Workplace violence poll - would you rather

[FenixMike]

Originally Posted by tony20009

What's stacked about the statistics? Please answer with regard to the raw data (see link) that was collected so that I understand the full context of what makes the stats be stacked.

The big problem is this little disclaimer at the bottom -

Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge. Deaths from injury by firearms exclude deaths due to explosives and other causes indirectly related to firearms.

The statistics include ANY shooting using a firearm, regardless of if it was from law enforcement or a civilian, legal or illegal.

In addition, going to firearm deaths by state and factoring deaths related to that doesnt paint the entire picture, especially in places such as new york, california etc where the mass legal collection of firearms in a conservative area is far from the mass murder areas associated with gang and poverty stricken areas. Statistics collected or rendered to fit your interests dont just prove your point, they only show a view. You could just as easily build a statistical chart stating how many gun owners were able to save their lives from an attacker versus how many couldnt when they were shot unarmed, while that would prove having a weapon decreases your chances of death, it doesnt prove in all scenarios that guns save lives.

Originally Posted by tony20009

As for the direction I'd go, it is build upon several "truisms" of which I'm quite confident:

• The government has no business sticking its nose in the "business" of its citizens.
• If you make something illegal, people who want that thing will bitch, moan, kill, pillage and plunder to get it if they really want to.
• The materials needed to build a gun aren't hard to come buy and it's not that hard to heat metal to its melting point. People were doing exactly that thousands of years ago; they can do it today too. Just about anyone can cast metal and make one if they insist on doing so. Eventually an industry will develop whereby manufacturers will sell everything one needs to build a very good gun just as food companies sell cakes and brownies in a box.
• Immature and irresponsible people who have a gun will use it and sooner or later they'll use or store it irresponsibly, and someone will get hurt or killed.

Given my belief in the above ideas, I believe the problem in U.S. with guns is the culture, and to some extent not the people who have them. There are places, places no less "sophisticated" than U.S. where damn near everyone has a gun and almost nobody gets accidentally killed. ([url]

I agree with you on all these points - and in past war times many places not geared up for firearms manufacturing did in fact build firearms.

Originally Posted by tony20009

So what would I do? The short is that I'd shift the burden of having easy access to guns the burden of the individuals who own and use them. Ease of access would be directly linked to the behavior demonstrated by gun owners. I would also use social pressure as a motivator for reasonable and responsible gun use.
[LIST][*]Implement permanently temporary, 15 year ban on all pro and anti gun control lobbying activity. I would also require that the money former spent to lobby Congress be directed toward the other initiatives noted below. The point of this is just to allow a generation of young people to grow up where responsible gun use, not the 2nd Amendment politicking, takes center stage with regard to gun use/abuse.[*]Begin teaching children from the age of 10 on about responsible and safe gun use. Continue the instruction all the way through high school.[*]I'd implement a national "sin tax" on guns that would kick in when the quantity of people who didn't have a gun among the personal effects they had at the time of their being shot by a gun reaches a given quantity. (I don't know what that quantity should be, but I do know that there is no good reason a gun wielder must fatally shoot a person who does not have access to a gun.) This approach leaves it to individuals and organizations that support and encourage gun use/ownership to manage the consequences and implications of the tax however they see fit, knowing that their actions could possibly have a direct affect on literally millions of other people.

Who defines when a firearm should be used? As it currently sits in most areas, when you feel your life is threatened and/or you are unable to defend yourself. I think thats a pretty good guideline, and although a bit gray, EVERYONE who challenges me on it (and forces me to repeat the same sentence 30 times after their "what-if" scenarios) comes back to the same agreement that if YOU feel YOUR life is in danger, or you are to the point where you cannot defend yourself (3 guys against 1, severe difference in size/strength/ability etc), then lethal force can be justified. In addition, many always place the burdon of death on the one who shoots when in reality it should be focused on who started the fight. The old saying "dont bring a knife to a gun fight" still sticks, and if youre willing to lose your life to prove a point, win an argument, or whatever it is that pushes you to the confrontation in the first place, you need to understand the other guy may not play fair. This isnt an excuse to murder someone but at the same time shouldnt automatically penalize those with firearms just because they defended their lives.

Originally Posted by tony20009

The tax would remain in effect until that death rate drops to 20% or more below the stated quantity, at which the tax would be rescinded until the rate rises above whatever is the rate for the year in question. The quantity would be indexed to population growth. The tax itself would be deliberately hefty: the greater of $500 or 100% of the MSRP (not the actual selling price or discounted price) of the gun.

Taxes rarely ever get removed... typically they only justify them differently or wait for people to be "used" to it and forget about it, and what you will be doing is discriminating against those who cannot afford a firearm and those who choose to legally purchase one, while those who have plenty of money wont care about the tax as well as those who obtain them illegally wont be affected. Same principals around "more background checks" and more legal duties for those who already follow the laws versus those who choose not to and none of these new policies or practices have any effect on them.

Originally Posted by tony20009

There would be no exceptions on this. Why? Because there are no "mulligans" when one is fatally shot.[*]I would require the publication on page 2 of ever major newspaper the name and city/town of residence for every singe person who causes an increase in the number of deaths as described above.

Im going to assume that even though police caused fatalities are factored into your statistics, you wont be posting the name of them or personal information which would place their lives at risk and increase your number of murdered people. In addition, this stinks of offering all the leg work to those seeking revenge for an instance of murder, even if justified and legal in self defense.

Originally Posted by tony20009

[*]I'd launch a campaign with regard to guns not unlike the one launched and still going re: cigarette smoking. We have created a culture wherein we there are people who smoke, despite regular and graphic reminders of what the risks are, and who do so knowing full and well what the consequences are. The same needs to be happen re: guns and gun use.

In many instances, guns save lives... I dont recall many times where lighting up a cigarette saved anyone. Those who choose to murder people will do so regardless of weapons available (see: Prison). If/when all guns are banned and knife murders increaes, are you then going to apply the same science to knives? What about when intentional vehicular homicides increase? Can we start applying the same to all vehicles?

Originally Posted by tony20009

[*]I would implement a mandatory death penalty with expedited appeals -- meaning they get an appeal, but the appeals process would happen and complete within two years -- for all persons convicted of killing someone with a gun, be it accidental or deliberate. Why no distinction between accidents and intentional murders? Because every accidental gun death could have been prevented if the gun owner had thought enough and been responsible enough to handle the situation differently. There is always some precautionary action they could have taken and that they did not take. Most extremely, the convicted person could have chosen not to exercise their right to have a gun.

Again, why just "guns"? And when it comes to "prevention", have you ever gone up against someone under the influence of anything, anyone involving a recent tragedy, or someone who just enjoys mayhem and violence etc? What can be prevented about pre-meditated and intentional murder? What could an unarmed person, or a person with a gun that isnt willing to use it because of your laws, do to someone who is ready to use their gun/knife/vehicle/other means of murder in an attempt to save their own life? The thought that every fight can be avoided by talking your way out of it is just wrong (much like the left thinks defacating will get you out of being raped), and removing the only defense for law abiding citizens will INCREASE the rate at which non law abiding citizens commit crimes, especially those harming others.

Originally Posted by tony20009

All this "hoopla" about licensing and whatnot is BS in my mind. Why? Because all that does is find more ways to spend tax revenues and it doesn't actually demonstrate nearly enough.

I agree - why? Because only law abiding citizens take the time to legally own a weapon, follow all local laws with the weapons etc. The "hoopla" only restricts legal owners, not criminals who will obtain them illegally anyway.

Originally Posted by tony20009

On the other hand, I don't go to sleep with a fire burning in my fire place. I don't leave the house with the gas stove/oven on. I don't leave my home with the door unlocked and/or windows open. Why don't I do those things? Because the potential risks associated with them have a clear, present and very negative impact on me. For avoidable gunshot deaths to others (because I really don't care if gun owner kill themselves with their own gun(s)), the same circumstances must be effected if we are to realize a sharp reduction in gun-related deaths.

To reduce gun related deaths, you have to first realize what causes them, and then figure out a way to stop the deaths from occuring, not victimize the tool used for doing so. You wouldnt blame your gas stove/oven for burning your house down if you left it on, would you? No, its your fault, not the fault of an object incorrectly used, and obviously banning a stove isnt goign to fix the problem of the operator. The key here is figure out what is making people kill other people and putting a stop to that... how do you do that? I have no idea... target your emotions on that instead of trying to remove the tool some use for murder and you might find the answer, otherwise you may eventually get firearms banned and instead of people with holes in them, youre going to have people slashed and brutally maimed, beaten to death with other objects such as bats, rocks etc, etc. Malicious intent wont go away with guns, only the ability to use a gun in a murder, which WILL be replaced by a new method to achieve the same goal. Guns arent evil, only the people who maliciously use them for evil are.

[csu87]

I voted for 5, but #3 would work as well, just more expensive.

The majority of people that are certified gun carriers arent the one who are shooting up places. The majority of shooters, also usually obtain their weapon of choice illegally if they cant legally, so outlawing guns for all, isnt going to work. If you handicap all those around the shooter, then you are looking at a much worse outcome.

The latest movie theater shooting in Louisiana was done by a guy who could not get a concealed carry license due to mental health reasons, but still concealed and carried into the movie theater before shooting it up.
http://bearingarms.com/lafayette-the...health-issues/

And this is what happens when you allow people to carry.
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2012/12...ty-to-protect/

[david in germany]

Originally Posted by bmw1racer

And no person was ever killed by an opinion, either.

I don't think that is quite true, killed for voicing an opinion still happens every day.
And I would give my life to ensure that you and everyone else here keeps that right to voice that opinion as I have sworn to do.

[bmw1racer]

Originally Posted by david in germany

I don't think that is quite true, killed for voicing an opinion still happens every day.

I was referring to being actually killed by the words themselves, not for voicing those words.

[DC-T]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Where I live (europe...) I don't know anybody with a gun. The chances that you run into someone who owns a gun are about as high as meeting someone who has a glider airplane..
So having collegues that bring guns to their work is a totally surreal scenario to me.

It must be equally surreal for you guys to imagine living in a society where nobody you've ever met had a gun.

Even if you stumble upon a burglar or so, chances are more than 99% that he doesn't have a gun.

Ok, are you serious or just joking. Like, really.

[david in germany]

Originally Posted by bmw1racer

I was referring to being actually killed by the words themselves, not for voicing those words.

Got it.

[david in germany]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

Where I live (europe...) I don't know anybody with a gun. The chances that you run into someone who owns a gun are about as high as meeting someone who has a glider airplane..
So having collegues that bring guns to their work is a totally surreal scenario to me.

It must be equally surreal for you guys to imagine living in a society where nobody you've ever met had a gun.

Even if you stumble upon a burglar or so, chances are more than 99% that he doesn't have a gun.

times are changing over here buddy. Tougher gun laws do not mean less criminals with guns. There are a lot of armed criminals running around, you just live where they are a bit less active.
Next time you are south ( Germany) let me know, I can show you what some legally owned guns look like and feel like in real life.

[DC-T]

Originally Posted by david in germany

times are changing over here buddy. Tougher gun laws do not mean less criminals with guns. There are a lot of armed criminals running around, you just live where they are a bit less active.
Next time you are south ( Germany) let me know, I can show you what some legally owned guns look like and feel like in real life.

You're extremely lucky. Here in Johannesburg if you're not carrying you're putting yourself at extreme risk - the criminals have AK47s and are extremely violent. Am there In September for the DTM round in Nurburgring amd really looking forward to it.

[tony20009]

First, TY for your reply. I enjoyed reading and considering your comments.

Some of what you wrote, I understand. Other parts I don't think I either (1) fully understand what you are getting at, or (2) what the comment's contextual relevance is to my original comment under which you placed your comments. It may be that in some or all of those instances you are just making a different point and my comment is what inspired the thought. I'll make clear below where you lost me.

Having already explained why I thought your analogy re: tigers and two year olds was absurd, I'm going to use the acronym TTYO to indicate any line of argument that strikes me as being equally absurd. The things that are just contextually irrelevant like the tigers and children and the things that are presented as though they have statistically significant relevance will both be labelled that way.

Before replying, let me be clear:

• It's not my goal to remove access to guns. The 2nd Amendment allows them and frankly the varied interpretations -- strict or liberal constructionist or somewhere in between -- of that code isn't at all what I see as the problem re: guns.
• I believe that the "right to bear arms" is granted by the 2nd Amendment and that's that. To me, that means that any American citizen has the right to own and operate a firearm. That's that and I'm not going to refute that is. The 2nd Amendment does not, however, accord the right to affordable/inexpensive ownership and operation of firearms.
  
  Additionally, there is no Constitutional constraint on what entity(s) be the one that drives up (1) the "price" (monetary or non-monetary) of firearm ownership and operation, as well as the "price" of firearm misuse. I don't complain that helicopters are expensive; I just have to save my ducats until I can afford one. I see no reason why the same cannot and should not be so for personal firearms.
  
  It'd be different were we forced to shot things with guns to eat, but we are not. Even my ancestors from the 17th century didn't have use guns to hunt. They used an assortment of bows/arrows, traps, fishing lines/poles, snares, and so on. If someone wants to eat wild game, they can use the same tactics.

I want to point out that having read your reply, I saw several extraordinary circumstances cited as refutations of my proposal. I cannot and won't deny that those sorts of exceptions exist, but the truth is I don't see policy analysis and policy making, that is policy aimed at solving problems, as a thing that should focus on the exceptions before addressing what is the norm.

When it comes to gun ownership, I'm not concerned initially with:

• What inmates do -- TTYO -- Inmates have already established that they are willing to behave in ways contrary to what is the accepted standard of behavior in their communities. Inmates have demonstrated they have little to no regard for the rights of others. There's no point to making laws and policies to deal with how folks who have no regard for others will behave.
  
  Most people do respect others' rights. Unfortunately, most people also will, without strong impetus, disregard others' rights from time to time. My intention is to create a set of stronger, clear and present impetus for usually law abiding and responsible people to be more self-vigilant about using guns responsibly, thinking carefully before they pull the trigger, and taking the necessary steps (whatever they be) to enable themselves to do those things.
• Self Defense -- That line of argumentation rests on one of the flimsiest foundations in the sentient world. It baffles my mind that presumably intelligent people have the gall to bring that up before other bright people who with just 10 minutes of investigation can see through that specious line of BS.
  
  When not acting in a military or law enforcement capacity or situation, how often have you had to defend yourself to such an extent that a gun was necessary? In my entire live I've not once had to physically defend myself against another human such that shooting them fatally was the only viable alternative. Forensic debate and swatting at pests are the sole causes for me to defend myself against anything. I dare say that my experience is not one bit different from that of most people.
  
  I travel to/in some of the best, "in between," and worst neighborhoods in cities around the world: Shenzhen, Tokyo, Paris, London, Gstaad, Geneva, Zurich, Rome, Barcelona, Ibiza, Madrid, Toronto, Los Angeles, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong, and others. In D.C. I routinely travel to one of the worst neighborhoods in the city to mentor young people. I have yet to fear for my personal safety.
  
  (I'd hope you see the quantity of people fatally shot as something that needs to be reduced, and thus that there is a problem of some sort.)
  
  Consider this: "Criminal victimization" has been defined by the Bureau of Justice Statistics as incidences of the following acts (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5111):
  • Violent victimization -- rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault
  • Property victimization -- burglary, motor vehicle theft, and property theft

The most recent report from the BJS that I found is from 2013. It indicates that in 2006 there were ~615K incidents of firearm related "victimizations." (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf) Let's pretend that 2006 is actually 2015, and we're doing that because gun violence decreased between 2006 and 2013.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that in every one of those incidents the "victim" was the offender, rather than the offended, and s/he died as a result of a gunshot wound. (In fact not one person involved in the 615K cases did die.) Now add to that 615K the ~33K actual firearm related deaths expected for 2015. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...lities-by-2015). That puts us at ~648K firearm related victimizations.

Now there were ~127.6M households in U.S. in 2013 and a population comprised of ~220M adults. If we assume every one of those 648K gun victimizations, by dint of the offender having a gun, the offended person(s) was "justified" in using a gun to defend themselves or their property (it's strange that one would reason that a fatal wound is necessary to defend property, but let's keep going..), and that offended party did so successfully, i.e., killing the offender, then we have 2/10ths of one percent of the adult population needing to defend themselves because a person wielding a gun has threatened them.

If instead we use the far greater overall "criminal victimization" figures -- that is, the figures from that same report -- we find that there were ~7M incidents of violent victimization, including the gun related events noted above. Assuming every one of those victimizations constituted a "justified" use of a gun to fatally wound an offender who threatened one's person or property, we'd have 3% of the adult population ostensibly having need of a gun for defensive purposes.

In light of the very low rate of violent victimization, how critical is using a gun to defend oneself or one's property for self defense? Three percent seems hardly sufficient to make plausible owning and using a gun for that purpose, much less that one must fatally shoot the offender.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

The big problem is this little disclaimer at the bottom -

The statistics include ANY shooting using a firearm, regardless of if it was from law enforcement or a civilian, legal or illegal.

That is hardly a big problem. Okay, fine remove the law enforcement fired shots. Go find the figures for gun deaths due to police shooting criminals and adjust the raw data points accordingly and then show us what the new scatter plot looks like. If after so doing, the key message the scatter plot tells -- that gun deaths are higher per 1000 where gun ownership ratios per household are higher -- is different, I'll accept that there's a problem "with the statistics."

I don't think there is a problem with the statistics, but you do, so you do the work to show us empirically that your hypothesized "big problem" is in fact the "big problem" you say it is. Clearly the CDC doesn't think that's a problem, neither do I, Mother Jones or the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation. Don't just say it's a problem, show us that it is. It's not as though the data don't exist; you'll have no trouble finding 2013 data by state on how many people were fatally shot by cops.

As for the legal vs. illegal lethal use of guns by civilians, that really doesn't matter. Ask someone whose loved one was shot and killed by a gun whether it matters to them that the shooter had a permit for the gun. I promise you, it won't. The legality of one's gun ownership has nothing to do with whether one has thoroughly thought through any specific use of that gun. All legal ownership does is strengthen prosecutors' ability to claim that the owner had at least some role -- be it deliberate or negligent to some extent -- in the use of their gun to kill another person.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

In addition, going to firearm deaths by state and factoring deaths related to that doesnt paint the entire picture, especially in places such as new york, california etc where the mass legal collection of firearms in a conservative area is far from the mass murder areas associated with gang and poverty stricken areas.

What are you talking about? Please clarify.

Why someone dies from a gunshot wound is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, one person shot to death is one person too many. In my mind the culture that gives rise to gang members and poor people feeling that they must use guns for some purpose and use them to inflict fatal harm is what I see as the issue. (You raised the wealth status thing not I; I don't believe that wealth has a damn thing to do with whether one feels obliged to shoot fatally another human) That culture exists in every U.S. state.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Statistics collected or rendered to fit your interests dont just prove your point, they only show a view. You could just as easily build a statistical chart stating how many gun owners were able to save their lives from an attacker versus how many couldnt when they were shot unarmed, while that would prove having a weapon decreases your chances of death, it doesnt prove in all scenarios that guns save lives.

Frankly, I don't know why you take exception with that scatter plot. It only says one thing: as the rate of gun ownership increase, so to do the quantity of deaths per 100K people. That's neither good nor bad, it's merely an observation.

Do you feel some need to only present data about guns and gun use outcomes only through rose colored glasses? Quite simply, there is no "positive spin" to the fact that people can and do die from gunshot wounds. Gun advocates seem often to feel obligated to inject the "why" into any discussion about gunshot victims. Well, the "whys and wherefores" are nice to know of, but they cannot alter the fact that every single person who has been shot by a civilian (non-on duty law enforcement official) did not have to be fatally shot. The "why and wherefore" is just a red herring in the debate.

Blue:
I don't have an interest except that the issue be discussed, analyzed, and policy actions/recommendations (and points of view) be offered from dispassionate standpoints.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

I agree with you on all these points - and in past war times many places not geared up for firearms manufacturing did in fact build firearms.

Okay, but really I had in mind the ingenuity of individuals, not the capability of manufacturers. The bit I wrote about manufacturing DIY gun making kits was just a reflection of industry's willingness to exploit opportunities for profit, but that wasn't the central point of that paragraph.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Who defines when a firearm should be used?

As it currently sits in most areas, when you feel your life is threatened and/or you are unable to defend yourself.

Purple:
What does that have to do with the "sin tax" idea? Please clarify.

Orange:
??? I don't know what you mean by that "statement."

Originally Posted by FenixMike

I think thats a pretty good guideline, and although a bit gray, EVERYONE who challenges me on it (and forces me to repeat the same sentence 30 times after their "what-if" scenarios) comes back to the same agreement that if YOU feel YOUR life is in danger, or you are to the point where you cannot defend yourself (3 guys against 1, severe difference in size/strength/ability etc), then lethal force can be justified.

Brown:
Well, I'm not "everyone." I don't know who are or what extent and nature of cognitive acuity is possessed by the "everyone" with whom you've spoken. (Nor do I need to know.) I also don't care about their "what if" scenarios because IMO, they are likely just as absurdly rarefied bases for argumentation as are the two I discussed in the first part of this post. And I don't agree that lethal force is necessary at all. I contend that disabling or disarming force is what's justified. Pick any interpersonal defensive scenario you want, killing your assailant isn't necessary. Stopping harm to oneself is what's necessary, and killing them to do so is, well, overkill.

I also don't care if one civilian who points a gun at another person accidentally killed the person or was intending to maim, but killed unintentionally. I wouldn't get into that sort of debate. What matters to me is that the person who shot the gun did kill another human being. What matters to me is that the shooter did not take the necessary precautions or preparations to ensure that s/he didn't kill another person. What matters to me is that the shooter could have taken those precautions, made the requisite preparations -- be it that moment or days, weeks, months or years prior -- so that they didn't have to kill another human being, and they did no do so. What matters to me is the sanctity of a walking, living, breathing human's life. That's what needs to matter to every other SOB on this planet. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

In addition, many always place the burdon of death on the one who shoots when in reality it should be focused on who started the fight. The old saying "dont bring a knife to a gun fight" still sticks, and if youre willing to lose your life to prove a point, win an argument, or whatever it is that pushes you to the confrontation in the first place, you need to understand the other guy may not play fair. This isnt an excuse to murder someone but at the same time shouldnt automatically penalize those with firearms just because they defended their lives.

Green:
I don't care who started the fight. I care that it ends without someone dying from a gunshot wound.

Your point in the paragraph above is emotionally touching, but remove the emotion from it and there's no point to it. The assailant may not play fair, but that doesn't mean that only lethal force will stop them from "playing" any further.

Magenta:
The penalty isn't for having a firearm or for using it to defend one's life. The penalty I'd impose is for using it lethally when a disabling use of it, or another alternative entirely that doesn't involve using one's gun at all, is (would have been) sufficient. There are "a million and one" non-lethal ways to disable an attacker; pick one and use it. Just don't pick one of the lethal options.

I don't care what task one seeks to perform, if one has been trained to perform it and one keeps up one's training, one will perform it more effectively and more efficiently than will one who's not had that training. Now gun owners can either get the requisite training or not; I don't care whether they get/take the training and I wouldn't require the training; I'd leave that up to each person's good judgement..

Whatever they do, I do know that if they don't do something that "works," they risk not being able to think quickly in "high pressure" situations and they risk killing someone, perhaps because their aim isn't good enough. In a "fight or flight" situation such as self defense, one always has both options. People with good training tend to choose the best option, and if "flight" is that option in the given situation, then that's what they should do. If "fight" is the only option, well, hopefully for the defender, they are a good shot and can make the non-lethal shot. Alternatively, they could choose to employ other effective, non-lethal disabling, situation diffusing, or disarming tactics.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Taxes rarely ever get removed... typically they only justify them differently or wait for people to be "used" to it and forget about it, and what you will be doing is discriminating against those who cannot afford a firearm and those who choose to legally purchase one, while those who have plenty of money wont care about the tax as well as those who obtain them illegally wont be affected. Same principals around "more background checks" and more legal duties for those who already follow the laws versus those who choose not to and none of these new policies or practices have any effect on them.

Fluorescent Green:
Write the tax so that it automatically "kicks-on" and "kicks-off" when in accordance with observed gun deaths. Structured that way, there's no need to remove it. For example, assuming the "kick-on" quantity is 15K deaths nationally, increased by, say (for easy math), 10% each year (as I said before, the actual percentage would be indexed to population growth rates):

• Year 0 --> No tax because it's the baseline year. (15,000 allowable deaths)
• Year 1, deaths do not reach 15K --> No tax. (15,000 x 1.10 = 16,500)
• Year 2, deaths reach 16,501 by November --> Tax kicks in and applies to all subsequent gun sales that year. It stays in place until deaths fall to less than what was deemed acceptable (rounded down to the nearest integer) for the given year before (because we don't know the current year's population growth). (16,500 x 1.10 = 18,150 "allowed" gunshot deaths)
• Year 3, deaths rise to 18,200 --> Tax remains in effect. (18,150 x 1.10 = 19,965 "allowed" gunshot deaths)
• Year 4, deaths rise to 19,966--> Tax remains in effect. (19,965 x 1.10 = 21,961 "allowed" gunshot deaths)
• Year 5, deaths rise to 21,000 --> Tax "kicks-off" because it is below the 21,961 allowed in Year 4. (21,961 x 1.10 = 24,157 "allowed" gunshot deaths)
• Year 6, deaths rise to 23,800 --> Tax remains "off" because the allowed deaths for the 6th year after the "sin tax's" implementation is 24,157, which is based on Year 5's population growth.

As you can see, and as I wrote before, structure the tax so it goes away as behavior changes. Then there's no need to repeal it; when the "sin" isn't manifest, there's no "sin tax." Leave the behavioral change up to citizens and the social and peer pressure they can exert on their fellow citizens. If advocates of "shoot to kill" self defense want to have more people shot and killed, they have the freedom to take fertility pills and f*ck like rabbits if they want to.

Lavender:
Rich people don't need to care much about the current laws and penalties for murder -- gunshot or otherwise. I'm not trying to change that. First things first and the first thing that needs to happen is to alter the behavior of most people. Most people aren't "OJ Simpson" rich, so I'm not focused on them and neither does the idea I proposed.

I'm fine with tweaking the idea (or coming up with a new idea) to deal with "rich people" after the basic tenants have been implemented to address the majority of circumstances and people. I'm not going to completely refuse to deal with the 90% simply because the solution leaves unaffected the 10% who happen to be rich.

Besides, being rich has its privileges -- guns, gun ownership, gun use, and the corresponding policies are not immune to that -- and no law or policy designed to deal with a specific problem such as gun use/abuse is ever going to change that. If you reexamine the penalty I proposed for killing with a gun, that may have a small impact on how rich people behave with guns. The fact is that even now, if a person has the money, they can commission, own and operate a battle tank if they want to. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18732...marijuana.html) I'm not of a mind to change that, or, for that matter, do anything about it.

Cornflower Blue:
I don't really care how people come to have a gun. I don't given a damn if guns are legal or illegal, all of them or some of them. I care only about how they use it, and the specific "how" I care about is whether they use it lethally or non-lethally. If the person who gets shot doesn't end up dead...or brain dead/damaged, because what is a human if their brain is "mush?" (Our brain is what separates us from the rest of the animals on the planet. If you shoot a person in in the head and the result is that they may as well be a cat for all the mental faculty they have left, as far as I'm concerned, you've killed a human.)

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Im going to assume that even though police caused fatalities are factored into your statistics, you wont be posting the name of them or personal information which would place their lives at risk and increase your number of murdered people. In addition, this stinks of offering all the leg work to those seeking revenge for an instance of murder, even if justified and legal in self defense.

I would not include in "allowable" deaths those that are the result of on-duty law enforcement officer shootings.

If folks want to seek revenge, they can as far as I'm concerned. They can now, so what's different? Heck, most folks who are shot are shot by someone known to them. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3531351/) Given that, most folks who want to avenge a friend/relative know exactly where to look and how to find the person on whom to exact vengeance.

Bear in mind though that in exacting revenge, people still need to refrain from killing the person with a gun lest they too become individuals whose names get published. Revenge seekers are also still subject to all the other laws pertaining to assault, battery, etc.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

In many instances, guns save lives... I dont recall many times where lighting up a cigarette saved anyone. Those who choose to murder people will do so regardless of weapons available (see: Prison). If/when all guns are banned and knife murders increase, are you then going to apply the same science to knives? What about when intentional vehicular homicides increase? Can we start applying the same to all vehicles?

Carnation Pink:
TTYO -- The point had nothing to do with whether cigarettes or guns, in and of themselves, can, do or don't save lives. The point is that advertising/PSA campaigns directed toward altering cultural attitudes work. Since the "problem with guns" (for lack of a better phrasing) is cultural not the guns themselves or inherently the people who use them, a campaign that aims, as do/did the anti-smoking ones, to change how people view gun use/abuse has a lot of promise at changing American culture and society so that, like Swiss and Japanese society, firearm-related deaths -- intentional or accidental -- decline dramatically.

Maroon:
No.

TTYO -- Guns are "at a distance" weapons. A large share of the "problem with guns" is that they are the "easy out," too easy in fact. Hand-to-hand combat is a totally different situation then is shooting someone from X yards/feet away. The dynamics of it are different. The degree of bravado and skill one must possess to prevail are different. The unknowns -- particularly that of what skills the defender might possess -- are entirely different. As a result, the risk profile for the assailant and person assailed is vastly different.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Again, why just "guns"? And when it comes to "prevention", have you ever gone up against someone under the influence of anything, anyone involving a recent tragedy, or someone who just enjoys mayhem and violence etc? What can be prevented about pre-meditated and intentional murder? What could an unarmed person, or a person with a gun that isnt willing to use it because of your laws, do to someone who is ready to use their gun/knife/vehicle/other means of murder in an attempt to save their own life? The thought that every fight can be avoided by talking your way out of it is just wrong (much like the left thinks defacating will get you out of being raped), and removing the only defense for law abiding citizens will INCREASE the rate at which non law abiding citizens commit crimes, especially those harming others.

Black Bold:
See "self defense" discussion at the start of this post.

Medium/Olive Green:
TTYO -- Nothing. Nothing can be done about it now either. I have no intention of wasting my efforts to create policies to deal with people who've made up their mind to "off" another person. They are going to do that and they are going to do it using whatever means they have available.

Note:
I sought and could not find one, single source -- forget about whether it's a reputable one or not...LOL -- that identified the breakdown of homicides in terms of 1st, 2nd, or other "degree" of murder, so I can't say whether most murder convictions, gun shot or otherwise, are for a premeditated act or not. Thus let's just leave that alone until one of us can find a source...then we can worry about whether it's "reputable" and whether it's something from which one can/should draw inferences.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

I agree - why? Because only law abiding citizens take the time to legally own a weapon, follow all local laws with the weapons etc. The "hoopla" only restricts legal owners, not criminals who will obtain them illegally anyway.

I'm thrilled, I suppose, that you agree. At the very least that makes for concord about one policy action neither of us would support. I'm disturbed, however, at why you agree.

My "policy making" ideas focus on effective and efficient uses of resources and whether there's any rational basis for thinking that a given policy -- no matter what happens re: gun deaths -- can demonstrably be shown to effect fewer gun deaths. If I felt that greater licensing stipulations could be shown clearly rather than circumstantially to achieve my end, I do not care what be the impact on law abiding citizens' attempts or desire to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, so long as the policy doesn't absolutely and explicitly prohibit citizens from exercising that right.

More stringent licensing requirements don't going to take away their right; it just puts a "speed bump" in the road toward exercising it. The people who find themselves racing to a gun shop to get a gun with the "need" to use it within hours or minute of buying it do not remotely enter my ambit of concern. In my mind, those folks would just have to have a "plan B."

Originally Posted by FenixMike

To reduce gun related deaths, you have to first realize what causes them, and then figure out a way to stop the deaths from occuring, not victimize the tool used for doing so.

You wouldnt blame your gas stove/oven for burning your house down if you left it on, would you? No, its your fault, not the fault of an object incorrectly used, and obviously banning a stove isnt goign to fix the problem of the operator.

The key here is figure out what is making people kill other people and putting a stop to that... how do you do that? I have no idea... target your emotions on that instead of trying to remove the tool some use for murder and you might find the answer, otherwise you may eventually get firearms banned and instead of people with holes in them, youre going to have people slashed and brutally maimed, beaten to death with other objects such as bats, rocks etc, etc. Malicious intent wont go away with guns, only the ability to use a gun in a murder, which WILL be replaced by a new method to achieve the same goal. Guns arent evil, only the people who maliciously use them for evil are.

Bold Black:
Yes. Absolutely. I agree.

Fluorescent Blue:
Let's not anthropomorphose guns. They, like any object, can be "victimized" to whatever extent one/society needs to. Of course guns don't "wake up and just start shooting" (at random or not). That they do or don't isn't the point.

Nuclear weapons don't just launch themselves either but U.S. doesn't want to allow Iran to have them. Banning the possession of or access to guns is conceptually no different. Nobody is concerned about the so-called responsible/reasonable and "well mannered" nations having nuclear weapons, but they don't want "radical" nations to obtain access to them. Well, it's the same with guns and individuals. The issue isn't with "well mannered" citizens; it's with the "hooligans."

So within the context of approaching the "gun problem" by controlling the weapon vs. modifying human behavior, the same overarching principles apply. If one's principles stipulate that the "the world" is a ostensibly a safer place if "rambunctious" nations don't have access to nuclear weapons, then one should fell the same way regarding guns. All that differs is the scale and scope of damage the wielder of each weapon can inflict.

So tell me. What is it about the rationale of gun advocates that the majority of them refuse to accede to banning guns if need be, yet they want to exactly that when it comes to denying access to nuclear weapons? It seems to me that if one's principles are well founded, they will scale up or down and be no less valid or applicable.

(The irrationality, inconsistency of applicability, and lack of scalability found in the principles espoused by many folks -- conservative and liberal alike -- is a major issue I have with both the promoters of those ideas as well as the ideas themselves.)

And, no, I'm not at all interested here in discussing Iran and nuclear weapons. I mentioned both to express the idea that one cannot talk out of two sides of one's mouth and be thought credible. And, no, I don't know what specifically you think about Iran and nuclear weapons, but I wasn't aiming specifically at you or your stated principles in making the point above.

Multicolor -- Red & Blue:
I also don't know specifically what actions can result in cultural, attitude and behavioral changes, but I do know the anti-smoking campaigns have achieved exactly that, so it stands to reason that there are very effective ways of accomplishing that end. Based on the anti-smoking behavioral modification efforts, it seems to take quite a while, but slow improvement is better than no improvement, which is basically what we have going on right now. (sure, gun death rates fluctuate a bit up and down, but in proportion to the size of the population, we've seen no material improvement.)

Multicolor -- Orange & Purple:
As discussed earlier, the exigencies of hand-to-hand combat are vastly different from that of shooting someone from a distance. Frankly, if someone is going to attempt to assault me using a bat, knife, etc., I say "bring it on." Unless they are very well trained, they are in for a big surprise, and frankly, I don't believe (but I don't know either) that the majority of folks who commit violent crimes against strangers are people who are highly trained in interpersonal combat. I could be wrong....I don't know.

BTW, I'm aware of what have been noted as increases in non-gun related acts/harm in the aftermath or presence of tightly controlled gun ownership. What I am not aware of is a clear correlation of causality between the two. Circumstantial or not, what's clear is that the cultural impetus that drives people to offend/attach other people didn't go away even as the guns did.

All the best.

[Lone Star M3]

Somebody forgot to take their medicine today!

[david in germany]

tony20009, the only thing that worries me about your post is that you actually knew the name of all those colors... How do you do that?

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by david in germany

tony20009, the only thing that worries me about your post is that you actually knew the name of all those colors... How do you do that?

LOL

Um....I had a box of Crayola crayons when I was a kid.....LOL

All the best.

[Vincz]

Pretty typical back and forth on gun violence, this discussion is repeated every few months when a tragedy involving guns occurs and gets a lot of media attention. For what it's worth, I completely agree with FenixMike, people with firearms and malicious intentions will generally choose their victims based on likelihood of self harm.

When these individuals choose a house to break into or an individual to harm, plenty of data has shown they will target the option with less chance of being injured or caught. I don't know about you, but if I have someone break into my home and there is potential harm to my wife and kids, I don't want to be standing there empty handed when this person is armed..which is what the left would opt for if they had their way.

Ill keep my guns, if you don't like it, move to Canada or somewhere they are banned

[david in germany]

Originally Posted by tony20009

LOL

Um....I had a box of Crayola crayons when I was a kid.....LOL

All the best.

LOL

Originally Posted by Vincz

Pretty typical back and forth on gun violence, this discussion is repeated every few months when a tragedy involving guns occurs and gets a lot of media attention. For what it's worth, I completely agree with FenixMike, people with firearms and malicious intentions will generally choose their victims based on likelihood of self harm.

When these individuals choose a house to break into or an individual to harm, plenty of data has shown they will target the option with less chance of being injured or caught. I don't know about you, but if I have someone break into my home and there is potential harm to my wife and kids, I don't want to be standing there empty handed when this person is armed..which is what the left would opt for if they had their way.

Ill keep my guns, if you don't like it, move to Canada or somewhere they are banned

One of the reasons I will never (if I have a choice) live in a state/town that mandates a duty to retreat. My house is my castle and my place of refuge. Don't step over that sacred boundary.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Vincz

Pretty typical back and forth on gun violence, this discussion is repeated every few months when a tragedy involving guns occurs and gets a lot of media attention. For what it's worth, I completely agree with FenixMike, people with firearms and malicious intentions will generally choose their victims based on likelihood of self harm.

When these individuals choose a house to break into or an individual to harm, plenty of data has shown they will target the option with less chance of being injured or caught. I don't know about you, but if I have someone break into my home and there is potential harm to my wife and kids, I don't want to be standing there empty handed when this person is armed..which is what the left would opt for if they had their way.

Ill keep my guns, if you don't like it, move to Canada or somewhere they are banned

I agree with that as well, but I don't see that FenixMike made that point somewhere.

Red:
I don't want you stand there empty handed. I just don't want you to use lethal force. Shoot the thief in the kneecap or shoulder. Shoot the weapon out of his hand. Flee. Turn off the lights. All I'm saying is be prepared and able to so whatever it takes aside from fatally shooting the person.

All the best.

[david in germany]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I agree with that as well, but I don't see that FenixMike made that point somewhere.

Red:
I don't want you stand there empty handed. I just don't want you to use lethal force. Shoot the thief in the kneecap or shoulder. Shoot the weapon out of his hand. Flee. Turn off the lights. All I'm saying is be prepared and able to so whatever it takes aside from fatally shooting the person.

All the best.

Not possible in a stress situation. As a former US Army master gunner I can tell you that under stress, moving target, someone attacking, there is no aiming. Pointing in a general direction is what most people do including highly trained shooters, if you are in a situation where you must use a gun, there will be no time to aim. Forget all the movie magic. You best hope is the presentation of a firearm will de-escalate the situation as soon as it is seen. I personally hope that I never need to pull the trigger on someone but mentally I am prepared to do so to protect my family or myself. I doubt I would ever consider take a life to protect property though. It is just a car, or a watch or money..

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by david in germany

Next time you are south ( Germany) let me know, I can show you what some legally owned guns look like and feel like in real life.

But I think you have a Waffenschein for those?
In the netherlands you can only (legally) get a permit buy a gun for hunting or sportsshooting.
In case of sportsshooting you have to be a member of a club for at least a year, for hunting you have to be a member of the hunting guild (with all the permits). In both cases the permit to buy a gun is issued by the chief of police where motivation and psych evaluation play a part. (automatic guns are completely forbidden)

So for most Americans this should be an eyeopener...


Sure real criminals have illegal guns over here, but that are mostly the real heavy criminals that are connected to heavy gang violence and heavy drug trafficing, or persons that mingle in terrorist activities. These are not the type of people that are a threat to me, as they ususally lay low not to draw attention and mostly use guns in intercriminal violence (payback killings etc).
I'm not a target for those kind of people, I have nothing to fear from them.

For me the biggest threat is the nut in the street or an angry acquaintance. In the US it is no problem for such a guy to get a gun (like the shooting of the reporter), but here something like that doesn't happen.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I agree with that as well, but I don't see that FenixMike made that point somewhere.

Red:
I don't want you stand there empty handed. I just don't want you to use lethal force. Shoot the thief in the kneecap or shoulder. Shoot the weapon out of his hand. Flee. Turn off the lights. All I'm saying is be prepared and able to so whatever it takes aside from fatally shooting the person.

All the best.

Maybe you have never shot a gun before so it would be ok for you to say to aim for a kneecap, shoulder or hand, but aiming at a small target area, 3-5 inches typically, while the target is moving, is near impossible. This isnt the movies. All types of law enforcement, military, police..., are trained to shoot in the body, since that is the largest area and provides the highest success rate of hitting your target, and not hitting someone/something other than the perp. (At least in my experiences with these law enforcement agencies).

As for fleeing, who is to say the perp isnt going to shoot you in the back while you try to run away? It isnt like they have a high moral compass and care about their conscience while they are robbing you.

And turn off the light? I dont know any robbers that walk into a dark house at night and turn on the lights? Wouldnt that be counterproductive to them?

There are unfortunately too many people in the world that will take advantage of a situation where they know they wont get shot/injured, and that is what is going to happen if you are unable to defend yourself by use of deadly force from a gun in even your own home.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by david in germany

Not possible in a stress situation. As a former US Army master gunner I can tell you that under stress, moving target, someone attacking, there is no aiming. Pointing in a general direction is what most people do including highly trained shooters, if you are in a situation where you must use a gun, there will be no time to aim. Forget all the movie magic. You best hope is the presentation of a firearm will de-escalate the situation as soon as it is seen. I personally hope that I never need to pull the trigger on someone but mentally I am prepared to do so to protect my family or myself. I doubt I would ever consider take a life to protect property though. It is just a car, or a watch or money..

Before addressing your comment's central point, a point I agree with to some extent, let me point out that the defensive use we're discussing is a rare situation to begin with. Unfortunately, it's also can also be a "do or die" one when it occurs. That it can be, for me, indicates the need for extensive preparation prior to using a gun. It does not militate for exculpating a lack of skill, familiarity, and application of techniques to minimize the risk of gun encounters being lethal for assailants and defenders.

This writer -- http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/17/tr...oting-at-home/ -- appears to acknowledge your points and mine. I suspect the reality is somewhere in between. I suspect, however, that "most people" make absolutely no effort to be closer to "my extreme" than to "your extreme."

That training and experience can dramatically reduce the incidence of "mistakes" is also not in question.

• http://www.forcescience.org/performi...rpressure.html
• http://www.pointshooting.com/1apands.htm
• http://www.theshootingchannel.com/?p=5475 and http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/11/pa...i-auto-pistol/
• http://breakingmuscle.com/military-f...acy-for-police
• http://www.heartmath.com/wp-content/...study_GAHM.pdf

A key problem in my mind is that people who are taught to use guns for defensive purposes seem to have "shoot to kill" in mind rather than "shoot to disable." Now you know as well as I do that that which one intends to do is most often what one accomplishes. Accordingly, defenders who attempt to shoot to kill probably will indeed kill.


Military Situations:

Also, I fully respect and recognize that as a master gunner you are highly trained, but let's not pretend. As a military fighter, one is, almost by definition, shooting to kill an enemy combatant. That's just what military combat is. Things might be a bit different for clandestine operators with regard to certain targets. But generally speaking, one is shooting to kill, secure an area, and move forward in accordance with the mission objective.

Killing your opponent in those situations has to be what one does because the rule of the game is "kill or be killed." It's very much different in civilian situations. Plus, for most military applications, one need only be good enough to make a kill shot.

I would argue that gun toting civilians, because of the non-military realities in play, actually have a need to be better shots than are military gunmen. People may feel as though their invaded home, for example, puts them in a warlike situation, but no matter what their emotions suggest, the fact is that it is not a war situation, and therefore people should not behave -- weigh options, establish priorities, default to courses of action, etc. -- as though it is.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

Maybe you have never shot a gun before so it would be ok for you to say to aim for a kneecap, shoulder or hand, but aiming at a small target area, 3-5 inches typically, while the target is moving, is near impossible. This isnt the movies. All types of law enforcement, military, police..., are trained to shoot in the body, since that is the largest area and provides the highest success rate of hitting your target, and not hitting someone/something other than the perp. (At least in my experiences with these law enforcement agencies).

As for fleeing, who is to say the perp isnt going to shoot you in the back while you try to run away? It isnt like they have a high moral compass and care about their conscience while they are robbing you.

And turn off the light? I dont know any robbers that walk into a dark house at night and turn on the lights? Wouldnt that be counterproductive to them?

There are unfortunately too many people in the world that will take advantage of a situation where they know they wont get shot/injured, and that is what is going to happen if you are unable to defend yourself by use of deadly force from a gun in even your own home.

Do you realize what you and a couple others are doing? You are making excuses for why, in an event that occurs for 5% of the population, someone should kill another human being, and you're doing so in refutation of the idea of finding a viable alternative that prevents one from having to do so. You are also arguing that the sole viable solution in that rarefied situation is to shoot to kill with a lethal weapon. Lastly, you are suggesting that what is right for law enforcement personnel and military personnel in, respectively, law enforcement and combat scenarios is what is also right for civilians.

Quite simply it is not. The exigent goals and objectives are not the same.

You wrote about a moral compass, and I agree that a felon's moral compass isn't that high normally. Their human nature and the concomitant instincts are exactly the same as yours and mine for 99.99% of them. The sameness that matters is that, regardless of what felonious act -- other than murder -- they intend to commit, they do not intend to kill someone. They may feel they have to; they may feel they have to maim someone. But they don't enter into the act, in nearly all cases, planning to kill. Neither should a defender enter the defensive situation planning to kill. As I wrote above, what one plans to do has a huge impact on what one actually accomplishes.

Also, what sort of moral compass is it that says "the only option I have is to shoot to kill?" When defenders have, collectively, some genuine high moral ground to stand on, I'll then consider the moral compass of offenders.

I want you and other readers here to understand. I'm not at all suggesting that Americans be denied access to their guns. I'm simply saying that if guns be easy to get and easy to use, then the price -- monetar, penal, social, etc. -- of using one lethally must be very, very high. That's the trade-off.

You and others here want to have your cake and eat it too. You want inexpensive firearms, you want wide leeway in how and when you use them, and you have no regard for human life other than your own and your family's. I'm not cottoning to that.

All the best.

[Tonybest]

The problem will always be the ease of getting your hands on a gun. The availibility of weapons... and add that the full automatic, semi automatic with more than 5 rounds.

Criminals here in Canada can get illegal guns. But criminals don't kill (or rarely do) innocent victims. They know what 's the difference between robbing a bank at gunpoint and robbing a bank and killing the teller. Many more years in jail for sure.

The main problem is these mass shootings in your country are not done by criminals, they are done by crazies, deranged folks. And these individuals have an easy access to many weapons of choice, either through the stash of weapons at their parents house or just stopping at a Wal-Mart.

Criminals killing criminals isn't so bad in the end... It's the crazies you want to keep away from weapons.

[FenixMike]

Originally Posted by tony20009

I agree with that as well, but I don't see that FenixMike made that point somewhere.

It was stated multiple times.

Originally Posted by tony20009

I don't want you stand there empty handed. I just don't want you to use lethal force.

I will always have equal to or greater force than my attacker. If someone wants to attack me, im not concerned about a fair fight, im concerned about winning and assuring myself and those around me arent harmed.

Originally Posted by tony20009

Shoot the thief in the kneecap or shoulder.

Youve been watching too many action movies, and in addition to it being an impossible shot under pressure, that doesnt stop someone from shooting back.

Originally Posted by tony20009

Shoot the weapon out of his hand.

Again, too much TV for you. Not only is this not possible, but seeing as how weapons are generally steel or other hard metal, you could also ricochet into another direction, harming other people.

Originally Posted by tony20009

Flee.

Getting shot in the back isnt a way I want to go down, especially if You are attacking ME/my family, or in my house.

Originally Posted by tony20009

Turn off the lights.

Many decades ago these things called "flash lights" were invented. Id be willing to bet most predators in the night carry them. If they dont, all ive done is taken away my ability to see them while they hunt me down and I have no recourse... unless I get lucky and the bad guy is scared of the dark.

Originally Posted by tony20009

All I'm saying is be prepared and able to so whatever it takes aside from fatally shooting the person.

Thats not my duty. My duty is to protect myself and others around me. If someone has malicious intent and decides to either use a deadly weapon, or use deadly force against me, they will have the same force brought on to them. Bad guys typically arent just looking to shoot me in the leg, shoot the gun out of my hand, slightly wound me etc, otherwise the gun statistics would show many people wounded by gunfire and zero deaths.