Author Topic: How do we address a problem like this?  (Read 65791 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hammurabi

  • Posts: 91
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2015, 09:41:27 AM »
I'm not sure what the problem is. Would you mind clarifying?

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2015, 11:19:40 AM »
False. Table 18 from the CDC statistics you cited previously.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

Total firearm deaths 33,636
Suicides 21,175 = 62.95%
Homicides 11,208 = 33.32%
Unintentional 505 = 1.50%
Legal Intervention/War 467 = 1.39%
Undetermined 281 = 0.84%
Factual data is irrelevant

Doesn't support the dogma.

Offline Scandiacus

  • Posts: 27
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2015, 11:34:18 AM »
Freediver, I normally avoid your threads, as well as pretty much any other thread that turns into an argument, because that's not how I like to spend my free time online - for example, I basically blocked out all that SERP nonsense from awhile back for the same reason.  But I'd like to ask you a couple honest questions, if you don't mind:

You're a MOC Member.  Have you ever open carried before?  As in, openly carried a holstered handgun, in public?  On how many occasions?  If not, do you at least support OC?  If so, how do you demonstrate your support, aside from obviously having paid the membership fee to MOC?  From what I gather, your political position doesn't seem to be one that would smile on that method of carry, but if you have OC'd anyway or at least support it, cool.  Thank you for doing that.

However, assuming you don't support OC (which, though I don't want to stereotype your politics, seems more likely), then from everything else you've said I have to conclude that you are diametrically opposed to everything this organization stands for.  Now, from the little bit I've seen, you present your arguments well - having analyzed your arguments I still believe you're absolutely wrong, but you've at least argued well and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree with you and just settling it all at the ballot box.  But you're barking up the wrong tree.  It's fine if you and MOC don't agree on anything (and thanks for the membership money, I guess?), and continued civil discourse is great.  But do you or do you not support at least some of the goals - or even just the singular goal of advancing open carry - of this organization?  I'm very curious to know.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2015, 01:45:09 PM »
Mr part deux: Sorry, I did get one line wrong. But dead from a firearm is dead, whether it is a suicide or accidental shooting. But that's unproductive hairsplitting when we are talking about bigger pictures. We are talking about the regulatory environment in this country and how it is not working. We are talking about how best to move forward.

Offline Hammurabi

  • Posts: 91
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2015, 02:41:17 PM »
Mr part deux: Sorry, I did get one line wrong. But dead from a firearm is dead, whether it is a suicide or accidental shooting. But that's unproductive hairsplitting when we are talking about bigger pictures. We are talking about the regulatory environment in this country and how it is not working. We are talking about how best to move forward.

There's a big difference between 505 unintentional deaths and ~11k unintentional deaths. There's also a pretty considerable difference between ~11k intentional suicides and 21,175 intentional suicides. If you want to reduce the number of people who are "dead from a firearm," it looks like the greatest potential for improvement lies with intentional suicide. Perhaps we should look into somehow making people not want to stop living. Maybe we could just outlaw suicide and have a huge reduction in so-called "gun violence" overnight.

Since dead is dead, whether the use of a firearm was involved or by other means, maybe we should "[talk] about the bigger picture" rather than focusing the minority of deaths involving a firearm.

It seems to me that understanding where we are would be a good first step in deciding how to move forward. To dismiss presentation of information critical to that understanding as "unproductive hairsplitting" makes me wonder just what you're trying to produce. Whatever it is, it's obviously not dependent on facts.

Offline TucTom

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 565
  • First Name (Displayed): Tom
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2015, 03:10:39 PM »
we have a problem with gun ownership and usage in this country.
No, I would say you have a problem with gun ownership.

I have a problem with criminals.

Offline linux203

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 706
  • First Name (Displayed): Daniel
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2015, 04:31:11 PM »
Mr linux203: undue burden? That your fellow citizens ask you to demonstrate your competency before they entrust you with a deadly weapon? Please! I would think that you would be comfortable earning the trust of your fellow citizens. If doing a few simple things places undue burden, I hate to think how life's other challenges might stress you out. If you are that easily derailed, perhaps you shouldn't be packing a gun.

Where did competency come into the equation?  How is a criminal stealing a firearm incompetence on the part of a lawful gun owner?  I call B.S.

Based on your previous threads, you advocate for storage requirements.  Legislating safe requirements (which are easily defeated) puts undue burden on citizens.  Does everyone have the finances and architectural requirements to support a 400lbs safe?  Can they even get it into an apartment?  That becomes an undue burden.

You also advocate registration.  Should a person who can't register a firearm during a Sheriff's working hours be denied the right to own a firearm?  Registration becomes an undue burden.

Does everyone have the ability to pay $115 every five years for a CPL.  A license to exercise a right?  That becomes an undue burden.

My comment was a generalization of the abilities of all law-abiding citizens, not my own.  You questioned my right to carry a firearm based on my views of the gun community as a whole?  I consider that a personal attack based on desperation.
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace. Luke 11:21

Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."  Luke 22:36

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2015, 06:56:20 PM »
Mr part deux: Sorry, I did get one line wrong. But dead from a firearm is dead, whether it is a suicide or accidental shooting. But that's unproductive hairsplitting when we are talking about bigger pictures. We are talking about the regulatory environment in this country and how it is not working. We are talking about how best to move forward.

Dead from a car accident is still dead, how's that mandatory training working our there

How many children are killed by swimming pools every year?  They are still dead, and we don't background check pool owners.

Here's a really good one, how many people are killed due to medical MISTAKES each and every year?  The number of people killed by medical MISTAKES is staggering. 

Dead is still dead.

Oh, but wait, it's not that they are dead, they died from a bullet that's important.

Offline TheQ

  • Website Content Manager
  • MOC Lifetime Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4263
    • Michigan Open Carry, Inc.
  • First Name (Displayed): Phillip
How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2015, 10:08:47 AM »
On the topic of suicide: if a person wishes to no longer live who are any of us to force them to continue living? Sure, we can try to convince them otherwise, if we become aware -- but isn't the choice ultimately theirs?

I'd wager ppl that choose a gun do so for the (hopefully) quick, (hopefully) painless, and (hopefully) assured success.

I say let's go further: let's allow people who have been counseled on their chose enlist professional help in carrying out their plans -- this seems the most humane.

It gives the person control over their life/death decision and allows them an assured painless way out.

You're never going to eliminate suicides. Attempted suicides are often a cry for help. People who use a gun aren't interested in "attempting" suicide -- they are interested in succeeding.

Take away the gun and I promise you they'll find another way: cliffs, tall buildings, kitchen knives, airplanes, trains, semis.
I Am Not A Lawyer (nor a gunsmith).

Offline part deux

  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 683
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2015, 11:24:49 AM »
Q,

Suicide is illegal  :SMH:

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2015, 12:30:58 PM »
Actually, suicide is not illegal, at least in Michigan.

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2015, 03:21:56 PM »
Mr Scandiacus: Yes I have open-carried in times past, when I was living in Utah and Arizona. In more rural settings where police response was further away, I felt it a good idea to OC. I was also either still in the military or an active Federal Flight Deck Officer, which meant I was trained and current in tactical shooting. I moved to Michigan a bit less than two years ago and I've been trying to educate myself to both OC and CPL requirements. My intent is to gain a CPL after the first of the year.

I don't open carry in Michigan for several reasons:
1. I live in suburban west Michigan in a very safe town where police response is maybe 5-10 minutes away (the police station is right down the street). I don't feel the NEED to OC because it would muddy the situation if something started. I feel comfortable in my hand to hand skills dealing with 99% of everyday situations. My handgun travels with me when I head up north for both two-legged and four legged critters.
2. Since dropping out of the FFDO program and retiring from the military, my tactical shooting skills are not what they were. I don't feel entirely comfortable with my shooting skills in a tactical situation.
3. Carrying a weapon openly also opens you up to having that weapon grabbed and used, against you or someone else. Since I'm not going to walk around on constant tactical alert, I prefer to carry concealed in the future.

I am a firm believer in the RIGHT to OC. Where I differ from the party line of the Michigan OC organization is that with that right comes a somber level of responsibility that I rarely see demonstrated among gun owners. Here's what I mean (this has been in other threads as well:
1. A firearm by definition is a deadly weapon. It exists for one purpose: to kill something or someone. When a gun comes out of a holster, someone is about to die. It is not to be used for discussion, for intimidation, for keeping religious freaks away from you at the gas station (someone's previous post). Toting a gun, openly or concealed, is a far more serious business than many gun owners want to admit to themselves. If you open carry, you need to be prepared to take a life.
2. Tactical shooting skills are completely different from spending a couple of hours on the range. You need to consider legal requirements, fields of fire, innocent bystanders, background of the target, movement, multiple bad guys. As police and military have demonstrated, it's easy to put bullets everywhere BUT in the bad guy. If you think you will be suddenly transformed into James Bonds or a Navy Seal, you're deluding yourself. These skills take training and practice. A lot of it.
3. I believe that the bar to gun ownership is set far to low. There are almost no requirements to owning a gun. If you are of legal age, have a clean record in the computer, and have money, you can buy a gun. Almost any sort of gun. As a fellow gun owner and citizen, that's not good enough for me.

I could go on, but my shuttle bus is leaving. I'll try and discuss further. Isn't that what gun forums are for?

Offline Ultra

  • More Than You Bargained For
  • Posts: 72
  • Ultranewschannel.tumblr.com
    • Autopuzzles
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2015, 04:47:11 PM »
Quote
If you are of legal age, have a clean record in the computer, and have money, you can buy a gun.

That sounds exactly like a citizen exercising ones right.  Either admit you are lobbying for a constitutional amendment or accept that it is an acknowledged, legal right and quit bemoaning it.  Otherwise, everything you say is tainted with a foundation built on a lie and everyone here knows it with the possible exception of yourself. 
Ultranewschannel.Tumblr.Com

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2015, 08:52:29 PM »
Mr ultra: I have yet to see a post from you that is grounded in reality. You know nothing about me. My opinions are built on years of experience, education, training, study of this and other issues, and a lot of thought. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean everything I say is "tainted". We disagree on a topic being discussed in this forum. If you want me to change my opinions, then convince me with fact-based, reasoned arguments. I have an open mind and am willing to learn more. Please leave the name-calling and the other melodramatics to juveniles where it belongs. If that's all you can bring to the conversation, that tells me you have nothing to say.

I don't have a problem with someone exercising their right to bear arms. I firmly believe in it. What I don't believe in is continuing to allow idiots, criminals, and the mentally ill to get their hands on guns. I believe that we, the gun owners, should step up to our responsibility and find a way to balance 2nd Amendment rights with our fellow citizens' right to public safety and pursuit of happiness. There are ways it can be done. If we continue to say NO to any regulatory changes, we're not standing for freedom and against tyranny. We're being selfish and myopic and only trying to get our way. That, too, is a form of tyranny, when you force everyone to live only by your rules.

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2015, 08:58:57 PM »
You need to consider legal requirements, fields of fire, innocent bystanders, background of the target, movement, multiple bad guys. As police and military have demonstrated, it's easy to put bullets everywhere BUT in the bad guy. If you think you will be suddenly transformed into James Bonds or a Navy Seal, you're deluding yourself. These skills take training and practice. A lot of it.

I believe that the bar to gun ownership is set far to low. There are almost no requirements to owning a gun. If you are of legal age, have a clean record in the computer, and have money, you can buy a gun. Almost any sort of gun. As a fellow gun owner and citizen, that's not good enough for me.

Yet each year millions of people, often elderly people, manage to use a firearm to protect themselves, to save their own lives with firearms, without all this mandated training you want.  Seems to me that's a Good Thing.

Offline autosurgeon

  • MOC Treasurer
  • MOC Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • First Name (Displayed): Ryan
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2015, 10:23:10 PM »
What right to public safety are you talking about? There is no such right.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Offline freediver

  • Posts: 193
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #36 on: October 30, 2015, 12:21:55 AM »
Mr gryphon: millions of people do NOT defend themselves each year, and it would be impossible to say if most of them are elderly. That is a melodramatic argument that has no basis in reality. An NRA friend of mine researched the FBI statistics, and what he came up with is 60-70,000 possible incidents a year where someone defended themselves with a firearm. The numbers are hard to pin down because no law enforcement agency, including the FBI, tracks crime numbers with an eye towards firearm defense.

But the "millions" number is a complete lie. It is a number perpetrated by various gun lobbyist groups based on a flawed study done back in the early 90s by Kleck and Getz. The study and its methodology has been thoroughly discounted by numerous sources. As I said to mr ultra, let's all bring facts to the discussion.

Mr auto surgeon: while the right to public safety was not written into the bill of rights, it does exist in every civilized society. Maslow's hierarchy of basic human needs list safety just above physiological needs. In other words, after we satisfy the needs of food, water, air, heat or cooling, and disease prevention, safety comes next. We need to feel safe in our surroundings, safe from attack, safe to pursue that happiness that is written into the Declaration of Independence. Safe to walk our streets, attend our schools and churches, safe to go out of our house without having to pack heat wherever we go. That's the point of being civilized. That we can rise above a barbarian state and offer ourselves safety and comfort.

Despite mr ultra's contention, I am not deluded enough to think the world is all peace, love, and customized vans. Far from it. The world is a nasty place. In FFDO school we talked about the psychology of survival. The world is made up of three groups; sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. The sheep are the general populace; keep your head down and hope nothing bad happens. The wolves are the thugs, the criminals, the crazies who wish to do us harm. The sheepdogs are those people who decide to step up and protect the sheep. They figure prominently in the military and law enforcement. They rise to the challenge of keeping their fellow citizens safe. They learn, they train, they practice, they adapt.

So, you want to be that sheepdog who protects the flock? Step up to the challenge. It isn't enough to go to a store, buy a gun, strap it to your hip and proclaim yourself the guardian of Liberty. That's not enough. If that's all you do, you will fail. If you want to be that good guy with a gun, then you need to raise that bar. Train yourself and others. Learn to shoot in a tactical situation, not just plink at paper targets. Work to change gun regulations so that guns don't make it into the hands of infants, criminals, idiots, or the insane. Be part of the solution.

Because if you just sit on your hands and say no to everything, you are just part of the problem.

Offline Ultra

  • More Than You Bargained For
  • Posts: 72
  • Ultranewschannel.tumblr.com
    • Autopuzzles
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2015, 01:16:55 AM »
The only problem here is know it alls like yourself who wanna legislate away rights all due to trusting your government more than you trust your fellow man.

You and your views, Freediver, are the problem. The only problem.  I don't wanna give up my rights to appease you or others who claim to think like you and I don't think anyone should have to give up their rights either.

Freediver = problem.  Problem = Freediver.

Any questions?  See above ^
Ultranewschannel.Tumblr.Com

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2015, 03:02:21 AM »
Mr gryphon: millions of people do NOT defend themselves each year

But the "millions" number is a complete lie. It is a number perpetrated by various gun lobbyist groups based on a flawed study done back in the early 90s by Kleck and Getz.

Actually you can look at the U.S. Department of Justice National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.  Their report showed the numbers were actually higher than Kleck and Gertz (not Getz) cited.  But even if all the numbers were too high, those numbers are still orders of magnitude higher than homicides committed with firearms.  And Kleck was over 20 years ago.  The DoJ report was almost 20 years ago.  There are many more guns now and WAY many more people carrying guns now than in the mid-90's.

In the mid-90's only, what, 1 or 1.5 million people had carry licenses.  Now there are over 11 million, ten times as many.  In seven states you don't even need a license to CC.  In 30 you don't need one to OC.  With ten times as many people licensed to carry, and with tens of millions of more firearms today than in the mid-90's (actually about 150 million more), do you think the self-defense encounters are going down or up?

And by the way, the Kleck and Gertz study was not flawed.  Their criticism has been formally answered.  Three times over three different years.   But even if you ignore that, which you will, the number of SD firearms uses by innocent citizens today dwarfs what it was 20 years ago.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be you, to read all the stories in the Free Press and LSJ and other Michigan papers where people, often women, have defended their lives with guns by shooting their attackers, and you wishing they had been murdered by the criminal because they had no business carrying a gun because they didn't take some arbitrary training that you want mandated.  It must suck to be you.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 04:54:29 AM by gryphon »

Offline gryphon

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4038
  • First Name (Displayed): Dan
Re: How do we address a problem like this?
« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2015, 03:05:52 AM »
The world is made up of three groups; sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs.

That's bovine excrement popularized by LTC Dave Grossman and perpetrated by simple-minded people like you.  You will probably take that as a pejorative, but I meant it as an honest adjective.

Honestly, did you have to have someone tell you that there are only three types of people to give you some framework for categorizing people's attitudes for self-defense?  Were you actually stupid enough to believe it?   This is nothing more than a false dilemma (false dichotomy) variant.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 04:48:14 AM by gryphon »