translated from the French (New York: Stephen Gould, 1809), 124-125.;
as quoted by:
Thomas Jefferson, The Commonplace Book of Thomas Jefferson: A Repertory of His Ideas on Government, ed. Gilbert Chinard (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1926), 314.
Well, Tim, you sure got the gun nuts whipped into a frenzy. And you notice that none of them are defending the rights of hunters. That conversation went away when Wayne LaPierre muscled in on the NRA. Now it’s all about defending themselves from threats, real or perceived. They are partly right when they say guns are not the problem. But they are all wrong when they say that people obsessed with a need for a gun is not a problem. And that’s the issue here; separating the guns from the gun nuts.