I decided, yesterday afternoon, to run a series that I had found on another blog I had been a part of, and I had also later posted on yet another blog. Now it is time to put it here, but it will be a bit different. For each of these 10 items, I will also give a further comment or two about each one. Here is number 1:
Ten things non-gun people should know about CHP holders
******************************************
1. We don't carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don't walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don't get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don't hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.
It is important for the non-firearm person (or, hopefully, an anti-gun person that is willing to listen to a bit of reason) to understand that people who choose to carry a firearm, as the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution grants us each individually the right to do, are not wannabe cops, or militant people, or unhinged psycho vigilanties. We don't go seeking danger. We are very responsible and sane people, concerned for the safety of ourselves and our loved ones. Our goal as responsible gun owners and legal bearers of firearms is to avoid confrontations or situations in which we may find danger.
Close your eyes and think of a Gun Owner. Do you think of a big burly guy in fatigues, unshaven, holding a whiskey bottle? I would suggest that your opinion and view of Gun Owners was formed by TV, Hollywood and Schools. None of those three have a track record of being objective when talking about the gun owner. I can tell you that in the concealed carry course I was in for my permit, about 1/3 of the people were women, including 3 very nice and grandmotherly little old ladies. Also there was a girl younger than I am. Most of the men there were businessmen, I'd put them in middle to upper-middle class, by how they dress and act. A few retired couples. One or two younger guys. You need to be 21 in my state to get a concealed carry permit, so they were at LEAST that old.
The point is, gun owners like myself aren't the evil animals that you might have been led to believe we are. In fact, we're ordinary americans, just as yourself, who wish to make use of the rights as given in the Constitution, specifically the right for the individual to keep and bear arms.
Firstly, I can't find the site I found it on, but the chances of you needing a gun to defend yourself in any situation is the same as that of getting hit by lightning. This is calculated by using the number of situations law enforcement officials determine that pulling a gun was the most correct thing to do. For instance, no police person would ever, under any circumstances, aim a gun in the general vicinity of a bunch of shoppers and kids to subdue an unarmed criminal. I just realized that you count ALL situations where a violent crime is occurring as justification for brandishing a gun.
Secondly, you state you had zero chances of surviving if you didn't pack a weapon when confronted by gangs. If every encounter with armed gangs resulted in death, there would be an astronomical death rate. The violent crime rate is not a violent death rate. If you pulled a gun in any encounter with a gun, however, it very possibly would result in a death, most likely yours. And you would have escalated a situation where you might have been robbed to a situation resulting in your death.
And lastly, and this is the part you are not getting. I am a gun owner. However, I will never take these guns out into public. I've taken a defensive handgun course that convinced me just how hard it is for someone to use a gun in public. I trust police to handle guns because they are required to take this training periodically. But it's quite obvious that civilians holding guns is a very bad idea.
Think about it this way with your car analogy. What if a driver license were issued to someone with virtually no driving experience? This is what we do with guns. What if you pass your driving test just by test driving a car around the block and kicking the tires? This is what we do for concealed gun permits since in a concealed permit course, no gun instructor will take you out into public areas to test your reflexes and test your knowledge of the situations where it is appropriate to take out your gun. Would you feel safe having drivers like these out in the general public driving on our roads? With a car, at least, most people have well over a month of drivers' ed before they drive.
You're twisting again. We'll take it in order, my lefty friend.
That site you found.. wrong. Either bad math or willful lies. What you might not understand is that when confronted by a criminal who is sticking you up with a knife or a gun, it is called "Threat of Deadly Force." Now, laws very by state, but for the most part, when contronted with deadly force, you can respond in kind for your own protection for as long as the deadly force is directed at you.
Violent Crimes (generally) involve such force. As we discussed previously, you are 140 times more likely to be a victim of a VIOLENT crime than you are being struck by lightening. This is the second time you made that claim and the second time I have refuted it.
As for the gangs... I was referring to being confronted by an armed gang, not randomly walking down the same street as one. And yes, believe it or not, gang violence is VERY high in many cities.
I hate to be contrarian, but I really doubt your desire for firearms. You trust the police to be your security? Name a time that police have stopped a sudden violent act before it happened? (not counting any ongoing investigations including terrorist acts)... Police investigate, they aren't there to be your defacto security force. The right and responsibility for your protection is upon YOU... the citizen.
And, not to belabor the point, but I engage in more firearms training than the police do. And, beyond the training, I also engage in regular practice with my pistol. I practice and practice and practice. I also, at home, practice drawing with my unloaded pistol from its concealed location. It is my duty and responsibility as a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder.
I am interested in what firearms you own and why you bother to own them if you seem to think that we civilians shouldn't really use them. I don't understand the liberal fear of a 'police state' in one breath, then a claim that police should be the only ones to use firearms in the next breath.
I liked your style in some of the comments you gave to one of my blogs, and I have to say that I found this almost as interesting. Though I don't plan to carry a gun, mostly out of lack of general interest rather than any offense, my brother does carry a gun, and he doesn't meet the general criteria of big and burly and crazed lunatic at all. He's hardly evil, and I agree that many people seem to link those two unfairly at times.
Also love that women are getting guns. I think my bigger obstacle of views was in the female gap (and me being a woman, at that), rather than the dirty, hillybilly one. Can't say I'm anti-guns, but can say that if I was, you made a pretty good argument.
One of the other points in the 10 things to know will touch on this a bit, but we gun owners don't think you MUST own a gun. We do encourage it, especially as it teaches responsibility and discipline. However, none of us want to force it on anyone. We just want the same courtesy extended to us. heh.
I do encourage everyone, however, to go through a hunter safety course. Not so much for the hunter aspect, but the gun safety aspect. Many people have a fear of firearms. A healthy respect is good, an irrational fear is not.
Thank you, by the way, for your comment.
Oh, I'm certainly upset at the person who sucker punched the employee, but I am far more upset at the person who points a deadly weapon carelessly. Do you seriously not see how much more dangerous she escalated the situation by pointing a gun? There were already other people trying to help, but she pulled that gun and everyone halted.
You're also justifying carrying a deadly weapon because of an overall violent crime rate? Do you think you can pull a weapon in every one of these situations? A little less than a third of the violent crimes according to your own citation is caused by gang-related activity. What do you think would happen if you pulled a gun to stop gang members?
Also, of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. When a weapon is discharged in this country resulting in a death, 1 in 4 is unintended. So when that old nice lady decided to brandish a weapon with her heart pumping and unsteady grip, she became the far bigger problem than the one who was committing an assault.
First, you don't quite understand. You claimed that you had the same chance of being struck by lightning as being a victim in a crime. I quickly and soundly disproved that. You also don't know any more than I do that the employee had NOT had their lives threatened. I don't know what state you live in, but nearly every state has very carefully crafted laws regarding when one can pull their concealed weapon in defense. There needs to (in almost every state that has a ccw program) be either a clear and present danger, or enough of a threat that a reasonable person would fear for their life.
Second, if a gang was going to stick me up, and they came after me with some sort of weapon, I have nearly 0% chance of surviving if I am unarmed. Those numbers go up quite a bit if I am armed. Why is it that you're more concerned for the safety of a criminal than that of a victim? How many murders a year could have been stopped if the victim were armed? How many rapes? How many muggings? Why are you so concerned about taking guns away from responsible law-abiding citizens, when it is the CRIMINAL that commits crimes using a firearm? Why disarm the victims?
Your stats on firearm-related deaths are not wholly accurate for this discussion as those are of CRIMES committed by a firearm that RESULTED in death. Nowhere in those statistics does it include crimes STOPPED by a firearm. . . or criminals killed in self defense.
Also, as we'll cover on a different day, there are no 'accidental' or 'unintentional' discharges of firearms. there is "Intended" and "negligent". . . some kid getting daddy's gun and playing with it, then accidentally shooting someone... that is the fault of the boy for not paying proper respect to a weapon and the fault of the parents for both not training the child and also leaving a firearm that accessible.
The common trait amongst anti-gun people, which you seem to be, is that you treat all gun owners the same, and apply the stereotype of the criminal example to all. You treat all gun owners as bad and dangerous people because of statistics of what criminals do with firearms.
Compare firearms deaths with car accident deaths... why don't we treat all drivers like drunk drivers? Because we know that the VAST majority of drivers are not drunk drivers... it is the same with firearms. There are MILLIONS of firearms owners in this country, many with multiple firearms (I own 4, 5 counting a bb gun). Yet, you don't see mass murders happening at NRA events or gun shops or gun shows.
Yet we do hear about mass murder events caused by criminals firing on unarmed people... Virginia Tech being a recent event still in our memories.
A Gun is a tool to be used for good (self-defense) or evil (crimes). . . those who would use it for evil will ALWAYS be armed to do evil, whether it is with a gun or a knife or an axe or a hammer. Don't disarm the good out of fear of the bad, or you only give the bad more power.
Look at the UK... nearly no guns. Now there are some school uniform manufacturers offering 'stab proof' versions of their uniforms as criminals are now running around with knives.
Otherwise, you'd leave your gun at home. Statistically, you will never be in a crime where you ever will have the need or abilily to pull a gun in your lifetime. Is it right for someone to carry a deadly weapon just for an incident that happens even more rarely than deaths by lightning?
The only time I've even seen anyone pull a gun is in a crowded Target. A man was arguing about a return and suddenly punched the woman behind the counter. Then a older grandmother type immediately pulled her gun and ordered the man to the ground. The man immediately complied. You know what the problem was? She had a small gun with a very short barrel, one of those that was easy to shoot but terribly inaccurate if you don't hold it steady -- and she did not hold it steady. She pointed this gun towards the counter packed with employees, other customers and a bunch of kids.
The crazy thing is, she looked so proud to have subdued this criminal.
No matter how nice-looking someone is, if he's packing for an event that likely never happens, he's just crazy.
Well, I guess we know why your name is "leftfield' . . . you're way out in it.
My first question would be, why aren't you upset at the guy who puched an employee? While I don't know the details of the case, or even if it is true, I surely can't comment on any actual events that you saw, especially what was said.
As for the chances of being mugged versus the chances of being struck by lightning, you are WAY off-base.
Here is a site where you can get information about Crime Statistics on a year by year basis (By the way, crime has, countrywide, gone down since the mid 1990's, which is about the time that the new push towards letting people carry concealed started anew.):
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm
In 2003, there were 20 cases per 100,000 people of a VIOLENT crime, the number much higher if you add in nonviolent crimes.
Per this site:
http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm
the number of people struck by lightning (killed or injured) is 1 in 700,000.
Which means that you are 140 times as likely to be a victim of violent crime (not counting nonviolent crime) than you are to be struck by lightning. These odds increase DRASTICALLY in large urban areas, which is where much of the crime is located.
As for the old lady accidently pointing her gun towards the employees, I imagine she was rather juiced up on adrenaline produced by the fear of her situation. . . It is indeed a stupid move to make, as you only point a firearm at what you intend to kill... and nothing else. You won't find me defending that part of her action.
However, we see here your biased nature against firearms and your application thereof, in that you believe that people who would own or carry firearms must be 'crazy'
For all you know, that man could have told that employee "I'm going to F'n Kill You!" . . . then punched the employee. That little old lady might have saved that employee's life. In your hatred of firearms, have you considered that?
Excellent point. This is a great way to dispel stereotypes.
Thank you. There are 10 total, and my current plan is to post 1 per day. Maybe 2 in a day if I am having a slow work day. (As if that happens?)