why carry? - Page 6 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Plan9 · 09-25-2007, 02:37 AM

Yeah, I'm going to tell the cops that I used my firearm to prevent a crime.

That sounds like an awesome idea. Almost like a free trip to jail.

Slims · 09-25-2007, 01:07 PM

Willravel:

I can understand and respect your personal position that you are unable to make life and death decisions when faced with a threat to your life. However, many of us don't share your lack of confidence and are strongly in favor of being responsible for our own well being. It is not appropriate to introduce a firearm into every (or even most) situations, and often it is innapropriate to have one on your person. However, there are also situations where access to a firearm may very well be a useful deterrent and/or means of defense and I don't see how you can make the decision of whether or not to carry for anybody but yourself (and I am not looking for an absurdist reply to this either).

I personally don't think there is anything morally, ethically, or socially unacceptable or wrong with killing. Of course, I believe there is a big difference between killing and murder. If somone is presenting a threat to my life I really have no compassion for them. I am going to do whatever is safest for me and those in my company. If handing over my wallet will end the encounter, then I will do that. But if I am not sure what the bad guys intentions are, and I get the opportunity, then I will do whatever is necessary to stop the threat.

In order to pick accurate quotes I browsed the brady campaign websight: www.bradycampaign.org and in their faq found this little gem:

"A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]"

I am sure these data are 'technically' correct, since this figure has been kicking around for a while and they probably would have had to remove it were it false. However, notice how carefully phrased it is. They mention a gun kept in the home, which covers more or less all personally owned firearms. But they never say that all of the figures that follow occur in the home. So if you are a crack head with a gun who shoots an innocent bystander while robbing a convenience store, you get to be included in the statistic.

Also, the bad guy doesn't have to 'use' the gun for it to be counted as a 'criminal assault,' while for it to be tallied in favor of self defense the firearm must not only be fired, but cause injury or death. So if a mugger points a gun at you, and you cause him to flee by drawing your weapon: Tally one for the bad guys, zero for the good guys.

Unintentional Shooting, of what? A person? I don't think they bothered to qualify that because they are actually counting 'unintentional discharges' Which, while idiotic, usually don't hurt anyone, though they certainly have the potential.

The suicide figure (which comprises fully half of the incidents) is also misleading. Of course guns are often used in suicide. If you have (seriously) decided to kill yourself you are probably going to choose a method that is both easy and effective. The right tool for the job, so to speak, and that is a firearm. If you took firearms out of the equation most of those people would probably find other ways to kill themselves.

As I mentioned briefly above, the gun has to be used to "injure or kill in self defense" in order to be counted. It has already been mentioned that the situation usually does not escalate beyond presentation of a weapon by the potential victim, which is not considered, even though it's pretty much the ideal outcome. Also, if the homeowner shoots and misses, and the bad guy flees, it doesn't get counted either. Nor are shootings to prevent rape or sexual assault, kidnapping, etc.

The Brady Campaign espouses "Reasonable Gun Control" but it's actions and misleading propaganda imply a very different agenda.

more:

"When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion
crimes.[10]"

The implication here, of course, is that your gun won't help you stop a home invasion robbery.

However, this stat isn't referring to just gun owners. Since most people either don't own firearms or store them in the brady approved manner (locked up, unloaded, and useless), of course they aren't using guns for self defense.

Also, if someone is going to deliberately invade someones home while they are inside, odds are they are going to pick someone who they think won't be a threat. I.e. some pacifist over Billy Bob with a "Guns don't kill people...." sign in his yard.

Most home invasions don't escalate to the point where deadly force becomes necessary, which further dilutes this statistic. If a guy breaks into a house to rape a woman and hears her working the action of a shotgun, what percentage of the time do you think he is going to leave? (hint: probably more than 2).

Lastly, the quote doesn't say "...fewer than two percent of home invasions" but rather "...fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes." If someone breaks into a house, steals something, and assaults the owner he has just committed several 'home invasion crimes' during the same home invasion.

dc_dux · 09-25-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

The Brady Campaign espouses "Reasonable Gun Control" but it's actions and misleading propaganda imply a very different agenda.

The Brady Campaign's agenda is also to promote gun safety and prevent gun violence which might explain what you characterize as propaganda.

They have never advocated banning handguns. They have never lobbied or testified to ban handguns. They have never produced or disseminated any written materials that promoted banning handguns. Their website does not espouse banning handguns.

There is no agenda to ban handguns.

Slims · 09-25-2007, 02:03 PM

Sorry, I missed the part where I said they were banning handguns.

Just because they are smart enough to not explicity state an agenda to ban handguns doesn't mean it isn't a goal. Politically they need to choose their battles, and the best way for them to make any progress at all towards reducing gun ownership is to appear 'reasonable' and take little steps.

However, while the brady campaign has not come out and stated "we want to ban all (hand)guns" their actions imply it:

in 1974, HCI petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Comission to ban the purchase of "handgun ammunition." But of course, they aren't anti-handgun. http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml75/75016.html

also:
"The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."
--- Sarah Brady, Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Trib., Oct. 21, 1993 (interview with Sarah Brady).
Of course, handguns are for killing, and self defense is certainly not sporting. I am sure it isn't 'reasonable' in her mind to allow ownership of such easily concealed weapons.

By propaganda I ment that they were posting misleading statements in order to further their agenda. It may have been done with the best of intentions, but it is still propaganda.

Oh, and another, since quotes have become so popular in this thread:

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. "

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

dc_dux · 09-25-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

Sorry, I missed the part where I said they were banning handguns.

Just because they are smart enough to not explicity state an agenda to ban handguns doesn't mean it isn't a goal. Politically they need to choose their battles, and the best way for them to make any progress at all towards reducing gun ownership is to appear 'reasonable' and take little steps.

However, while the brady campaign has not come out and stated "we want to ban all (hand)guns" their actions imply it:

in 1974, HCI petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Comission to ban the purchase of "handgun ammunition." But of course, they aren't anti-handgun. http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml75/75016.html

also:
"The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes."
--- Sarah Brady, Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Trib., Oct. 21, 1993 (interview with Sarah Brady).
Of course, handguns are for killing, and self defense is certainly not sporting. I am sure it isn't 'reasonable' in her mind to allow ownership of such easily concealed weapons.

By propaganda I ment that they were posting misleading statements in order to further their agenda. It may have been done with the best of intentions, but it is still propaganda.

Just for the record, HCI did not petition the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1974. The Committee for Handgun Control, Inc., which filed the petition, is not the same organization as Handgun Control Inc (founded as the National Council To Control Handguns), which Sarah Brady chaired years later.

And the Sarah Brady quote that has circulated for years never seems to include the question to which she was responding nor the context of her response.

No one here seems to be able to present any hard documented evidence to support the often cited contention that the Brady Campaign's agenda is to ban handguns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

Oh, and another, since quotes have become so popular in this thread:

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. "

Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original).

An article from 1976 with no link to see the full context. Peter Shields may have had such an agenda at the time but he has nothing to do with the Brady Campaign.

Slims · 09-25-2007, 02:44 PM

DC Dux: Uh, actually, that's incorrect. They are absolutely the same organization:

Off the NRA website on anti-gun organizations:
"In 2001, Handgun Control, Inc. changed its name to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The organization originated (1974) as the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), a group which lobbied for government restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms through support for restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possession of handguns. The organization voiced a desire for an eventual handgun ban through gradual steps, but changed its name and espoused goals due to results of a survey. In 1991, then HCI amended its Articles of Incorporation to reflect its support of restrictions on rifles and shotguns as well." http://nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=14

Same organization, different names for different political climates. And Peter Shields founded the organization that eventually became the brady campaign, so he has everything to do with them. (see above).

Edit: I am aware that there are a lot of bogus quotes attributed to Sarah Brady and her organization and I have not posted them. What I have posted, however, is accurate.

Re-Edit: Oops, hang on, while I check the committee thing.

dc_dux · 09-25-2007, 02:49 PM

I think you misunderstood my post.

I know that HCI, founded in the 70s as the National Council to Control Handguns, later became the Brady Campaign.

You claimed that "in 1974, HCI petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Comission to ban the purchase of "handgun ammunition." But of course, they aren't anti-handgun"

I just wanted to set the record straight. The Chicago-based organization, the Committee for Handgun Control Inc.,which filed the petition in 1974, is a different organization.

Slims · 09-25-2007, 03:07 PM

It hurts to be wrong, but I cannot find anything to tie the committe for handgun control to HCI.

However, Pete Shields was president of HCI at the time of his above referenced quote, and remained president until he was replaced by Sarah Brady in 1990. http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/history.php

You don't name an organization "Handgun Control" unless you want to "Control" handguns. Letting people do with them as they please is not an indication of control.

dc_dux · 09-25-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

You don't name an organization "Handgun Control" unless you want to "Control" handguns. Letting people do with them as they please is not an indication of control.

I agree that the Brady Campaign wants to "control handguns" to the extent that they believe convicted felons (and misdemeanor spouse abusers) and persons with medical histories of being mentally incapacitated should not have easy access to guns. Thats what the Brady Bill was all about and it had overwhelming public support.

Even the NRA does not want to let criminals and mentally incapacitated "do as they please" and have legal easy access to handguns.

No one here can point to any federal legislative proposal initiated, promoted or supported by the Brady Campaign to take handguns away from law abiding citizens.

To have an honest debate on gun control and gun rights, that type of misleading rhetoric/propaganda ("they want to take our guns away") needs to stop!

09-25-2007, 02:37 AM	#201 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Yeah, I'm going to tell the cops that I used my firearm to prevent a crime. That sounds like an awesome idea. Almost like a free trip to jail. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

09-25-2007, 01:07 PM	#202 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Willravel: I can understand and respect your personal position that you are unable to make life and death decisions when faced with a threat to your life. However, many of us don't share your lack of confidence and are strongly in favor of being responsible for our own well being. It is not appropriate to introduce a firearm into every (or even most) situations, and often it is innapropriate to have one on your person. However, there are also situations where access to a firearm may very well be a useful deterrent and/or means of defense and I don't see how you can make the decision of whether or not to carry for anybody but yourself (and I am not looking for an absurdist reply to this either). I personally don't think there is anything morally, ethically, or socially unacceptable or wrong with killing. Of course, I believe there is a big difference between killing and murder. If somone is presenting a threat to my life I really have no compassion for them. I am going to do whatever is safest for me and those in my company. If handing over my wallet will end the encounter, then I will do that. But if I am not sure what the bad guys intentions are, and I get the opportunity, then I will do whatever is necessary to stop the threat. In order to pick accurate quotes I browsed the brady campaign websight: www.bradycampaign.org and in their faq found this little gem: "A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting (4 times), a criminal assault or homicide (7 times), or an attempted or completed suicide (11 times) than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.[2]" I am sure these data are 'technically' correct, since this figure has been kicking around for a while and they probably would have had to remove it were it false. However, notice how carefully phrased it is. They mention a gun kept in the home, which covers more or less all personally owned firearms. But they never say that all of the figures that follow occur in the home. So if you are a crack head with a gun who shoots an innocent bystander while robbing a convenience store, you get to be included in the statistic. Also, the bad guy doesn't have to 'use' the gun for it to be counted as a 'criminal assault,' while for it to be tallied in favor of self defense the firearm must not only be fired, but cause injury or death. So if a mugger points a gun at you, and you cause him to flee by drawing your weapon: Tally one for the bad guys, zero for the good guys. Unintentional Shooting, of what? A person? I don't think they bothered to qualify that because they are actually counting 'unintentional discharges' Which, while idiotic, usually don't hurt anyone, though they certainly have the potential. The suicide figure (which comprises fully half of the incidents) is also misleading. Of course guns are often used in suicide. If you have (seriously) decided to kill yourself you are probably going to choose a method that is both easy and effective. The right tool for the job, so to speak, and that is a firearm. If you took firearms out of the equation most of those people would probably find other ways to kill themselves. As I mentioned briefly above, the gun has to be used to "injure or kill in self defense" in order to be counted. It has already been mentioned that the situation usually does not escalate beyond presentation of a weapon by the potential victim, which is not considered, even though it's pretty much the ideal outcome. Also, if the homeowner shoots and misses, and the bad guy flees, it doesn't get counted either. Nor are shootings to prevent rape or sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. The Brady Campaign espouses "Reasonable Gun Control" but it's actions and misleading propaganda imply a very different agenda. more: "When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[10]" The implication here, of course, is that your gun won't help you stop a home invasion robbery. However, this stat isn't referring to just gun owners. Since most people either don't own firearms or store them in the brady approved manner (locked up, unloaded, and useless), of course they aren't using guns for self defense. Also, if someone is going to deliberately invade someones home while they are inside, odds are they are going to pick someone who they think won't be a threat. I.e. some pacifist over Billy Bob with a "Guns don't kill people...." sign in his yard. Most home invasions don't escalate to the point where deadly force becomes necessary, which further dilutes this statistic. If a guy breaks into a house to rape a woman and hears her working the action of a shotgun, what percentage of the time do you think he is going to leave? (hint: probably more than 2). Lastly, the quote doesn't say "...fewer than two percent of home invasions" but rather "...fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes." If someone breaks into a house, steals something, and assaults the owner he has just committed several 'home invasion crimes' during the same home invasion. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 09-25-2007 at 01:30 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-25-2007, 02:03 PM	#204 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Sorry, I missed the part where I said they were banning handguns. Just because they are smart enough to not explicity state an agenda to ban handguns doesn't mean it isn't a goal. Politically they need to choose their battles, and the best way for them to make any progress at all towards reducing gun ownership is to appear 'reasonable' and take little steps. However, while the brady campaign has not come out and stated "we want to ban all (hand)guns" their actions imply it: in 1974, HCI petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Comission to ban the purchase of "handgun ammunition." But of course, they aren't anti-handgun. http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml75/75016.html also: "The only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." --- Sarah Brady, Jackson, Keeping the Battle Alive, Tampa Trib., Oct. 21, 1993 (interview with Sarah Brady). Of course, handguns are for killing, and self defense is certainly not sporting. I am sure it isn't 'reasonable' in her mind to allow ownership of such easily concealed weapons. By propaganda I ment that they were posting misleading statements in order to further their agenda. It may have been done with the best of intentions, but it is still propaganda. Oh, and another, since quotes have become so popular in this thread: "We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal. " Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns, New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.) (boldface added, italics in original). __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 09-25-2007 at 02:13 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

09-25-2007, 02:44 PM	#206 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	DC Dux: Uh, actually, that's incorrect. They are absolutely the same organization: Off the NRA website on anti-gun organizations: "In 2001, Handgun Control, Inc. changed its name to Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The organization originated (1974) as the National Council to Control Handguns (NCCH), a group which lobbied for government restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms through support for restrictions on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possession of handguns. The organization voiced a desire for an eventual handgun ban through gradual steps, but changed its name and espoused goals due to results of a survey. In 1991, then HCI amended its Articles of Incorporation to reflect its support of restrictions on rifles and shotguns as well." http://nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=14 Same organization, different names for different political climates. And Peter Shields founded the organization that eventually became the brady campaign, so he has everything to do with them. (see above). Edit: I am aware that there are a lot of bogus quotes attributed to Sarah Brady and her organization and I have not posted them. What I have posted, however, is accurate. Re-Edit: Oops, hang on, while I check the committee thing. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 09-25-2007 at 02:52 PM..

09-25-2007, 02:49 PM	#207 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think you misunderstood my post. I know that HCI, founded in the 70s as the National Council to Control Handguns, later became the Brady Campaign. You claimed that "in 1974, HCI petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Comission to ban the purchase of "handgun ammunition." But of course, they aren't anti-handgun" I just wanted to set the record straight. The Chicago-based organization, the Committee for Handgun Control Inc.,which filed the petition in 1974, is a different organization. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 09-25-2007 at 02:55 PM..

09-25-2007, 03:07 PM	#208 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	It hurts to be wrong, but I cannot find anything to tie the committe for handgun control to HCI. However, Pete Shields was president of HCI at the time of his above referenced quote, and remained president until he was replaced by Sarah Brady in 1990. http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/history.php You don't name an organization "Handgun Control" unless you want to "Control" handguns. Letting people do with them as they please is not an indication of control. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence