Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Do you own a fire extinguisher? Why?
Hmm. I posted a piece about the Tom Willis nut over on my blog, and noted in comments there that I seem to never have cross-posted this essay from Daily Kos on either my site or here on UTI. So, I thought I would.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you own a fire extinguisher? Why?
Do you own a fire extinguisher? Why? Are you expecting a fire? Or do you have some sort of left-over juvenile desire to play fireman, a private macho image of rushing into a burning building to save a child? Don't you know that improperly used, a fire extinguisher can be dangerous to yourself and others? And there have been "studies" done that show people who own fire extinguishers are actually more careless with fire risks, thinking that they'll always be able to resort to their fire extinguisher to solve the problem. Besides, firefighters are always right there when you need them, and can put out any fire for you, so there's no point in having your own fire extinguisher.
How about an emergency first-aid kit? Do you have one of those? Why? Are you expecting to injure yourself? Or do you have some sort of left-over juvenile desire to play doctor, a private macho image of saving someone from bleeding to death with an improvised tourniquet? Don't you know that improperly used, medical supplies and equipment can be dangerous to yourself and others? And there have been "studies" done that show people who own first-aid kits are actually more careless in general, thinking that they'll always be able to resort to their medical supplies to repair any injury they sustain. Besides, Emergency Medical Technicians or doctors are always right there when you need them, and can instantly patch you up if you get injured, so there's no point in having your own first-aid kit.
Are these responses to being prepared absurd? Yeah. But they are exactly the sorts of responses I get when people find out I have a permit for carrying a concealed weapon, and generally carry a pistol whenever and wherever I can legally do so. And my experience is not at all unusual - most gun owners encounter the same sort of reaction from non-gun owners. We're asked if we're expecting to have a shoot-out in the supermarket. We're asked if we have some childish fantasy about playing cops & robbers. We're told that if we want to play with guns and shoot people that we should join the military. We're confronted with facts that guns are inherently dangerous to ourselves and others, and that "studies" have shown that owning a gun makes it more likely that we will behave in such a fashion as to need to resort to using one to get us out of a dangerous situation. And besides, there's always a cop around when you need one, just to protect you, so there's no need to have a weapon for self defense.
Are there gun owners who think that carrying a weapon makes them invincible, and they therefore go around with a chip on their shoulder, putting themselves in dangerous situations thinking that they can always whip out their pistol and escape? Yeah, probably. But that is no more the typical mindset of a gun owner than is the notion that someone who owns a fire extinguisher is going to be careless with fire risks. Are guns inherently dangerous, and if used improperly present a threat to the owner and anyone else in the vicinity? Definitely. Which is why anyone who carries a weapon has a responsibility (usually mandated by law in the state which issued their concealed carry permit) to know how to safely handle and use a firearm, how to safely store it, and when it can be legally used in defense of self or another. And are there gun owners who think that they're some kind of auxiliary police force, ready to jump in and right any criminal wrong they see being committed? Yup. In fact, a lot of people who legally carry a firearm do so precisely because there are situations where intervening could save the life of a loved one, a friend or even a stranger. But that doesn't mean that they are wanna-be cops. Rather, they're just trying to help contribute to their own safety and the safety of others. The police, firefighters and EMTs can't be everywhere. We do have a responsibility to protect ourselves, to make prudent preparations in the event of an unexpected turn of events. That means having a fire extinguisher handy in case of a fire. It means having a first aid kit, and knowing some basic medical skills for dealing with an emergency. And for me it means having a gun available as a tool for self protection. Your level of comfort with how you are prepared for what situations may well be different, but that does not mean that my decision, and the decision of millions of other Americans, to legally and safely carry a concealed weapon is wrong or paranoid.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Well Jim
I am unsure why you felt it necessary to write this. Since the law where you are let's you carry a pistol that's pretty much the end of the story isn't it?
For myself I am only curious - what is your accuracy rate when shooting at a moving man sized target at 10yds, 20yds, 30yds and at longer ranges in varying lighting and cover conditions? How many times have you practiced likely crime scenarios in mock-ups?
I suspect that the answers to those questions are not 100%, 100%, 100%, 100% and frequently. If you fire and if you miss one of the bullets in that weapon could easily end my life. If it gives you a certain amount of comfort to carry it that's all well and good for you. As a potential target my level of comfort is somewhat less. How could it be otherwise?
Well Thameron
For myself I too am curious - how good is your driving in the rain, at night, in heavy traffic, during freezing conditions and various other lighting and weather conditions? How often do you practice driving under these various circumstances?
I suspect the answers to those questions is not "great", "great", "great", and "great". If you drive in less than optimum conditions, you could cause and accident and end my life. If it gives you a certain amount of comfort to be allowed to drive in these conditions that's all well and good for you. As a potential victim my level of comfort is somewhat less. How could it be otherwise?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Well 'Rob"
If it is any comfort to you I have decades of driving experience including in the conditions you list and you know you can always leap out of the way of my car if it becomes a problem. Maybe YOU are fast enough to leap out of the path of a bullet, but I'M not. How many live-fire, real-time scenarios do the typical gun owner experience? Also when I got my car license I took a test that required that I be able to A) See and B) Drive. How many gun license tests require that the prospective owner be able to A) See and B) Shoot and hit what they were aiming at? Do they perchance take them out to the firing range and put them through their paces or perhaps do they fill out some lame multiple choice test and then hand them the license? One wonders.
You can also rest easy in that I cannot carry my car around so that no one sees it and don't typically drive inside buildings. Oh and in poor driving conditions I slow down, just like the bullets around innocent bystanders (not).
Any other apples and oranges you'd care to compare today?
But what about all the other drivers?
Maybe you're a great driver (so you say), but how can I trust all the other drivers out there to be as proficient as you are? Do you doubt that there are idiot drivers out there who don't know jack about driving under the best of conditions, not to mention the worst ones? Wouldn't it be safer for everyone if we just banned all driving? I mean, why take the chance when there are perfectly good, alternative means of transportation available to us that don't put peoples' lives needlessly at risk? Do you realize that most traffic fatalities are family members of car owners?
You got the "tired car=gun" argument because that's all your tired argument deserved. Jim has already told you just about everything that was going through my mind when I wrote the response, so I won't repeat it here except to say most people who want to legally possess and carry firearms do so for personal protection. They aren't trying to be Dirty Harry, or the cops, they simply understand that sometimes your protection (and those around you) is your own responsibility.
Licensed drivers, whom we can presume have all been taught the same rules and regulations of the road, often ignore those rules and regulations, and it's likely that some licensed gun owners would do the same. But the answer isn't to ban driving or gun ownership: the answer is to continue to improve the education of drivers and gun owners, and to hold those who abuse the privileges responsible for their actions and to punish them accordingly.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Hehehehehe...
Well, I think Rob's answer, while not necessarily the one I would give, is more than sufficient.
But to answer your first question, Thameron, I wrote that piece over 2 years ago, in the midst of an ongoing discussion on Daily Kos about why a traditional gun-control position on the part of Democrats was an electoral liability (and at odds with the rest of the traditionally liberal position on the Bill of Rights). And I decided to cross-post it here at this time for the reason cited in the intro: I wanted to.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Chuckles indeed
I have always found guns to be an endless source of hilarity. I will take it from your acceptance of Rob's attack on me with the extremely tired car = gun metaphor that you aren't going to answer the questions I asked. I'll assume that the answers are <100%, <<100%,<<<100%,<<<<100% and rarely-to-never. Many (well some) people are really good at doing things under high pressure which they haven't trained to do, they have never done before and which have irreversible consequences. Perhaps you are one of them. Not to worry though, in the event of regrettable misfortune the language will come to your aid. There won't be any 'death of innocents from stray gunfire' there will only be 'collateral damage'. Sort of sounds like a ding in the furniture from moving.
I laughed . . .
Thameron, I laughed at Rob's response because it was exactly what your questions deserved. Your question was quite a mix of misunderstanding and absurdity - I'll leave others to decide for themselves which was which.
But since you asked, and I know you're not just a troll, I will give you my own answers.
Yeah, pretty much, so long as I exercise this right with appropriate responsibility.
Thameron, re-read my initial post. I am not a cop. I don't want to be a cop. I carry a pistol for use only in the gravest extreme - not because I am going to be stopping crime in "likely scenarios". Such self-defense use of a CCW typically happens at distances less than 3 yards, and usually only involving one or two rounds fired. 10 yards would be an extreme distance for such possible use, and if someone is 20 yards or more from me, I'll not be pulling a gun and shooting at them - it would be dangerous and irresponsible under most conditions that I can conceive, and I would much rather be exiting the area.
Yes, I am responsible for every bullet fired. There's a common warning within the gun community: "each bullet comes with a lawyer attached." That's because if you should use a gun in a self defense situation, you will be held accountable, and likely arrested (initially). Depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances, you may be charged and need to mount a criminal defense. Depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, you may be sued by your assailant or their estate/heirs and need to mount a civil defense. If you *do* accidentally strike an innocent bystander, you can expect to be sued for damages as well, and will likely be advised by your attorney to settle the case.
How often have you heard of people carrying a pistol legally and using it under defensive conditions accidentally shooting someone? Now, compare that with how many instances you have heard of the police firing multiple rounds under circumstances which can only charitably be described as 'marginal'. You are in danger of being injured by a cop by some large multiple of the danger you face by some citizen carrying a weapon for self defense.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
A Question for gun owners
I don't own a gun myself, but I support the right to own them, and to carry them in a responsible manner whether concealed or unconcealed. I may someday wish to buy a rifle or handgun, and I want to make sure that right still exists at that time. But I personally am not chilled by the idea of having to register whatever gun I chose to purchase, nor am I concerned about having to meet a reasonable set of criteria in order to make that purchase.
I don't mind taking a class and passing a test before obtaining a license to prove that I know the fundamentals of gun ownership and operation. If for some reason I am unable to meet the criteria, again assuming that they are reasonable, I will either continue to attempt to meet them or decide that it's not important enough to me to continue to try to do so. And I'll still stand for the right of others to do so, even if I myself can't (or won't.)
So my question is to those of you who also support gun ownership (which is, I think, the majority here): do you oppose any form of regulation towards gun ownership? What regulations, if any, are you willing to put up with to maintain the right to keep and bear arms?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
I am not an absolutist.
There are reasonable restrictions on the other basic civil rights (the Bill of Rights), but in each case such a restriction needs to meet a fairly high threshold. And I'm fine with that.
Practically? I'm OK with background checks for owners. Proof of competency for someone who wants to carry also doesn't bother me (too much). I'm not in the least bit concerned by people owning and carrying semi-auto weapons - full-auto is more of a grey area for me. Area-effect weapons should remain tightly restricted, in my opinion.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Never mind the scare quotes
More guns kept for protection DO end up killing family members. But that's a statistic; you're an individual and have to make your own judgment.
Funny story, though; Once my dad was out hunting, and on his way back (empty-handed). He came around a bend to find two cars blocking the road. A car stopped right behind him, crossways in the road. He grabbed his carbine and a box of ammo and bolted out into the corn and the gathering dusk. Chambering a round he fired over their heads into a hillside. Carbine let out huge report and flame. Running, car doors slamming, burning of rubber ensued. Dad returned home.
He never did figure out what the guys in the three cars wanted.
Lies, damned lies . . .
Well, I put "studies" in scare quotes because the statistics on this question are really not as clear as some would say. You can check here, for more information.
Basically, there's about 17,000 deaths due to firearms in the US annually (that's the approx. number for the last several years for which data are available.) Something over half of those are suicides, determined to be such. Some additional number are listed as "accidents", but are likely suicides. So, let's say 10,000, all told. Is that a lot? Yeah, no argument. But how many would be suicides by some other means? Anyway, that number is what is usually included in "deaths to family members", along with true tragedies such as people not keeping guns safe from children. And there the problem isn't the guns fault - it's the fault of the parent who didn't secure it and teach their children how to handle guns safely.
As for the "more" part (which I've also seen as "most") - do you mean that the majority of 200 million guns will be used in a manner so as to endanger the owner? Um, no. We don't see over 100 million firearms accidents each year. Or do you mean more guns will cause the user harm than will provide protection in event of a robbery or something? Because once again, the stats on that are not clear, but seem to be very much in favor of a firearm being used in self defense.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read *or listen to* my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Post new comment