Here's a case where Stand your ground probably should not have been evoked

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's someone else making the same argument I'm making, but doing a better job:

October 16, 1991 George Hennard entered a Luby’s Cafeteria in Kileen, Tesas and killed 23 people, wounded 20 more and then commited suicide. Statistically one in five Texans carries a gun either in their car or on their person. That being the case there were, statistically speaking, at least four guns inside the restaurant and yet nobody used one to stop Hennard. Why?

The answer is that the perpetrator always has the upper hand. He is prepared, he knows what he is about to do and is mentally ready to take action. The victim, on the other hand, is not prepared and killing someone is the farthest thing from their mind. The victim’s gun has no round in the chamber, has the safety on and is concealed (as in inconvenient to get to).

I had a friend who kept a Glock 17 in the console of his car “just in case”. So one day when he came over I met him in the driveway, tapped on the window and stuck my finger in his face and said, “This is a gun, give me your keys and get out.” I now had a nice Lexus AND a Glock 17.

No healthy individual is mentally prepared to take action unless they train for it like the police and military do. Carrying a gun in public for self protection is a waste of time for all but a very few well trained people. If it makes you feel better, fine, but understand that the chances of it making a difference is nil.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A study in the October 7, 1993, issue of The New England Journal of Medicine showed that the risk of homicide (violent death at the hand of another) nearly tripled in homes where a gun was kept. In almost every instance, a family member or close acquaintance committed the homicide without the occurrence of forced entry. Even when forced entry took place, there was no evidence that gun ownership in that home provided any protection.

The study of 388 homicide victims who were killed in their own homes shows the fallacy of believing that the best protection against violence is to own a gun. Households having a gun were compared with those in the same neighborhood that did not own a gun.

http://web.ebscohost...h&AN=9611213230

Edited May 3, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Here's someone else making the same argument I'm making, but doing a better job:

because "statistically speaking" texas didn't have a conceal carry law back when that happened.

the Texas Concealed Handgun Law took effect in 1996

link

The Luby's massacre was a mass murder that took place on October 16, 1991,

link

pesky facts, i know, but i knew that statement was wrong as i lived about a half mile from that luby's when it happened.

Edited May 3, 2012 by charles!

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Read the posts, so you don't sound like a complete dolt. We were discussing the specific issue of CHL holders and unjustifiable homicides by the same.

I can read. And I'm not the one that brought up cars, knives and canals. So if they aren't relevant, why did you mention them?

[xebec 195]

I can read. And I'm not the one that brought up cars, knives and canals. So if they aren't relevant, why did you mention them?

I'm sure you can read. I'll also assume you can reason. Apply both abilities to my posts, and you can answer your own question.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

No number of deaths is too small to concern progressives, eh? Where is the outrage at the Organic produce industry fancypants? People are dying! Maybe you and your buddy R4O will step up and show us that it's about human life, not the agenda. Maybe you'll start posting about all sorts of statistically irrelevant dangers to human life, and leave your progressive politics out of it.

You posted the irrelevancies sir. Get a grip! But since possessing a gun increases your personal chances of harm, while statistically likely to do you little good, all anyone is asking from you is a bit of honesty. Not getting it, I know, but we are trying.

Own your gun. But please also own your rigid and illogical stance and posts.

[xebec 195]

Again, comparing apples to oranges. How many people die every year by knives or baseball bats compared to guns? That's the stats you should be looking at. Dismissing the dangers of simply keeping a gun in your home is dishonest, and ironically, more people are killed by guns that were kept for protection. That's a fact that for whatever reason, the gun lobby refuses to acknowledge. Why? Because the gun manufacturers want people to believe purchasing a gun for protection is a smart decision for every 'law-abiding' citizen. Not everyone has the where-with-all, or capacity to safely own and operate a gun. Should we ban guns? Nope. But lets stop fibbing the public into thinking they are safer off to own a gun then not to.

And you say I have trouble with relevant comparisons? We were talking about the danger presented to the public by CHL holders and their weapons. Now you are conflating all gun violence with a few anectdotes about people killed by CHL holders. When you have the stats about "more people [being] killed guns that were kept for protection" let me know. In the meantime, you're just chasing your tail with straw man arguments. Oh, and while you are at it, why don't you back up the ridiculous claim that people aren't safer when they own a gun than not. And who are you to judge who does or doesn't have "the where-with-all or capacity to safely own and operate a gun." What are your qualifications to make such a judgement? How much experience do you have in firearms training. How much experience do you have with the general gun-owning public?

Let me give you progressive bed-wetters a little reality check:

1) You aren't going to get rid of guns. The technology is 600 years old, and any half-wit with a basic machine shop could manufacture firearms from scrap metal. Guns are here to stay, and gun violence perpetrated by criminals is here to stay. Progressive nitwits have been trying to "control guns" since the 1930s....and like everything progressives do, they have failed miserably. There are more guns now than ever- After 70 years of hoplophobic gun-regulating failure. This simply to say that you and the progs here can quit wasting our time trying to conflate all gun violence with the original topic of how "dangerous" CHLs and their legally carried weapons are to the public.

2) You aren't going to get rid of concealed carry. The courts-all the way to the Supreme- and state legislatures are moving the right direction. The absurd "assault weapon" ban is dead for good-good riddance. All but the nuttiest progs from the fruttiest states and districts have dropped gun-control like a hot potato. Even the bowl of granola that is the democratic party is largely cunning enough to realize the gun-control issue is a complete loser.

3) You and the other hoplophobes here claim that "gun violence" is epidemic. It's out of control! Yet, people are supposed to disarm themselves because fancypants is scared of their legally carried guns, and fancypants thinks it's more dangerous to own a gun for self-defense than to be unarmed? Surely you can see how preposterous this is....

4) If certain people can't control their knee-knocking panic attacks over all of this, then they probably ought to consider their options. As I told another bed-wetter- not everyone is cut out to live in the US.

[xebec 195]

You posted the irrelevancies sir. Get a grip! But since possessing a gun increases your personal chances of harm, while statistically likely to do you little good, all anyone is asking from you is a bit of honesty. Not getting it, I know, but we are trying.

Own your gun. But please also own your rigid and illogical stance and posts.

Ah....another of your blissfully fact-free posts. Care to back it up with something besides your usual erroneous opinion of the matter? We both already know you won't......yawn.

Here's someone else making the same argument I'm making, but doing a better job:

You must be kidding fancypants. You are better than this..... This clown you quoted has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

[Leatherneck 693]

You posted the irrelevancies sir. Get a grip! But since possessing a gun increases your personal chances of harm, while statistically likely to do you little good, all anyone is asking from you is a bit of honesty. Not getting it, I know, but we are trying.

Own your gun. But please also own your rigid and illogical stance and posts.

Really! Getting out of bed each morning increases your personal chances of harm.

Possessing a firearm increases one's personal chances of harm about as much as having a craving knife in the kitchen. Just how many days have you walked to work or told your wife she had to walk to the market because possessing a car increases your personal chances of harm? There are millions of folks alive today and millions more that avoided injury, rape and robbery because they knew it was better to be in possession of a gun than not be armed, me included.

Try selling that statistic to this young mother.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Thanks for the post Leatherneck. Ignore the OP, toss in your own irrelevant asides about all of lifes 'other' dangers per xebec, and point to a story, a single instance a gun actually protected someone (I know there are more, don't bother) and ignore the daily carnage.

Again I say, own your gun, but please own the reality of the choice you have made.

[G&D 51]

I would rather be tried by 12 strangers, than carried by 6 friends....

[one...two...tree 2,762]

because "statistically speaking" texas didn't have a conceal carry law back when that happened.

link

link

pesky facts, i know, but i knew that statement was wrong as i lived about a half mile from that luby's when it happened.

What, you can't carry with you a gun unless you can conceal it in Texas? I've seen holstered guns on persons in Arizona before the concealed law took into effect. But more importantly, if Luby's had a sign on the front forbidding weapons of any kind, then no conceal carry law would circumvent that unless you believe your right to carry supersedes private property rights.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And you say I have trouble with relevant comparisons? We were talking about the danger presented to the public by CHL holders and their weapons. Now you are conflating all gun violence with a few anectdotes about people killed by CHL holders. When you have the stats about "more people [being] killed guns that were kept for protection" let me know. In the meantime, you're just chasing your tail with straw man arguments. Oh, and while you are at it, why don't you back up the ridiculous claim that people aren't safer when they own a gun than not. And who are you to judge who does or doesn't have "the where-with-all or capacity to safely own and operate a gun." What are your qualifications to make such a judgement? How much experience do you have in firearms training. How much experience do you have with the general gun-owning public?

Let me give you progressive bed-wetters a little reality check:

1) You aren't going to get rid of guns. The technology is 600 years old, and any half-wit with a basic machine shop could manufacture firearms from scrap metal. Guns are here to stay, and gun violence perpetrated by criminals is here to stay. Progressive nitwits have been trying to "control guns" since the 1930s....and like everything progressives do, they have failed miserably. There are more guns now than ever- After 70 years of hoplophobic gun-regulating failure. This simply to say that you and the progs here can quit wasting our time trying to conflate all gun violence with the original topic of how "dangerous" CHLs and their legally carried weapons are to the public.

2) You aren't going to get rid of concealed carry. The courts-all the way to the Supreme- and state legislatures are moving the right direction. The absurd "assault weapon" ban is dead for good-good riddance. All but the nuttiest progs from the fruttiest states and districts have dropped gun-control like a hot potato. Even the bowl of granola that is the democratic party is largely cunning enough to realize the gun-control issue is a complete loser.

3) You and the other hoplophobes here claim that "gun violence" is epidemic. It's out of control! Yet, people are supposed to disarm themselves because fancypants is scared of their legally carried guns, and fancypants thinks it's more dangerous to own a gun for self-defense than to be unarmed? Surely you can see how preposterous this is....

4) If certain people can't control their knee-knocking panic attacks over all of this, then they probably ought to consider their options. As I told another bed-wetter- not everyone is cut out to live in the US.

The issue is self-defense (the larger issue that is), which apparently you conveniently avoid talking about. Go back to our earlier posts where you dismiss self-defense training that doesn't involve the use of a gun.

You also conveniently ignore my stated position on gun ownership and carrying a gun. I support it. All I'm asking for from you is a little intellectual honesty and admit that, yes, having a gun in your home statistically raises the risk of harm to yourself and your family and that also, statistically, more people are killed from the misuse of guns than situations where someone legitimately defended their life by lethally shooting a perpetrator. This is a wild west fantasy that gun enthusiasts continue to fib about in spite of the facts.

Look, if your first line of self-defense is your gun, more power to you. I'll even defend your right to do so. Just don't tell me that you primary choice is the best choice for most citizens, because it's not. We can have all the gun ownership protection laws on the books, but the one thing that will hinder you from having that first line of self-defense in the real world is that many private establishments don't allow weapons onto their property. Private property trumps the 2nd Amendment as it does the 1st Amendment.

Perpetrators with a gun will always have the element of surprise on their side, so law-abiding, gun-toting citizens will be at a disadvantage. A random shooter entering a crowded establishment presents all kinds of logistical problems even if you were able to draw your gun and shoot back at them, like people behind them. I don't know what other solution there is, however, to preventing those kinds of acts of violence, but just admit that statistics are against you and if you can manage to pull off an old western, one-shot kill without killing any innocent bystanders, then God bless you.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Mister Fancypants

[Leatherneck 693]

Thanks for the post Leatherneck. Ignore the OP, toss in your own irrelevant asides about all of lifes 'other' dangers per xebec, and point to a story, a single instance a gun actually protected someone (I know there are more, don't bother) and ignore the daily carnage.

Again I say, own your gun, but please own the reality of the choice you have made.

The reason we have "...daily carnage'' is because for too many years, the liberal mindset was the rule regarding crime and criminals, so the criminals multiplied like the ####### roaches they are. What "daily carnage" is there for merely owing a gun?

Gun owners are happy with the reality of the choice they've made and are happy to be able to defend their lives.

[Jamie and Sveta 18]

The reason we have "...daily carnage'' is because for too many years, the liberal mindset was the rule regarding crime and criminals, so the criminals multiplied like the ####### roaches they are. What "daily carnage" is there for merely owing a gun?

Gun owners are happy with the reality of the choice they've made and are happy to be able to defend their lives.

?. And to defend the life of those that we love too.