Guns and Danger

The "subject to certain restrictions on speed and other traffic laws" part flies in the face of "it doesn't matter." Some expert drivers can whizz by at breakneck speed without endangering one's kids any more than the average person does by driving at a normal speed. Some drunks can drive about as well as the average non-drunk, too.

There are many strong arguments for liberalized CCW. "I don't care if I'm unreasonably endangering everyone else's safety just to make myself a teensy bit safer" is not among them.

I would just like to point out that I don't necessarily think the lawful ownership of guns makes the world a more dangerous place. I think that the existance of guns makes the world a more dangerous place.

X: No, you're missing the point. I'm saying that if self-defense is a natural right, then the possibility that it may impose incidental costs on others is irrelevant. Once you do harm (or clearly intend to), you give up your right and subject yourself to restrictions by society.

M: I think tornados and asteroids make the world dangerous, but there's nothing to do about them, either.

Its dangerous to get out of bed in the morning. Its also dangerous to not get out of bed in the morning. There's a certain level of danger in everything we do or don't do. If something is worth doing despite the dangers involve, then it's worth the risk and we'll do it any way. Life is a choice full of danger, if it's worth the risk, then live it up. If the risk is too great, then hide from the world as best you can.

Carl

Michael -

At least with a car, a kid might see it and get the ability to get out of the way. Usually a speeding bullet is not going to be seen in time for the child to get out of the way. Also, there's nothing we can do about tornados or asteroids but there is something we can do about whether or not we carry a gun.

I also think it's interesting that you seem to want to have children one day yet right now, don't care if you accidently gun someone else's kid down. I think once you have a child or children, your views on a lot of things will change - at least, I hope so.

Petra, bullets don't "just appear". They don't zip out of the gun at random and start zipping around corners looking for that ellusive child.

The only time bullets come out of my gun is when I pull the trigger, and then they go right where I am aiming. The kinds of people who would shoot a gun without aiming, or aim at a child are not the sort of people who give a tinker's damn about whether or not having the gun in the first place is lawful.

Phelps,

I understand that but as Michael said, "If more adults carry guns, there's a greater chance your child will be hit by a stray bullet during the course of her daily activities. Fine." That's not fine with me! Furthermore, just because (supposedly)everyone CAN carry a gun doesn't mean everyone will. How do I know who to trust with a gun and who not to trust?

Oops - that last sentence is confusing. What I meant was if two guys are standing in front of me and one is responsible with a gun and one is not and they both own a gun and other than that they are the same, how do I know which one to trust to not accidently shoot my daughter?

P: I never said I was indifferent to gunning down children. What I said is that the possession of rights isn't dependent on whether or not they make people safer. The 1st Amendment is certainly more dangerous than the 2nd, and yet you support free speech, right?

All freedoms decrease safety. One of the differences between men and women is that women tend to value safety more highly than liberty, and for men the opposite is true.

No, you're missing the point. I'm saying that if self-defense is a natural right, then the possibility that it may impose incidental costs on others is irrelevant.

That doesn't follow at all. If a citzen can't carry a gun without unreasonably endangering others, he shouldn't carry. Why is his right to protect himself from attackers any more valid than society's right to protect itself from him?

I'm not sure I buy the safety/liberty dichotomy, at least as to this issue. The RKBA promotes both.

Carrying a gun or any other weapon, is a choice. Using the gun/weapon in a perceived time of need is also choice. But...you had better be prepared to pay the consequences, even if your actions are totally legitimate.

And to Phelps, whose bullets only go where he aims them - And of course can absolutely guarantee, 100 % of the time, none will stray. WOW. Live in the real world. I had the unfortunate experience of picking up the body of an adult male, shot in the head, from a gun fired in the air several blocks away IN ANOTHER CITY as a 'warning shot' to prevent a possible drive-by shooting. Mistakes happen - people get killed. Tell his widow, it's okay - they had a right to self defense.

I have been involved in many gun related accidents over the years, which simply would not have occurred had the weapon not been available in the first place. Far, far more, in fact, than where the weapon was successfully used as a means of self defense. And please don't bother to explain that citizens who CCW don't report their gun use - they do, especially if the use was legitimate and justified and the bad guy is still out there looking for another victim. If they don't report it, there is usually someone around to report a "gun-waving lunatic", necessitating police response.

Plug: Accidents and careless use certainly happen, but all the statistics about defensive gun use contractdict your annecdotal experience. Check out Clayton Cramer's defensive gun use blog. There are probably 100 times as many lives saved by citizens with guns each year than are lost due to accidents.

Mr. Williams - I think you are either missing the point or confusing CCW (having a concealed weapon in public) with owning and using a handgun at home or place of business. Those reports, mentioned above in Cramer's Blog, primarily report on the latter. I read all and only two related to incidents where the 'victim' was in a public place. Even then, the 'victims' were subjected to a lengthy police investigation and in one incident, a costly jury trial - which did result in an acquital. I also doubt a similar incident in California, would have had a similar court result. But that's a crapps shoot. The reports are typical to my own experiences and approximate the same ratio.

Of course it is perfectly legal (and without the need for any permit) to keep a firearm at your abode or business for the purpose of self protection. There is no argument. But don't use all these scenarios to justify carrying a concealed weapon in public. The greater likelihood is, if and when you are a victim, it will take place at either of the two locations previously mentioned... based on those reports and other statistics. And if so, a CCW permit will serve no purpose whatsoever.

Also note that NONE of these reported incidents occurred in your 'crime-ridden' neighborhood, and only one in Los Angeles County. They were drawn from the entire U.S. - during the same time the rest of the population (all 300 million of us) have gone about our daily business without similar incident. I'm sure, being a gun advocate, Cramer has scoured every police report and newspaper to include them in his blog, which simply does little to support CCW.

There may be, "...hundreds of lives saved each year..." by the use of a firearm and perhaps thousands saved by other defensive means or weapons, but I doubt all of them together compare to the 30,000 fireams deaths in the U.S. each year. SOMEHOW I DOUBT ARMING EVERYONE WOULD REDUCE THAT NUMBER - not including the bad guys (whoever they are) who deserve to get shot anyway...'cos the big guy upstairs ain't the only one who can play God.

As I have said before, I am not anti-gun. But please, if you want to carry a gun in public, weigh the real liklihood of being a victim (in public) against the potential, severe, all-encompassing consequences of its use. You probably stand more of a risk being hit by a car while crossing the road in front of your own home.

Sorry about the duplicate posting.

Excellent post, Plug. Thanks for debunking the "defensive use" myths.

*sigh*

Whoever it was said you can't fully comprehend the danger to children until you have children was exactly correct. Your mind enters an utterly different state of understanding.

Plug: You're using the number "30,000 firearms deaths int he US each year", but of those that are accidental, I'm sure the vast majority also take place in a home, and not as the result of someone with a CCW using a gun poorly. The point is that having guns saves lives, and I fail to see why it matters whether you're in your house or somewhere else. You can't use overall statistics and then get upset if I do the same.

Barry: It's ridiculous and insulting to say that a person without children can't fully comprehend the danger. It's possible that I can't fully comprehend your fear, but I can certainly understand the danger itself. And who's to say your "utterly different state of understanding" is better than mine? Perhaps having children warps one's perception of reality and leads to poor risk evaluation skills?

And, I'll repeat again, the statistics show across the board that every locality that implements a shall-issue permit law sees violent crime reduced faster than comparable locales that don't. (Considering that violent crime has been dropping all over, for the past decade.)

Mr. Williams..."...the point is, having guns saves lives..." (your quote not mine), hardly supports the 30,000 odd deaths (not including injuries) by firearms - each and every year. True, they include accidental, suicide, and homicidal use etc, and occur in a variety of circumstances, but giving more people more guns, to save more lives, flies in the face of absurdity.

The more guns there are in society, the more deaths will occur from their use, by whatever means. Okay, so you may not be a 'victim' but there is a greater liklihood that the same weapon will be discharged by some other means to inflict injury or death, to someone perhaps more 'innocent' than yourself.

Plug: I disagree with all that, but the point of this post is that it doesn't matter if more people get killed by guns. If self-defense is a natural right, then it isn't predicated on complete safety.

Mr. Williams:
On this matter...
Your intellect is superseded only by your naivete.

Plug: Well, I can't really respond effectively to an ad hominem attack like that, can I? I am not naive! And so forth.

seems it comes down to two choices, to be a victim or not. i would also find out which gun it is that just goes off on its own and avoid getting that one. all of mine require an action on my part before they fire. having considered the legal risks of using a firearm in self defense i am not sure i would use it to protect a stranger if i or my family were not in danger. besides each person in my state has to option to protect themselves and if they chose not to for whatever reason then............