WHAT argument about guns should be "won"?

Posit: The comparison between death/injury by automobiles v. firearms is facetious and misleading.

Tripping through the Way-Back Machine, I found this April 2018 article by Nicholas Kristof, one of my favorite Liberal (Anti-Gun) writers.

Opinion | How to Win an Argument About Guns - The New York Times:

You liberals are in a panic over guns, but look at the numbers. Any one gun is less likely to kill a person than any one vehicle. But we’re not traumatized by cars, and we don’t try to ban them. It’s true that any particular car is more likely to be involved in a fatality than any particular gun. But cars are actually a perfect example of the public health approach that we should apply to guns. We don’t ban cars, but we do work hard to take a dangerous product and regulate it to limit the damage.

(Emphasis Added:  Read the whole article to put this paragraph in the perspective of its author.)

The comparison suggests that since we've found ways to make cars less dangerous, we should be able to make guns less dangerous, too.

Well, that's just silly.
Although Nicky (who perhaps doesn't keep or carry firearms) conflates the two mechanical devices, he elides over the salient point:   Guns are dangerous because that is their purpose.

(Perhaps he proposes to "limit the damage" by making them more difficult to ... uh ... take the safety off?  Okay, that's silly, too.  I was just trying to imagine what measures Nicky was thinking of which would still keep them easily available in a self-defense situation.  I am confounded.     You think maybe Nicky didn't think it through? )

True, cars are intended for transportation.  But guns are designed to bore holes through their targets. 

Usually, that target is a piece of paper or some other inanimate object.  A tin can?   Often, a gun is used to kill an animal ... such as Bambi or The Easter Bunny. 

And once in a while a gun is used to dissuade a would-be felon from rape, mayhem, or murder.   In those cases, you don't want to piss on them, you want to step on them HARD!

Personally, I've never deliberately aimed a rifle or a pistol at a living human being; in Viet Nam, I preferred the M18 Claymore Mine or the M79 Granade Launcher ... More Bang For The Buck!
(My favorite weapon was the PRC-25 Radio, with which I could call in anything from mortar or artillery fire to an air strike.   Sorry, I digress.)

For personal/home defense, I have always preferred a 1911-style pistol in .45 ACP caliber.   Or 10mm. Or any caliber where the first digit was at least a "4".

(more overleaf)

Criminals and the Guns They Carry

This 2015 article about crime guns contains some information which  you may find interesting.

It speaks to the caliber and conformation (eg: revolver vs pistol) of firearms commonly carried by criminals, and more interestingly describes the maintenance level which felons use in their weapons.

Most importantly, it speaks to the various actions which you might take (or not take) when confronted by an assailant .. whose gun may or may not be functinable.

Criminals and the Guns They Carry | Active Response Training:

“If you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.” Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said this over 2000 years ago in his book The Art of War It’s hardly new advice. Yet it is just as useful now as it was so many centuries ago.

Curiously, the article suggests that criminals are often not familiar with their weapons, to the point where they are not aware of basic maintenance procedures.   Some guns taken from felons have been found to be non-functional; that means, they don't work.

Don't assume, ever, that their weapons are not functional!

Gun Violence in Peaceful Canada? Impossible!

Hard to believe that Canadians, who have often been dismissive of America's "Culture of Gun Violence", are finally admitting that they have their own share of crazed mass murderers.

Toronto City Council Urges Ban on Handgun, Ammunition Sales After Shooting:
On July 22, 2018, Faisal Hussain opened fire in Toronto’s Greektown, killing two and wounding 13. CBS News reported that Toronto Mayor John Tory reacted to the shooting by saying, “Guns are too readily available to too many people.” The National Post quoted Tory saying, “Why does anyone in this city need to have a gun at all? ....”

Eventually our Northern Neighbors will acknowledge that all nations need to address the problem of rising gun violence.   And banning guns and ammunition will only disarm the honest public, and turn their citizens into sheep at the mercy of the wild dogs.

Hard to believe that a nice Irish lad like Faisal would go rogue, isn't it?

(NOTE: Bearing Arms reports that the firearm was obtained illegally.   No great surprise.)

UPDATE: 

I mentioned "a nice Irish lad" ... then I read the current news.  It seems that the Irish (bless the ancestral home of my "DILDINE" ancestors) are still causing mischief:

July 27, 2018 by Zendo Deb And you thought the Criminal Justice System in the USA was screwed up. 

Violent burglar dressed up as garda during raid on family.
It seems things aren’t much different in Ireland.
He has 130 previous convictions for burglary, theft, road traffic offences, criminal damage, possession of drugs, taking vehicles and public order matters.
If he was sentenced to 6-months for each of those 130 offenses, he wouldn’t be out causing more mayhem. But the Irish, like their European neighbors, are too civilized to actually put people in prison.

https://wheelgun.wordpress.com/2018/07/27/failures-of-the-criminal-justice-system-international-edition/

"I Have A Right To Feel Safe!"

Where do people get the idea that they have a right to "Feel Safe"?

It's not in the Constitution, but in discussions of the Second Amendment in America, I see no referenced to the right to "Feel Safe".

I've been writing about Second Amendment rights here for ... I'm not sure.  Certainly going on ten years, perhaps a bit longer.

One thing I've learned from all this bloviating is that nothing I say has any influence on the dialogue of "Second Amendment Rights" versus "Hey! I Have A Right To Feel Safe!"

Usually, this statement comes from commenters who object to the Second Amendment, as a rebuttal to the right to keep and bear arms.  Which is part of the Constitution.   They (the commenters) bloat their arguments with imaginary rights, as if that will keep "Bad Guys" from accosting them in a short-cut back alley to steal their 'stuff' '(or in their own homes, or when travelling on "public transportation"), and then they complain that they have the right to "Feel Safe".

I don't know where that  RIGHT to "Feel Safe" idea came from, but it crops up from time to time, and I think it's about time that someone actually talks about it.

I want to feel safe.  YOU want to feel safe ... everybody thinks they have a right to feel safe.

Maybe we do have such a "right", but that isn't codified in American Law.

It's just wishful thinking.  I get that .. I feel the same way.

I want to feel safe, too.  I want World Peace,   I want everyone to have .. a lot of things, some of which we can afford to the people of the world by enacting some kind of law.

Unfortunately, nothing in the world community has ever offered a mechanism which provides ANY of us the possibility that we can "BE Safe".

Except in the Second Amendment.

Folks want a lot of things that they're not willing to work for .. to change their way of life for ... to fight for.

Feeling "Safe" isn't something that you can demand just because you want it.

Feeling "Safe" is something that you have to work toward, and there are absolutely NO guarantees that you can "make yourself safe", and still "Feel Safe".

If you want to feel safe against muggers .. pick up a gun, or learn some really complicated techniques of unarmed self-defense.  Nobody will make you do it;  but if you want to "Feel Safe", learn to defend yourself.

If you want to feel safe against home intruders ... unarmed self-defense techniques will only take you so far; if you have more intruders than you can personally kick ass to defeat, you're good to go.

But if you have more intruders than you have bullets in your gun ... you may die with the sense of satisfaction that you made them pay a high price.  It's not much, but it's better than dying with a knife in your gut while you watch the bad guys rape your wife and your daughter.   Yes, this has happened, and just maybe you can convince the bad guys that you're too tough a target to allow them to act out their depraved scenario.

It might happen.  Maybe not, but more likely than if you just roll over and allow them to work their will without effecting a defense at least as violent as their offense.

You say this never happens?

Indianapolis, October, 2013

District of Columbia, 2016

San Diego, 2017

These are only a few, randomly chosen instances where intruders broke into a home and abused and/or murdered occupants.  It happens ALL THE TIME and the residents of the home were unable to defend themselves.

They felt safe.

They were unable to MAKE themselves safe, because they had not established adequate home defenses because ... "this never happens".

You do have a reasonable expectation to 'feel safe" in every place you go, even in your home.
That doesn't necessarily mean that you ARE safe.  If you are accosted in your home by violent intruders, please feel free to discuss with them your right to "feel safe".

Or buy a gun, practice with it, keep it close and when they attack you in your own home?

Kill Them.

That may not satisfy you, but it's better than the alternative.

And the next guy might possibly think twice about rape and murder in your home.

It's worth a try.

Three is more than Two

Chiappa Triple Threat 12 Gauge Review Melon Smashing - The Firearm Blog:

In this episode of TFBTV, James reviews the gnarly and intimidating Chiappa Triple Threat, a three-barrel 12 gauge shotgun designed with close quarters combat in mind. James starts with birdshot, then works his way to 3″ BB and eventually 3″ 00 buck rounds, testing the effect of buckshot on a watermelon. With an MSRP of $1600, is this gun worth the price or is it just another gimmick? James finds out in this video.

Nice review, James, and whether it works for you and is worth $1600?
That's up to you to decide.

*Me? I'll stick with the pump gun, but that's just me.*

More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings? NO redeeming factors? Hah!

Study: More Guns Linked to More Mass Shootings | RealClearScience:
(February 02, 2016)

After peaking in the 1980s and early 1990s, crime has plummeted in the United States. The rates of forcible rape, murder, violent crime, property crime, and aggravated assault are currently as low as they were in the 1960s.

Some studies have suggested strongly that this reduction in crime can be directly tied to the increase in the number of states which allow concealed carry (and often "open carry" ... where firearms are NOT concealed but in open view ... predominately in holsters) by private citizens.  

("Correlation does not imply causation", but the author of this article uses the word "relationship" in the discussion.   Based on that synchronicity,  it seems reasonable to suggest that some 'relationship' exists between the statistics on violent crime and the increased presence of 'carried' firearms.)

 While these statistics demonstrate that Americans are about as safe from crime as they have been in over a half-century, there is a particularly horrendous type of crime that has been alarmingly on the uptick: public mass shootings. In places like San Bernadino, California, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roseburg, Oregon, Charleston, South Carolina, and Newtown, Connecticut, innocents have been mercilessly gunned down in great numbers.

However, other studies , such as the Texas A&M study reported here dispute that assumption:

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics, crime, and specifically violent crime, has been decreasing nationally since 1993, with a similar decline in other Western nations. Some commentators claim the decline in the United States is attributed to the increase in concealed carry legislation. But criminologists point to a variety of factors that have lead to the drop in crime, including changes in policing, punishment, crime prevention technology and socio-economic factors.

The Texas Tribune article, quoting state Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat who chairs the House County Affairs Committee, which tackles criminal justice issues asserts that:

“People who commit crimes are less likely to go through that background check,” he said.  It’s also unlikely that a concealed handgun license holder would be in the right place at the right time to stop a crime, Coleman said.

That statement seems a little disingenuous.  The purpose of undergoing a background check to acquire a concealed carry permit is specifically to catch criminals ... who don't want to apply for a license to do the illegal actions for which they need guns.  ("Circular Reasoning" is a difficult concept to explain.)

As to the "unlikely" probability that a CHL holder "would 'be in the right place at the right time" is disproved daily in news reports.  For example, John Lott recently described four crimes stopped by civilian handgun carriers in one week in December, 2915.

And  in April of 2015, Lott (author of "More Guns, Less Crime") published an article titled: 

COMPILING CASES WHERE CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT HOLDERS HAVE STOPPED MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS

(Please follow the links from that starting point ... there is a lot of information, including links to published articles.)

This is all background, presented to establish the statistical evidence that firearms ownership DOES have a positive effect on crime prevention, and introducing another opinion on the question whether (civilian) concealed carry provides another approach to crime prevention.

Washington State Lawmakers condemn homeowners to non-defensible condition

Washington State Lawmakers Push Gun Storage Law, 'Assault Weapons' Ban - Breitbart:

On January 22 Washington state lawmakers held a hearing on a proposal to requirement gun owners in the state to lock up their guns in the home.

 This comes just under two weeks after state representative Jim Moeller (D-49th) introduced legislation to ban the possession of the “assault weapons” in the state. According to The News Tribune, Rep. Ruth Kagi (D-Lake Forest Park) spoke for requiring law-abiding citizens to lock up their guns in their homes. Kagi said, “Requiring gun owners to safely store firearms is common sense.” She added, “About 1 million households in Washington state contain unsafe firearms, and the children in those homes are at risk.

Details not yet clear, but this sounds like a blanket indictment of the individual ability to keep protective firearms immediately at hand.

The Liberal mantra "It's For The CHILLLLLLLDRENNNNN" rings loud and clear here.   The thought that firearms might also be used to protect children is ignored ... as is the thought that these firearms need to be readily available.

In A Perfect World

The New England Journal of Medicine (*NEJM: in an article titled "Rooting Out Gun Violence") * is once again lamenting the terrible lack of cooperation on the part of gun-owners with the Health Issue improvements they have suggested.

*(H/T:  Ammoland,  Gunbloggers.com and The Gun Feed.com)

In A Perfect World --

Old people, women, even children would be protected from by vicious men who want to hurt us.

In A Perfect World, when we are assaulted by people who want to hurt us for the sheer joy of the pain, or for gain, or for fury unabated ... we would be able to summon help by pushing a button and rescuers would magically appear and save us from our tormentors.

This is not a perfect world, and the police ("To Protect And To Save") have no obligation to protect or to save us.  Nor have they the resources to do so, however much they would like to.

So we carry guns, because "Sam Colt Made All Men Equal".  And also mothers and fathers.

Here's how it sounds from the side of the fence:

Here we are again. Less than a year ago, an editorial in the Journal by Kassirer reexamined the massive public health problem of gun violence in the United States,1 and a Perspective article by Sacks, born of a personal tragedy, lamented the defunding of research on firearm-injury prevention.2 Kassirer called for electing “lawmakers at all levels of government with the courage to defy gun lobbyists,” so that essential regulatory changes can finally be enacted — as physicians, public health experts, and others have been recommending for decades. But in early December, the day after a young couple turned up at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, with semiautomatic weapons and went on a shooting rampage, killing 14 people and injuring 21.

NEJM Translation:  We keep telling you that guns are bad, but you won't listen to us and ... see?  THIS is what happens when you don't listen to us!

I hate it when grown men whine, but it seems endemic in the academic community.  They have chosen a side, and they don't recognize the other side; which is those who feel themselves most vulnerable.

Here, they have decided that all guns are bad, so nobody should own guns.  Period.

They studiously ignore the fact that the reason why Americans refuse to give up their guns is that the criminals won't give up THEIR guns!   

It's not that we're unaware of the abuses of firearms ownership.

It's just that we, the law-abiding community, understand that if we are unable to defend ourselves, then nobody else is there to step up for us.

Certainly, there are no members of the Academic Community who are willing to commit to our personal defense; nobody blames them for that, it's a tough job and they are not qualified even if they would accept the onerous duty.

The Academics have the courage to (defend) ... research on firearm-injury prevention

but they don't have the ability to provide "firearm-injury prevention".   That's The Way Of The Academic.

They may bemoan the real-world ethics;  they may rail against the thick-headedness of the hoi polloi who insist on the right to defend themselves.  But they are unable or unwilling to provide and alternate solution which will comfort the man whose family has been taken from him during a home-invasion.

It's not a Perfect World.