Is this just our New Normal?

[Catwoman]

Furthermore, if I were threatened by an intruder, I would rather have my husband and children have to grapple with the fact that I was hurt or killed than with having killed someone in my defense. I don't think one recovers easily from having taken life. That is a horror I do not wish on my teen children or my husband.

Stepping away from the gun issue for a moment, I can't help but wonder what you think your husband or teen children would do if you were attacked by an intruder? Even assuming there were no guns in the house, do you really believe they wouldn't use whatever means were available to them to defend you? Do you truly believe that they wouldn't fight back with anything they could grab, whether it was a knife, a baseball bat, or a cast iron frying pan?

 

And can you really be certain it would be easier for them to watch you be killed than it would to have killed the intruder in your defense?

 

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I had to choose between the life of a close family member and that of a violent intruder, the intruder would lose every single time -- and I would much rather deal with the emotional consequences of my actions against the intruder than with the overwhelming grief of witnessing the horrific death of a family member.

 

Again, this isn't an argument for or against guns. I'm just thinking that not having a gun might not prevent the situation you described.

[Catwoman]

I guess nobody who isn't trained for particular situations has a good idea of how they would react. And yes, that's an ungrammatical sentence but I don't care.

 

A home invasion is such a tiny risk (where I live anyway) that I'm with the poster above who just doesn't get the preoccupation with it. Non-snarkily, is there a huge rate of armed home invasions all over the US ?

No -- thank goodness! They happen here and there, but it's not something most people worry about on a regular basis, and home invasions are uncommon enough that when they do happen, they make the news. It's probably pretty much the same as where you live.

 

I only used Farmgirl70's home invasion example in my post because I was thinking that even without a gun, in the unlikely event of an actual violent attack, her husband and teenagers would probably try to rush to her defense.

[Farmgirl70]

Stepping away from the gun issue for a moment, I can't help but wonder what you think your husband or teen children would do if you were attacked by an intruder? Even assuming there were no guns in the house, do you really believe they wouldn't use whatever means were available to them to defend you? Do you truly believe that they wouldn't fight back with anything they could grab, whether it was a knife, a baseball bat, or a cast iron frying pan?

 

And can you really be certain it would be easier for them to watch you be killed than it would to have killed the intruder in your defense?

 

I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I had to choose between the life of a close family member and that of a violent intruder, the intruder would lose every single time -- and I would much rather deal with the emotional consequences of my actions against the intruder than with the overwhelming grief of witnessing the horrific death of a family member.

 

Again, this isn't an argument for or against guns. I'm just thinking that not having a gun might not prevent the situation you described.

Oh, I don't think they would just sit there….I do think they would restrain if they could and call the police…even do what they could to disable someone…I do not know what it would actually be like in either remote circumstance.  I can just say what I would rather that they live with.  For me, dealing with the darkness that exists outside of me is more bearable than having that same darkness exist in me.  I'm not trying to make a judgment on others. I just know that young men who I love who have been in war and have harmed others deal with the psychic pain of that years later.  I don't want the people in my life to suffer that.  

 

I understand that many things other than guns can kill, but guns are so fast and powerful and "effective" at killing…I see the results of them all the time in my neighborhood.

[Catwoman]

Oh, I don't think they would just sit there….I do think they would restrain if they could and call the police…even do what they could to disable someone…I do not know what it would actually be like in either remote circumstance. I can just say what I would rather that they live with. For me, dealing with the darkness that exists outside of me is more bearable than having that same darkness exist in me. I'm not trying to make a judgment on others. I just know that young men who I love who have been in war and have harmed others deal with the psychic pain of that years later. I don't want the people in my life to suffer that.

 

I understand that many things other than guns can kill, but guns are so fast and powerful and "effective" at killing…I see the results of them all the time in my neighborhood.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my question -- I think I understand what you mean now! :)

[kiwik]

Swimmermom: just so you know, 'practical' country uses of fire arms are still allowed in the UK. Farmers have shotguns and plain rifles. Sports hunters can also have similar guns, after a background check and a home visit by the police. Hand guns and multi-fire guns are banned.

In NZ too. And yes, some criminals have them and the police have them in a lock box in the boot of the patrol car. But you have to have a firearms licence (obviously not for illegally held ones) and we don't allow assualt rifles (this line has been blurred though but not military ones) or hand guns unless you are a collector and meet whatever the rules are. Most people would never see a handgun but may see a .22 or a shotgun. The idea of policemen wearing guns in full view makes me ill although probably one day it will happen.

 

We have a major advantage though aswe have no land borders and the sea around us is not easy to navigate.

[Cammie]

I've heard this argument that kids need to role play even the "bad guys" to understand the difference between good and bad.  I really don't understand this reasoning.  I never played any of those things and I fully understand the difference.

 

I tread carefully.  I don't make a big stink about not allowing it because I don't want to make it even more attractive.  But I don't buy my kids toy guns.  If there happen to be some at a friend's house or whatever I don't say no (although it's pretty upsetting to me). 

 

I think I have shown on here that I am pretty passionately anti-gun and pro the strictest gun control regulations we can create.

 

That being said, I have a son who wants to grow up and be and FBI agent.  He has acquired over time a number of toy guns.  He uses them in his role-playing and imaginary play activities.  Someone or the other is always getting put in cuffs in my house. 

 

I thought I would never allow toy guns in my house.  We didn't have them growing up.  But we can never anticipate the interest of our children.  We have rules, even for the toy guns.  They cannot be pointed "at" anyone.  They can be pointed at imaginary bad guys.  We have talked about guns and how seriously the safety aspects need to be observed.

[Mama Geek]

I have lived not in an urban area like NYC or Chicago, but have lived in a pretty high crime area.  3 murders in a year in the neighborhood, drug raids by the cops, stolen cars found in the parking lots, etc.  We lived in an area where there were several rough apartment complexes.  We had a husky at the time and thankfully he looked like a wolf and everyone knew that we had him and where he lived.  He like to lay in the window.  We pretty much kept to ourselves and didn't have problems, but living in an area like that made me more supportive of the right to carry and own guns not less.

[ktgrok]

  Furthermore, if I were threatened by an intruder, I would rather have my husband and children have to grapple with the fact that I was hurt or killed than with having killed someone in my defense.  I don't think one recovers easily from having taken life.  That is a horror I do not wish on my teen children or my husband.

 

 

 

Ok, but turn that around a bit. Would you rather live with the horror of watching your husband or teen killed, or the horror of having killed someone yourself?  That's more the question. 

 

I could kill to defend my family. Without a doubt. 

 

Hopefully I will never need to do so. It isn't likely. But yes, it could happen. 

 

As for storing it properly, only an idiot keeps it in a sock drawer or whatever. (and yes, there are plenty of idiots I guess). We use safes with combination locks. You need an 8 digit combination to get in, which is quick if you need access fast. Oh, and if you put in the wrong combination 3 times it locks down totally for I think it is 5 minutes? 10? Something like that. So a kid can't just keep putting in numbers over and over. Also, the guns are NOT chambered, which means you have to "rack the slide" before it can be fired. That action takes a fairly large hand and a significant amount of strength. Many many full grown women are unable to do it, and there is no way a child could. It's just one more fail safe. But in the event of an emergency the safe could be opened and a bullet chambered in seconds. 

 

The rifles are unloaded, and have trigger locks as well. The ammunition is in a separate, combination safe, bolted to the wall. 

[shawthorne44]

It sounds like a lot of people feel that they are not safe, that there is a significant likelihood of being assaulted in their lifetime while going about normal activities, and that they would be more likely to be able to protect themselves from said assault with their own gun than with reliance on the police. This seems so sad! Is it so common to believe ourselves to be living on the edge of anarchy? Because that is how I think I would define this sort of situation in which citizens have to look out for themselves with guns because violent people can do whatever they want and no one will be able to help. What can we do to a) make law enforcement more effective and reduce the amount of fear people are living with daily?

Elaine

 

edited because I don't know how the little sunglasses smilie got in there!

 

I don't think you can say that there are two choices.  Edge of anarchy(or beyond)  and not being in danger of assault.  There is a huge middle ground.  Although, if I lived inside a large city I would say I lived "on the edge of anarchy".  There have been how many incidents of Rioting and Looting in the last 10 years?  It is regularly threatened if XYZ court case doesn't get a certain decision. That sounds like the edge of anarchy to me.   

 

There are criminals out there.  There is a not tiny amount of time it will take the police to get to your house if you call 911.  A criminal can do a lot of evil in that not tiny amount of time.  Things happen so quickly.  Police aren't there to stop crime.  They are there to catch the criminals.  I personally know two people that have been murdered and the police do not know who did it.  Well, in one case they say he shut himself with a gun.  He died immediately but they didn't find the gun.  This is in a state with a solve rate on the high side, 77%.  

 

I remember part of what prompted me to get my first gun was reading about that case in Florida where the court declared that the job of the police is NOT to protect individual citizens, it is to provide for the general welfare (or some other similar words).  Two girls were in their apartment.  Some guys were breaking into their apartment and they called 911.  The guys got in and raped them for 8 hours.  Something like 13 hours later the police showed up.  

 

There also are places where you don't live close to police.  I remember in high school I dated a boy that lived out in the country.  I asked what would happen if he called the police and said "Someone is breaking into my house."  He said he would likely reach the police chief at his desk.  The police chief would say, "Point your rifle out the window and I'll be there in about 20 minutes."  

 

But, really, the only way to make everyone safe would be to lock up people before they committed a crime. That has obvious problems. 

[Farmgirl70]

Ok, but turn that around a bit. Would you rather live with the horror of watching your husband or teen killed, or the horror of having killed someone yourself?  That's more the question. 

 

I could kill to defend my family. Without a doubt. 

 

Hopefully I will never need to do so. It isn't likely. But yes, it could happen. 

 

As for storing it properly, only an idiot keeps it in a sock drawer or whatever. (and yes, there are plenty of idiots I guess). We use safes with combination locks. You need an 8 digit combination to get in, which is quick if you need access fast. Oh, and if you put in the wrong combination 3 times it locks down totally for I think it is 5 minutes? 10? Something like that. So a kid can't just keep putting in numbers over and over. Also, the guns are NOT chambered, which means you have to "rack the slide" before it can be fired. That action takes a fairly large hand and a significant amount of strength. Many many full grown women are unable to do it, and there is no way a child could. It's just one more fail safe. But in the event of an emergency the safe could be opened and a bullet chambered in seconds. 

 

The rifles are unloaded, and have trigger locks as well. The ammunition is in a separate, combination safe, bolted to the wall. 

I just don't think that killing is the only option.  I think that I could do lots of other things to defend my family--mace, disabling someone by less lethal means, etc. Perhaps in a dire circumstance I may find that I could kill. I can't imagine that, knowing what I know about myself. At the moment, however,  I don't want to make that my emergency plan. 

 

Thanks for the info about proper gun storage.  I don't think gun owners are idiots, by the way.  Idiots come in all kinds of flavors  :001_smile:. I did think this might be a good place to ask some of the questions I've had and hear another perspective.  Thanks for being gracious in your response.

[Word Nerd]

I just don't think that killing is the only option.  I think that I could do lots of other things to defend my family--mace, disabling someone by less lethal means, etc. Perhaps in a dire circumstance I may find that I could kill. I can't imagine that, knowing what I know about myself. At the moment, however,  I don't want to make that my emergency plan. 

 

Thanks for the info about proper gun storage.  I don't think gun owners are idiots, by the way.  Idiots come in all kinds of flavors  :001_smile:. I did think this might be a good place to ask some of the questions I've had and hear another perspective.  Thanks for being gracious in your response.

 

Killing isn't the only option when you have a gun either. When my cousin caught an intruder trying to break in one night, she held him off until the police arrived. He was an acquaintance who knew her husband was traveling, and it was later discovered that he had been stalking her. The only other person at home was her then preschool-age daughter. Yes, it's possible that he could have attacked her anyway and turned the gun on her, but it's almost a certainty that he would have raped her if she had not defended herself.

[TCB]

MOst of the people that I know that think they are "cool" like them in large part because of the craftmanship that goes into them. They admire the workings, the tooling on it, the precision, etc just like they admire a well made automobile. It's an amazing machine that they can take apart, clean, and put back together. And they can target shoot, or hunt, etc. Finally yes, they like knowing they can protect themselves and their families. 

 

Lots of people collect swords too, for similar reasons and I don't think people find that weird. Or maybe I just hang with weird people. 

 

 

Can they actually protect themselves and their family better, or do they just "feel" like they can protect them better? Genuine question, is there solid evidence to show that you can protect them better? 

[Farmgirl70]

Killing isn't the only option when you have a gun either. When my cousin caught an intruder trying to break in one night, she held him off until the police arrived. He was an acquaintance who knew her husband was traveling, and it was later discovered that he had been stalking her. The only other person at home was her then preschool-age daughter. Yes, it's possible that he could have attacked her anyway and turned the gun on her, but it's almost a certainty that he would have raped her if she had not defended herself.

I know one doesn't need to kill when they have a gun.  I had just been asked, though, if I wouldn't rather kill someone than watch my loved ones be killed, so that's what I was responding to.  I'm glad your cousin was kept safe.

[In2why]

I just don't think that killing is the only option.  I think that I could do lots of other things to defend my family--mace, disabling someone by less lethal means, etc. Perhaps in a dire circumstance I may find that I could kill. I can't imagine that, knowing what I know about myself. At the moment, however,  I don't want to make that my emergency plan. 

 

Thanks for the info about proper gun storage.  I don't think gun owners are idiots, by the way.  Idiots come in all kinds of flavors  :001_smile:. I did think this might be a good place to ask some of the questions I've had and hear another perspective.  Thanks for being gracious in your response.

 

I have read your posts and I think you bring up a very important point.  People need to know themselves.  I say this sincerely and without any snark.  You should not own a gun.  It is a tool that requires a commitment.  Responsible gun owners know their weapon and its capabilities like they know their child.  They also should know themselves.  I have never pointed my weapon at a human being.  I don't know how I would feel if I had to shoot someone.  If I do ever point my weapon at a human being, I am going to shoot them and I am aiming for center mass to kill them.   I practice shooting to the point I am comfortable I can hit a moving target and I have killed for food and even then it is sobering to take life and I would never kill a living creature for sport.   We practice knowing our target and knowing what is beyond our target and practice gun safety at all times.  If someone is coming up my interior stairs in the middle of the night, I will identify who they are not and I will shoot them.  I will likely empty my clip and will deal with the consequences afterwards.   But hopefully that will never happen.  We also have a dog which is a deterrent and I believe that the average criminal when met with an armed homeowner will back down the stairs and not keep coming up.  

 

The only time I would say we are playing, and even then with purpose, is when we are skeet shooting.  It is fun and competitive.  We still use gun safety rules but we are shooting flying Orange discs on a well marked range so we don't have to be as vigilant and the outcome is not serious.  

[poppy]

I completely reject with the idea that one needs a gun for self defense.

 

I live in Boston. Some folks do own firearms. It's not all that common, and it's certainly not something people brag about. You are much more likely to hear someone cluck her tongue at lax gun laws than chat about going to the shooting range.

 

I have family in Louisiana where guns are a regular part of life, not a big deal at all.

 

What is the difference in crime levels? Does more gun ownership (and more open gun ownership) make it much safer to live in Louisiana?  Is every woman in Boston much more likely to be targeted for rape because she is unlikely to have a handgun in her pocketbook? 

 

Of course not. Guns may make you 'feel' safer, and they may be fun recreationally, but for most people, I don't think it goes further than that.

 

[Aura]

Killing isn't the only option when you have a gun either. When my cousin caught an intruder trying to break in one night, she held him off until the police arrived. He was an acquaintance who knew her husband was traveling, and it was later discovered that he had been stalking her. The only other person at home was her then preschool-age daughter. Yes, it's possible that he could have attacked her anyway and turned the gun on her, but it's almost a certainty that he would have raped her if she had not defended herself.

I have to strongly disagree with this. If you are not prepared to use a gun, then don't pick it up. I'm not saying your cousin wasn't prepared to use it. I'm just saying that anyone who buys a gun and thinks its presence alone will be a deterrent is setting themselves up for serious problems.

 

First, thieves will break in with the intention to steal guns. So having guns won't necessarily deter robbers. In some cases, you may increase that risk. (Of course, this greatly depends on who and how many people know you have a gun.)

 

Second, pointing a gun at an attacker will likely escalate a situation. You may easily find your bluff being called and end up in a worse scenario.

 

I mean this nicely....this is very important, basic gun safety. Please, never, ever think that owning a gun and intending to threaten only is a good idea in any form. If you are not prepared to fire it and kill someone, don't pick it up! 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Can they actually protect themselves and their family better, or do they just "feel" like they can protect them better? Genuine question, is there solid evidence to show that you can protect them better? 

 

Better than not being armed?  I want a fighting chance.  At 120 lbs. I need a little help.  Whether it be in the form of a gun, baseball bat, crow bar or pepper spray, that is my choice.  If someone breaks into my house and ends up injured it is because they CHOSE to enter uninvited and with malice.  I did not make that choice for them, they took the risk and lost.  

 

I think each individual has to do their own risk assessment and figure this out for themselves. When I first was a SAHM, I went through my house and made a game-plan for responding to a home invasion. I had to.  I was in the area of the DC sniper and I felt that I needed to be on high-alert.  Call me paranoid, call me a prepper...whatever.

 

All I can be certain of is that if there is no doubt that a criminal will choose the path of least resistance. They do their own risk assessment before they act.  If you make the assessment that the risk is low and choose not to have a game plan for yourself or your family, that is your choice. 

 

Please don't make that choice for me.

[TCB]

Better than not being armed?  I want a fighting chance.  At 120 lbs. I need a little help.  Whether it be in the form of a gun, baseball bat, crow bar or pepper spray, that is my choice.  If someone breaks into my house and ends up injured it is because they CHOSE to enter uninvited and with malice.  I did not make that choice for them, they took the risk and lost.  

 

I think each individual has to do their own risk assessment and figure this out for themselves. When I first was a SAHM, I went through my house and made a game-plan for responding to a home invasion. I had to.  I was in the area of the DC sniper and I felt that I needed to be on high-alert.  Call me paranoid, call me a prepper...whatever.

 

All I can be certain of is that if there is no doubt that a criminal will choose the path of least resistance. They do their own risk assessment before they act.  If you make the assessment that the risk is low and choose not to have a game plan for yourself or your family, that is your choice. 

 

Please don't make that choice for me.

 

 

I'm assuming that there is actual evidence/figures that make you say this. I would just like the opportunity to see them. Is it just that you feel you would have a fighting chance or is it that you do have a better chance. I think I'm right in saying that at times people have the gun taken from them and used against them, or they miss etc.Is there hard evidence to show that despite these things happening, overall people are safer if they have a gun. Again, I've heard this theory propounded by many but I don't think I have ever seen any hard evidence for it and that is what I would like to look at.  I realize you think you are safer but I wondered if any of you have a link to actual figures about it. It seems that it would be a reasonably easy thing to collect data on, as I assume that these types of assaults are usually reported.

 

 

ETA - but you are also making choices for me by having such a wide availability of guns. I feel less safe around them, you feel more.

[In2why]

I completely reject with the idea that one needs a gun for self defense.

 

I live in Boston. Some folks do own firearms. It's not all that common, and it's certainly not something people brag about. You are much more likely to hear someone cluck her tongue at lax gun laws than chat about going to the shooting range.

 

I have family in Louisiana where guns are a regular part of life, not a big deal at all.

 

What is the difference in crime levels? Does more gun ownership (and more open gun ownership) make it much safer to live in Louisiana?  Is every woman in Boston much more likely to be targeted for rape because she is unlikely to have a handgun in her pocketbook? 

 

Of course not. Guns may make you 'feel' safer, and they may be fun recreationally, but for most people, I don't think it goes further than that.

 

99% of the people I know do not have a clue we own guns.  I am openly discussing them on this board because it is basically anonymous.  I don't chat in real life about going to the shooting range and I certainly do not chat about weapons we own.  I would assume it is the same for most people, even more so women.  

 

Statistically people are more likely to be killed with their own guns or have a child in their home killed with their gun then have to use it to defend themselves.  Statistically it is a horrible idea to own a gun.  Domestic violence with a gun in the home,  want to be Rambos with a loaded weapon in their sock drawer.  Gang and young male violence.   People who are careless and shoot themselves while cleaning their weapon without clearing it first and always assuming even after clearing it that it is still loaded.  Beautiful wooden gun cases with pretty glass fronts so that a burglar can break the glass and take the guns and ammo.  Yep statistically there are lots of idiots and lots of reasons to never own a gun.  

 

That is why I am so supportive of increasing the criminal and civil penalties for irresponsibility.  We as a society in America are not going to remove guns from the equation.  Instead we glamourize them.  Politically and historically that is off the table.  There isn't a politician or a political party that will seriously touch the issue with a ten foot pole and we the people can't agree on it , so nothing is going to change.  Even if we waved a magic wand and never made another gun available there are enough in circulation to continue to be a problem for generations.  So we need to figure out what we can do instead of what we wish we could do.  

[ktgrok]

I just don't think that killing is the only option.  I think that I could do lots of other things to defend my family--mace, disabling someone by less lethal means, etc. Perhaps in a dire circumstance I may find that I could kill. I can't imagine that, knowing what I know about myself. At the moment, however,  I don't want to make that my emergency plan. 

 

Thanks for the info about proper gun storage.  I don't think gun owners are idiots, by the way.  Idiots come in all kinds of flavors  :001_smile:. I did think this might be a good place to ask some of the questions I've had and hear another perspective.  Thanks for being gracious in your response.

 

No problem :)

 

Also, I agree that there are other things, and I would certainly rather hold someone until police came, rather than kill them. My husband actually knows someone that held someone at bow point (compound bow) until police showed up!

[poppy]

 

99% of the people I know do not have a clue we own guns.  I am openly discussing them on this board because it is basically anonymous.  I don't chat in real life about going to the shooting range and I certainly do not chat about weapons we own.  I would assume it is the same for most people, even more so women.  

 

PP was talking about how important it is that thieves and rapists are deterred because they know whether potential victims are armed.  If most guns are kept secret, why is deterrence used as a pro-gun argument?

[Word Nerd]

I have to strongly disagree with this. If you are not prepared to use a gun, then don't pick it up. I'm not saying your cousin wasn't prepared to use it. I'm just saying that anyone who buys a gun and thinks its presence alone will be a deterrent is setting themselves up for serious problems.

 

First, thieves will break in with the intention to steal guns. So having guns won't necessarily deter robbers. In some cases, you may increase that risk. (Of course, this greatly depends on who and how many people know you have a gun.)

 

Second, pointing a gun at an attacker will likely escalate a situation. You may easily find your bluff being called and end up in a worse scenario.

 

I mean this nicely....this is very important, basic gun safety. Please, never, ever think that owning a gun and intending to threaten only is a good idea in any form. If you are not prepared to fire it and kill someone, don't pick it up! 

 

I don't disagree. I have no doubt she would have fired the gun if she had needed to. Self-defense wasn't the primary reason that she and her DH had guns, though; they are both hunters.

[Catwoman]

There are criminals out there. There is a not tiny amount of time it will take the police to get to your house if you call 911. A criminal can do a lot of evil in that not tiny amount of time. Things happen so quickly. Police aren't there to stop crime. They are there to catch the criminals. I personally know two people that have been murdered and the police do not know who did it. Well, in one case they say he shut himself with a gun. He died immediately but they didn't find the gun. This is in a state with a solve rate on the high side, 77%.

 

I remember part of what prompted me to get my first gun was reading about that case in Florida where the court declared that the job of the police is NOT to protect individual citizens, it is to provide for the general welfare (or some other similar words). Two girls were in their apartment. Some guys were breaking into their apartment and they called 911. The guys got in and raped them for 8 hours. Something like 13 hours later the police showed up.

 

There also are places where you don't live close to police. I remember in high school I dated a boy that lived out in the country. I asked what would happen if he called the police and said "Someone is breaking into my house." He said he would likely reach the police chief at his desk. The police chief would say, "Point your rifle out the window and I'll be there in 20 minutes."

While there are certainly places where police response time is slow, I wanted to point out that it's not the case everywhere. Our local police department has about a 3 minute response time to 911 calls, and I know other towns in our area have similar statistics.

 

I guess it all depends where you live.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

PP was talking about how important it is that thieves and rapists are deterred because they know whether potential victims are armed.  If most guns are kept secret, why is deterrence used as a pro-gun argument?

 

Because if you live in an area that ban guns in your home or bans concealed-carry, then the would-be criminals KNOW that you are unarmed (unless you are a criminal too).   The risk that they will be injured or killed in perpetrating a crime against you is very low.  If concealed-carry is common where you live, the criminals do not know who is armed and who is not, so they have to assume a greater risk if they choose the wrong victim.

 

Similar to the use of unmarked police cars.

[poppy]

Because if you live in an area that ban guns in your home or bans concealed-carry, then the would-be criminals KNOW that you are unarmed (unless you are a criminal too).   The risk that they will be injured or killed in perpetrating a crime against you is very low.  If concealed-carry is common where you live, the criminals do not know who is armed and who is not, so they have to assume a greater risk if they choose the wrong victim.

 

Similar to the use of unmarked police cars.

 

Again, with that in mind, you would think areas with higher numbers of gun owners would have fewer and more cautious criminals.  And I don't think that is the case statistically, at all.

 

I am simply not convinced that guns deter criminals. I can think of too many cases where people attacked despite the *known* presence of armed guards. Like, say, Columbine High School in 1999.

[shawthorne44]

Again, with that in mind, you would think areas with higher numbers of gun owners would have fewer and more cautious criminals.  And I don't think that is the case statistically, at all.

 

I am simply not convinced that guns deter criminals. I can think of too many cases where people attacked despite the *known* presence of armed guards. Like, say, Columbine High School in 1999.

 

Generally speaking, the criminals don't plan to die in the process.  '

 

A sign that they do deter crime is seen when crime increases where they know a gun isn't allowed.  A friend of mine was mugged in the parking lot for a federal court building.  He normally carried, but everyone knows you can't carry into the court building, so he left it in his car.  The police shrugged their shoulders and said "Yes, it happens all the time.  They know people aren't armed"  There was police 60 feet away.  Fortunately, it was merely a mugging.  But, worse things could have happened.  

[Caroline]

Generally speaking, the criminals don't plan to die in the process.  '

 

A sign that they do deter crime is seen when crime increases where they know a gun isn't allowed.  A friend of mine was mugged in the parking lot for a federal court building.  He normally carried, but everyone knows you can't carry into the court building, so he left it in his car.  The police shrugged their shoulders and said "Yes, it happens all the time.  They know people aren't armed"  There was police 60 feet away.  Fortunately, it was merely a mugging.  But, worse things could have happened.  

 

So there are more muggings in federal court building parking lots than elsewhere? 

[TracyP]

Again, with that in mind, you would think areas with higher numbers of gun owners would have fewer and more cautious criminals.  And I don't think that is the case statistically, at all.

 

I am simply not convinced that guns deter criminals. I can think of too many cases where people attacked despite the *known* presence of armed guards. Like, say, Columbine High School in 1999.

 

I think that is the case, statistically.

 

Using the numbers from Washington Post and The Daily Beast, I compiled a list of  the10 states with highest gun ownership:

 

KY, MT, ND, WV, AK, WY, SD, OK, MS, ID

 

Here are crime rates by state. The 10 states with the highest crime rate are:

 

DC, TN, SC, NM, NV, LA, FL, DE, AK, MD

 

Only one state (Alaska) made both lists.

[maize]

Don't know if this is relevant to the discussion or not, but this memory keeps coming to mind. I lived in--well, a Latin American country, one that at the time was undergoing a fair amount of unrest. We attended a private school. The bus that took us to and from school had a driver and a guard armed with a semi-automatic rifle. I never saw the guns used, but I heard of an incident after we left when someone tried to hijack a school bus and was shot by the guard.

 

Strange world we live in. As a child, I think I did feel safer knowing we had armed protection.

[poppy]

So there are more muggings in federal court building parking lots than elsewhere? 

 

I would think it would only be an issue where just about everyone always carried a firearm.

 

I don't live in a gun-friendly  or conceal-carry friendly state, and I don't feel less safe in places where guns are not allowed.  I feel the exact same, actually.  I imagine once you know everyone around you is armed, that may make you more fearful and vulnerable when not armed.

 

That does not persuade me that "more guns" would make things better.

[poppy]

Don't know if this is relevant to the discussion or not, but this memory keeps coming to mind. I lived in--well, a Latin American country, one that at the time was undergoing a fair amount of unrest. We attended a private school. The bus that took us to and from school had a driver and a guard armed with a semi-automatic rifle. I never saw the guns used, but I heard of an incident after we left when someone tried to hijack a school bus and was shot by the guard.

 

Strange world we live in. As a child, I think I did feel safer knowing we had armed protection.

 

That brought back a memory for me..... I was once in India and witnessed an ATM being filled. It was in a city- maybe Mysore? (There aren't a lot of ATMs in India).  The man being escorted to the ATM with the money had an armed guard with a very big gun. It was the only gun I ever saw there, aside from perhaps the airport.  I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other in talking about US guns, but, it was interesting.

 

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

Concealed-carry does not rely on a specific number of people owning and carrying guns. It relies on the concept that anyone and everyone may be carrying and thus a criminal assumes more risk in perpetrating a crime.

 

Using the analogy of  the unmarked police car.  Not EVERY Silver Malibu is an unmarked police car ready to write you a ticket, but once you see someone pulled over by one, you surely take note of them when you are going 65 in a 55 mph zone.  Perhaps you even slow down.  You don't think about the possible number of Silver Malibu's your state police have on the road, you just think that maybe the one quickly approaching your rear-view mirror might be manned by a trooper and you glance down at your speedometer just to make sure you aren't going that much over the speed limit.  Sometimes it's a trooper, sometimes it's just a mom taking her kids down the road.  But either way, you've slowed down.

 

 

[poppy]

Concealed-carry does not rely on a specific number of people owning and carrying guns. It relies on the concept that anyone and everyone may be carrying and thus a criminal assumes more risk in perpetrating a crime.

 

Using the analogy of the unmarked police car. Not EVERY Silver Malibu is an unmarked police car ready to write you a ticket, but once you see someone pulled over by one, you surely take note of them when you are going 65 in a 55 mph zone. Perhaps you even slow down. You don't think about the possible number of Silver Malibu's your state police have on the road, you just think that maybe the one quickly approaching your rear-view mirror might be manned by a trooper and you glance down at your speedometer just to make sure you aren't going that much over the speed limit. Sometimes it's a trooper, sometimes it's just a mom taking her kids down the road. But either way, you've slowed down.

I know some gun owners feel this way. Like I said, I don't see evidence to back it up. What I see is that more guns lead to more gun accidents and gun homicides and gun suicides.

 

This must be how anti vaxxers feel when anyone mentions 'herd immunity'. Please stop feeling like you're making me safer when you're really making us all live in a world where three school shootings on three weeks doesn't even seem surprising .

[Laura Corin]

 

 

All I can be certain of is that if there is no doubt that a criminal will choose the path of least resistance. They do their own risk assessment before they act.  If you make the assessment that the risk is low and choose not to have a game plan for yourself or your family, that is your choice. 

 

 

I think it's pretty rare for burglars to be armed in the UK.  They know they will not meet guns, so the last thing they want is to be charged with serious offences related to firearms if caught.  It's very unlikely that I will ever meet a burglar - they usually go into empty homes and avoid meeting occupants - and if I do, s/he will probably run, knowing that I won't shoot.  Our flat in London was burgled eighteen months ago.  They cased the joint from the park opposite and came in when everyone had gone away for Christmas.  It was irritating and inconvenient, but no more.

 

So the burglar's risk assessment in the UK leads to less danger to the occupants, not more.  Britain has high burglary rates but low murder rates.  I'm fine with that.  

 

L

[In2why]

PP was talking about how important it is that thieves and rapists are deterred because they know whether potential victims are armed.  If most guns are kept secret, why is deterrence used as a pro-gun argument?

 

I don't think owning a gun is a deterrent any more than I believe the death penalty is a deterrent.  I don't think criminals think they are going to be caught much less what might happen when they do. 

 

I don't use that "argument".  I do believe that someone is less likely to complete an attack.

[busymama7]

So many good things to think about on this thread. It is a very complicated topic.

 

I can't help but feel that the reason there are so many school shootings is that there is NO protection at the schools and everyone knows that. Just like the mugging in the court house parking lot. Everyone with an intent to do evil knows there are hundreds of sitting ducks with no one to protect them in locked up tight buildings all over the country. It's sick and it's wrong but it is also what it is. I would for sure feel safer if I had to send my kids to school if teachers were allowed to conceal carry(specific training required) and if there were armed guards in place.

 

I agree that the school situation is out of control. But with so many guns in circulation there is no way gun control measures will fix it. Criminals will/would always have guns.

[In2why]

I know some gun owners feel this way. Like I said, I don't see evidence to back it up. What I see is that more guns lead to more gun accidents and gun homicides and gun suicides.

 

This must be how anti vaxxers feel when anyone mentions 'herd immunity'. Please stop feeling like you're making me safer when you're really making us all live in a world where three school shootings on three weeks doesn't even seem surprising .

 

 

I am not responsible for your safety and I certainly do not believe that my owning a gun helps keep you safer.  I know it makes me safer.

  I am not in the camp of "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"  I will even go so far as to say that the open carry nutcases are making the public less safe because how can you tell the difference between a good and bad guy in a grocery store with an AR-15?  I sorta hope that a car backfires and they all shoot each other before they reproduce.  (As long as no one else gets caught in the cross fire)   They are an extreme side of a very complicated problem.  Based on your posts you may be the extreme on the other side?   Guns are not going away.  People uncomfortable or afraid of my owning a gun is not going to change the 2nd amendment.  But that doesn't mean middle ground can't be found.  

Gun regulations are possible even if in this political climate they aren't probable.  Background checks and cooling off periods make sense.  Closing loopholes between private owners isn't a stretch.  Criminal and civil penalties for irresponsibility.  Gun owners who do not support the NRA's positions need to speak out.  Gun owners that are sickened by children dying need to be part of the solution. 

[Luanne]

I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but gun control is not going to keep the guns out of the hands of people who want to kill.  It will keep the guns out of the people who want to protect their families.  Every single instance of a country implementing gun control has turned out with more violence and more people getting killed by bad people with guns.  Try looking that up.  Seriously.

[Caroline]

I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but gun control is not going to keep the guns out of the hands of people who want to kill. It will keep the guns out of the people who want to protect their families. Every single instance of a country implementing gun control has turned out with more violence and more people getting killed by bad people with guns. Try looking that up. Seriously.

This is simply not true. At all.

[In2why]

So many good things to think about on this thread. It is a very complicated topic.

 

I can't help but feel that the reason there are so many school shootings is that there is NO protection at the schools and everyone knows that. Just like the mugging in the court house parking lot. Everyone with an intent to do evil knows there are hundreds of sitting ducks with no one to protect them in locked up tight buildings all over the country. It's sick and it's wrong but it is also what it is. I would for sure feel safer if I had to send my kids to school if teachers were allowed to conceal carry(specific training required) and if there were armed guards in place.

 

I agree that the school situation is out of control. But with so many guns in circulation there is no way gun control measures will fix it. Criminals will/would always have guns.

 

Colombine the school where 15 kids were killed did have an armed police officer on campus and he even traded gunfire with one of the teens and missed him.  Another officer was less than minutes away and he also shot at the suspect and was shot at and missed.  That is the reason I do not believe in arming teachers or the janitors.  Law enforcement officials that train and must qualify on the fire range miss the person they are shooting at over 40% of the time. Why would a civilian do any better?  My worst nightmare scenario is being in a mall with a shooter and then having well intentioned civilians start a shootout.  Law enforcement, and the other good guys wouldn't have a clue who the bad guy was and even more bystanders are likely to be killed.  

 

I have thought about this in depth and seriously because school shootings enrage me, and I believe I am a responsible gun owner.  I desperately want to find a solution.  That is why I keep going back to increasing criminal penalties for gun owners that do not secure their weapons.   Yet it isn't even discussed by the powers that be.   Maybe any of us that think it is a good idea should contact our Representatives?  I have but I never get more than a canned letter in response. 

[poppy]

Virginia Tech had armed guards too.

[poppy]

I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but gun control is not going to keep the guns out of the hands of people who want to kill. It will keep the guns out of the people who want to protect their families. Every single instance of a country implementing gun control has turned out with more violence and more people getting killed by bad people with guns. Try looking that up. Seriously.

Don't know who told you that but it is exactly the opposite of true.

[poppy]

I am not responsible for your safety and I certainly do not believe that my owning a gun helps keep you safer. I know it makes me safer.

I am not in the camp of "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" I will even go so far as to say that the open carry nutcases are making the public less safe because how can you tell the difference between a good and bad guy in a grocery store with an AR-15? I sorta hope that a car backfires and they all shoot each other before they reproduce. (As long as no one else gets caught in the cross fire) They are an extreme side of a very complicated problem. Based on your posts you may be the extreme on the other side? Guns are not going away. People uncomfortable or afraid of my owning a gun is not going to change the 2nd amendment. But that doesn't mean middle ground can't be found.

Gun regulations are possible even if in this political climate they aren't probable. Background checks and cooling off periods make sense. Closing loopholes between private owners isn't a stretch. Criminal and civil penalties for irresponsibility. Gun owners who do not support the NRA's positions need to speak out. Gun owners that are sickened by children dying need to be part of the solution.

No I don't think I'm an extremist. I want common sense gun control, nothing more. I think we agree about a lot.

 

To be clear, I was replying to the argument that concealed carry makes us all safer, not any post of yours.

[In2why]

So do you think the US is particularly violent compared to countries without a gun culture OR school shootings ?

 

 

Yes.   It is part of our history.  Settling the wild west.  Shootouts at OK corral.  Armed resistance in the Revolutionary War.  Militias and the 2nd amendment.   Immigrants who were escaping prosecution.  

Now our pop culture......movies glamourizing gun culture,  the musicians who if they aren't from the "hood" pretending they are, our kids sports heroes escaping violent neighborhoods and then bringing that culture with them.  Video games where the object is to form a team and engage in pretty realistic killing of enemies.  People on both sides of the political spectrum hating and distrustful of the other side, egged on by talk radio and people using them to make a dollar.  The drug culture and kids being born that aren't wanted and are not cared about.  Generational poverty where crime is the only expectation.  Mental illness that isn't treated or is stereotyped so people are afraid to admit they need help and when they do, can't afford treatment.  Bullying to the point where death is preferable.  The disappearing middle class.  

[Xahm]

I didn't grow up with guns, but my husband is an infantry man and a police officer, so I'm stuck with them and working to become comfortable with them. I have learned that a lot of the people talking about gun control know about as much as I used to. I heard "assault rifle" and "semiautomatic" and imagined a machine gun or something. Tighter controls are very important and changes need to be made, but the need to be written by someone like my husband, who knows what he is talking about, instead of someone like me, who reacts to what looks or sounds scary. My husband's hunting rifle, by the way, is an assault rifle, technically.

[Lisbeth]

I disagree. 

 

I think we need to name these killers right away, and even if they're already dead let's not shield their families.  I'm so sick of reading these stories like the Newtown mother who takes her disturbed son target shooting.   And more recently, the SPU killer who had a history of mental issues, making threats, having police contact, being involuntarily committed for evaluation, and being involved with drugs and alcohol.   And yet he had worked at a shooting range while this was going on!  He lived with his parents, they must have had an inkling about all this, and yet they didn't feel any responsibility to talk to the employer.  Somebody like this has no business working around guns.  Period.  Any responsible person should know this and not sit idly by.

 

I think we need to keep naming the killers.  And like the old saying goes, "Shame, shame!  Everybody knows your name!"  And let's not stop with the killer.  Let's spread the shame to the people close to them who either encouraged or ignored their fascination with guns and killing.   And I don't want to see these people become "famous" because of their loved ones...Elliot Rodger's parents said in a statement that they want to help others...blah, blah, blah.  No thanks.  I don't want to see them sitting in front of some congressional committee, I don't want to see them making the rounds of talk shows, etc.  They had their chance, they blew it, so shut up now and go away.   Many of these people deserve no compassion, just public condemnation.

 

 

I hope you would extend this to each and every mom and dad of gangbangers who kill. Let's parade those parents around in shame, too. 

[swimmermom3]

Kathleen SLP, thank you for starting this thread.

 

A huge "thank you," at least from to everyone who has contributed to the conversation and done so graciously enough to not get the thread shut down even after seven pages. I've learned a lot, although I think I now have even more questions. I've looked at Switzerland and Japan and Australia and I've even been to the pages of the Easy Bake Gun Range. That one gave me lots to think about.

 

My oldest son is launching into his first apartment tomorrow and all is chaos here. My mind is in a somewhat similar state with regards to this issue, so here are a couple of wayward thoughts to what I think should be on the table:

 

1. Mental health care in the US.  - It's the white elephant in the room and it stinks.  We spend billions of dollars in this country medicating, but not necessarily treating. Successfully treating young people with meds is a crap shoot. Don't get me wrong. For many people, medication is the answer to regaining control over their lives. It's quite possible that we would have more mass shootings with young people without them. On the other hand, because it is so difficult to predicate how a psychotropic drug will affect a young person, that's how things can go terribly wrong. I have watched firsthand the effect of the wrong medication on my dd.

 

Making sure that we actively work on mental health research and treatment and attitudes towards it critical for all of us. Mental health issues don't just happen to the "bad," the ungodly, or the veterans. They happen to everyone. Also, if you called for a ban on psychotropic drugs, look them up. That also means ADD and ADHD medications. Oh, for what it's worth. I believe that suicides committed with guns should never be counted in the gun violence statistics. That's cheating. Suicides will most often use what they know and are comfortable with. If it wasn't a gun, it would have been something else.

 

2. The Media - There is no easy answer here as to the media giving too much coverage to shootings and glorifying the shooter. First, when we all talk about "the media," are we even talking about the same thing?  If you are over 35, you might be thinking of the media in terms of newspapers, TV, and Peter Jennings and Fox News. If you are under 35, you are thinking of Twitter, Facebook, and the myriad of blogs. Social media is becoming "the media."  Newspapers, magazines, and traditional news stations are disappearing rapidly on a daily basis and they have seriously reduced budgets. Fact-checking and "old-school journalism" are long gone. Traditional media often gets caught with its pants down because it used unverified Tweets as a primary source. I've often wondered if today's young shooters think about being glorified in mainstream media or will it be one of dozens of underground internet sites devoting to mass shootings and gore. It it's the later, we might have a moot point.

 

While I think the media can tone down their coverage, I also think Americans could stand to done their insatiable need to photograph and tweet about everything and I mean everything whether it's the first responder who posts photos of an accident victim on his Facebook page or teen guys sharing the video they made of them raping a female classmate.  The media fills a market demand, as ugly as that sounds.

 

For our part, we shouldn't be going blindly along with everything our favorite right or left media tells us. We should be asking the same questions we've been asking here. I should have tried to double check a few of those 74 school shootings, even though at the back of my mind, it seemed extreme.  Most of us teach rhetoric to our high schoolers. How often do we tell them to use pathos on every blinking paper they write? We recognize its limited use in high school writing, why don't we recognize it the media we use?  Fever-pitched anger makes publishers and news moguls a lot of money, but it doesn't do us any favors as a country.

 

3. The Stereotypes - we need to drop these fast and work to see the other side as human beings with their own genuine set of concerns.  Forget what the media is telling you. Ask real people for their real thoughts, not just voice-overs from Fox or the New York Times. I may think that fewer guns will result in fewer homicides, but I share this country with a lot of other people. I appreciate that Nick's and Zack's Mama went to a lot of effort to find sources and try to explain why limiting certain types of guns might not help the homicide rate. I think I get what she's saying, even if I am still eying the fact that 70% of US homicides were committed with firearms. I appreciate the gun owners coming forward and talking about safety precautions since I don't know much about those. Some of you have helped dispel many of my own stereotypes about gun owners. 

 

Rats, the guys just took a big chunk out of the hall wall with a desk. Please keep talking and I will spare you anymore meandering thoughts. I hate repairing drywall. :tongue_smilie:

[Cammie]

That brought back a memory for me..... I was once in India and witnessed an ATM being filled. It was in a city- maybe Mysore? (There aren't a lot of ATMs in India).  The man being escorted to the ATM with the money had an armed guard with a very big gun. It was the only gun I ever saw there, aside from perhaps the airport.  I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other in talking about US guns, but, it was interesting.

 

 

That made me LOL!  Yup, still happens.  They have these HUGE long guns....of course everyone knows that the guns are REALLY old, probably not working, probably not loaded.  The guns at the airports however, those are another story!

[In2why]

It's good you're not working in tourism!

 

Why does your history dictate the way you live now ? Countries and cultures change over time.

 

What I hear you saying is that a culture that glamorises guns and violence, at the same time as it disenfranchises whole classes of people, leads to the kind of rates of violence that make owning and using guns in self defence a good choice. Is that accurate or have I misread something ?

 

How does that connect with some of the statements I've heard in this thread and others that crime is decreasing ? Is that, in your opinion, a direct result of more law abiding citizens owning guns ?

 

 

Our history as a country isn't why we are gun owners.  Our family history is more important.  My husband and I both grew up in self reliant households.  They hunted, gardened, and fixed stuff.  We are proud to be the same and have raised and are raising our children the same way.  Having a weapon for self defense is just an extension of already knowing guns are tools.  We don't want that part of our culture to change.  

 

A self defense weapon was a progression.  I already understood and was familiar with guns.  I am competitive and liked being a better shot than my brothers.  When my husband began working nights I decided to look for a personal weapon.  Because I travel, often with just the kids or by myself I decided to get a concealed carry permit.  I also take classes in karate.  Not because I ever expect to fight someone but because my younger kids took classes and I became interested in it for fitness.  We began camping and sometimes in unfamiliar surroundings with unfamiliar people. 

 

I do believe crime is decreasing, but statistics look at averages over large areas.  I don't live in fear and overall feel safe even when I am not armed.  I don't think crime statistics are a result of gun ownership. I think pockets of addiction and economic realities are better indicators.  I am in my 40s and have watched Crack, Meth, oxycotin, and bath salts emerge in cycles.  A new drug is introduced to an area, people become addicted and are desperate to feed their addiction.  After a few years they die, are incarcerated or get treatment and the pocket eases.  The same thing happens economically but not as quickly.  People grow up, make choices, sometimes bad and if they live long enough they get tired, are incarcerated or die.  When the economy is good and people make bad choices it is easier to recover.  When the economy is bad good choices and a college degree might get you a job at McDonald's. Make a bad decision when the economy is bad and you have little hope at getting near the American dream. 

[busymama7]

Ok so there were armed guards at columbine and virginia tech. I didn't know that but I do still feel like schools in general are very very vunerable. What can be done about that?