9
   

MORE GUNS = MORE SAFETY SAYS TEXAS GOVERNOR

 
 
BigTexN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 08:45 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
Texas murder rate: 5.9 murders per 100,000 residents.


And the number of those murders committed by people with Concealed Handgun Licenses? ZERO.

I love the liberal thought that all CHL citizens are murderers...

Idiots...
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 08:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You are the one who isn't thinking.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Since the founding of Colonial America
until now, I don 't believe that we have EVER had
a situation wherein armed victims actively defending themselves
have EVER started shooting at one another.


Are you actually serious, Dave? I'll give you just one famous historical example out of many, many available.

James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok, legendary gunslinger of the old West, killed his own deputy while trying to break up a fracas in the streets of Abilne, KS, where Hickok was town marshal at the time (sometime around 1870). It was so embarrasing for him, he actually had to resign the job as marshal.

Armed victims get rattled, just like anyone else, and are likely to start shooting at anything they see out of the corner of their eye. I know, from personal experience, I've done that. Night combat training in the US Army. Thank God we all had been issued blanks or I would have killed one of my best friends at the time. Couldn't see clearly and assumed him to be the "aggressor" or enemy.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 11:36 pm
@Merry Andrew,
During the French and Indian War, an expedition lead by General Edward Braddock marched across western Maryland to attempt to take the French fort at what is now the site of Pittsburgh. Crossing Turtle Creek a few miles from the fort, the column of about 1,400 regulars--red coats--with a several dozen "rangers" and around 200 of the Virginia militia regiment was attacked by a force of about 90 Frenchmen, a hundred Canadian regulars (the colony of New France had its own regular forces) and couple of hundred Indians. The Canadians decamped almost immediately. They were happy to fight "Indian style," but were unwilling to face European troops in a stand-up fight. Having no choice, the French commander spread his handful of me out in the underbrush, instructing them to take their cue from the Indians.

The English column had to cross the Monongahela River twice, and having crossed it the second time, were just crossing Turtle Creek (now in the eastern end of Pittsburgh) when they encountered the French and Indians. The grenadiers in the lead fired effective volley fire, killing the French commander and convincing the Canadians they had better things to do, but the French second in command allowed the Indians to fall back into the underbrush, and spread his few French regulars out among them.

Thinking they had brushed aside an advance guard, the grenadiers fanned out on either side of the trail as it lead from the crossing of Turtle Creek, and the regiments following them passed through their position, looking for open ground on which to deploy. As the trail curved to their left and went up a gentle slope, they were fired on by the French and Indians, while the Indians began to whoop and holler. Unable to deploy into line, unable to see who was shooting at them, the red coat column began to dissolve into panicked clumps of men who ignored their officers and began firing wildly in virtually all directions. The regiment behind the van, taking fire from a force they could not see (it was actually their own men, but hidden by the forest and the curve of the trail), began to pour volley fire into the woods to their front, despite the attempts of their officers to get them to cease fire.

Washington, who had come on the expedition despite being very ill, was the senior officer of the Virginia militia present, and when their Captain asked to be allowed to deploy on the right flank to roll up the French and Indian line--they could see where the fire was coming from and what needed to be done because this was fighting of a style with which they were accustomed--Washington urged him on and told him to hurry.

Now the red coats had a target they could see, and they poured volleys of fire into the Virginians, despite the fact that they (the militia) were wearing blue coats, rather than the white coats the French wore. About 20 of the Virginians were killed outright, and their Captain quickly realized that it would be suicide to attempt to take his few hundred men further while being fired on by both the French and Indians and the redcoats, so he withdrew with his survivors, coming back later for his wounded. This the Virginians did while the English officers were attempting to put their men in some kind of order, and organize a retreat. The French, Indians and Canadians had already retreated by that point.

Braddock had ridden into the confusion soon after the firefight began. He was hit almost immediately (most of the English officers were killed or wounded, usually by their own men), and mortally wounded. Washington took charge of the retreat, because he was intimately familiar with the ground over which they were moving, and by that time the English officers were bickering with one another, and no longer trusted one another. Braddock died of his wounds three days later. Washington had him buried in the road to the east of their camp, so that as the demoralized little army marched away, they would obliterate the evidence of the grave, preventing the Indians from finding it and digging up Braddock's remains to be desecrated. Braddock's remains, or what were very likely his remains, were found in western Maryland in the late 1820s when the National Road linking Washington and St. Louis was being built.

General James Abercrombie lead a force representing the largest army of Europeans ever assembled in North America that went north on Lake George to take Fort Carillon from the French (this fort was later named Ticonderoga) three years later. The commander was not competent for the task, but his second in command, George Lord Howe was not only competent, but enjoyed the complete confidence of the officers and men, British and American, and was idolized by all the private soldiers.

Landing at the north end of Lake George in the first week of July, 1758, the Americans began marching north to clear an approach march for the main force of the Army. They were under the command of George Lord Howe, who was in the middle with a small force of rangers between the lead regiment of Connecticut men and a regiment of Massachusetts men following. A French force intended to delay them was cut off in their attempt to slip past the Americans, and a firefight broke out. When Howe's small body of troops came up, the Connecticut men panicked, thinking the French had got in their rear, and fired into his column. Lord Howe was killed instantly, and the entire expedition went to hell thereafter. Despite heroic efforts on the part of the Americans, the red coats and even the famed Black Watch, the Marquis de Montcalm held the fort in the teeth of repeated assaults by a superior force.

Two months after the Carillon debacle, and three years after the disaster of Braddock's attempt to take Fort Dusquense, General Forbes lead an expedition of red coats and the militia regiments of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania to take the fort. While on the march, and in western Maryland not far from the place where Washington had had Braddock buried, the Pennsylvania troops had been halted at the side of the road as dusk fell. The Virginians were marching through the underbrush on the other side of the road, and when some of the Pennsylvanians called out to them, apparently in German, they fired on the unseen men. The Pennsylvanians returned the fire, and the firefight was only quelled when Washington road between the two forces, knocking muskets up with his sword and shouting orders to cease firing.

At Stony Point in New York, south of West Point, in July, 1779, the American forces launched a night attack against the heavily fortified peninsula in the Hudson River, which the English had recently taken from the Americans. It was a night attack, so the men had their cartridge boxes taken from them, and their officers circulated among them to make sure their muskets weren't loaded. This was done expressly to prevent "friendly fire" incidents when the enemy's works were stormed, and it had the added felicitous effect that most of the English didn't even know they were under attack until the Americans were among them with the bayonet.

When Alexander Hamilton lead the assault on Redoubt No. Ten during the siege of Yorktown in October, 1781, he took the same precautions, and the Americans assaulted with unloaded weapons, relying on the bayonet. They were completely successful in under 30 minutes, and had only nine men killed, and a couple of dozen wounded. Another night attack, the low casualties can only be attributed to the fact that they did not have their muskets loaded, and they overwhelmed the defenders before they were aware of the size of the force attacking. The French were assaulting Redoubt No. Nine at the same time, and their casualties were very heavy, in large part from firing into their own troops. They were repulsed, and only took the English outwork after the Americans had taken No. Ten and turned the guns there on the defenders of No. Nine.

I can multiply examples such as this for pages and pages. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson was severely wounded by troops from his own corps during the battle of Chancellorsville in 1863, and died of his wounds three weeks later. His counterpart in Lee's army, James "Peter" Longstreet was also severely wounded by his own men a year later and four miles away. Intelligent officers from both sides believed that if Longstreet had not been wounded, by his own men, Lee's army would have driven Grant's army back across the river.

In all of these cases, bodies of trained men with experienced and competent officers fired on one another (except the two examples from the Revolution, in which their officers took steps to prevent this), each side believing they were defending themselves from a surprise attack. How much worse is this sort of thing likely to be when a bunch of yobs with handguns starting popping off rounds in a confused situation?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 06:35 am
@Merry Andrew,
David wrote:
Since the founding of Colonial America
until now, I don 't believe that we have EVER had
a situation wherein armed victims actively defending themselves
have EVER started shooting at one another.

Merry Andrew wrote:
Are you actually serious, Dave?
I are actually serious, Andy.


Merry Andrew wrote:
I'll give you just one famous historical example out of many, many available.
Thank u; I 'd like to know the others, if Im not too greedy. (I expect him to tell me to go to Google -- or worse.)


Merry Andrew wrote:
James Butler "Wild Bill" Hickok, legendary gunslinger of the old West,
killed his own deputy while trying to break up a fracas in the streets
of Abilne, KS, where Hickok was town marshal at the time (sometime around 1870).
It was so embarrasing for him, he actually had to resign the job as marshal.
I know that, Andy. He was on-the-job as a law enforcement officer,
not as a civilian victim, which is what we are here discussing.
Hence: THAT does not count.
Further in that vein (which does not count)
while touring the FBI Building in Washington,
I saw a description of an FBI agent killing a female FBI agent
who approached to join an active gunfight, but the same as
the extremely regretable accidental friendly fire killing
of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan, this is not what we are here discussing,
which IS civilians in something like a robbery situation or murder situation,
like the victims who got killed because thay were unarmed in Virginia Tech.

Morally better results come from ARMED VICTIMS,
of whom I was one.

Lemme add this:
Admittedly, I can get rattled; I have emotions, too,
but on the night that it ACTUALLY HAPPENED to me,
that someone put a round thru my window 3 inches in front of my ugly face,
it did not occur to me to get rattled.
It DID occur to me to get my revolver out.
Please, please don 't take this to be boasting; I only mean to be descriptive.
This forum is anonymous.
At that moment, I found mild humor in that situation.
I did not burst out laffing, but I did smile.
The next day, my thoughts were drawn to Winston Churchill,
who remarked that there was nothing so exhilarating as to be shot at with no effect.
It was additionally humorous to observe their reaction
when I brought out my reflective, silver colored Taurus .44 revolver.


Merry Andrew wrote:
Armed victims get rattled, just like anyone else,
That is beyond dispute.
It is much nicer to get rattled than it is to get maimed or killed
because u cannot fight back nor degrade the enemy 's offensive capability.



Merry Andrew wrote:
and are likely to start shooting at anything they see out of the corner of their eye.
I re-iterate, seriously, that in my years and decades on this planet,
I have never heard of any armed civilians who were
defending themselves from robbery or from murder
to have turned their guns on one another and the victims shot each other; NEVER.

Since u have more information about this than I do, Andy,
I hope that u will be generous enuf to share it with us.



Merry Andrew wrote:
I know, from personal experience, I've done that. Night combat training in the US Army.
Thank God we all had been issued blanks or I would have killed one of my best friends at the time.
Couldn't see clearly and assumed him to be the "aggressor" or enemy.
Understood; see above.





David
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 08:00 am
David, I don't think you hang around with enough cops.

It's tough enough when you arrive at the scene of a store robbery, and there is shooting going on, to tell who the non-uniformed officers are. (try holding your badge over your head while not getting shot) ... Now you want to add yourself in, .44 silver Taurus in hand, what are you going to shout "Armed Civilan! Don't shoot!" ??

And who are you going to shoot at? Not the cops getting out of their car, but how about that other guy coming from the doorway?? Really? Is he another armed civilian like yourself, or is he the lookout or is he a cop too?

Uh oh, he's aiming right at you and you can't hear what he is shouting....

Joe(squeeze one off just in case?)Nation

ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 08:23 am
@Joe Nation,
The police have every right to shoot anyone with a drawn weapon.

No?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:13 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
David, I don't think you hang around with enough cops.
Yeah, I gotta get more.


Joe Nation wrote:
It's tough enough when you arrive at the scene of a store robbery, and there is shooting going on, to tell who the non-uniformed officers are. (try holding your badge over your head while not getting shot) ... Now you want to add yourself in, .44 silver Taurus in hand, what are you going to shout "Armed Civilan! Don't shoot!" ??
AGREED. I never meant that armed civilians shoud go looking for trouble, like The Lone Ranger.

I was considering a purely passive defensive situation
like the students quietly sitting in class in Virginia Tech
wherein the choice is to fight (effectively) or to commit
your life into the discretion of the predator who is
slaughtering everyone in sight. In my opinion: it is better
to nullify his offensive capability ASAP.
To accomplish that: u need to be prepared.

Maybe u remember the situation a few years ago
when some lawfully unarmed tourists (from Utah, was it??)
were waiting for a train in a NYC subway station when some
disadvantaged youths approached and threatened their mom
with a knife. Her son did not find this acceptable.
He went (unarmed) to his mom 's defense,
which was his final act on this plane of existence.
In a predatory emergency,
the critical consideration is: who will control the situation--
the predator or the victim ?

The gun control philosophy says that the victim
shoud have less power than the predator
(who will take the time to arm himself as he sees fit).
I don 't see it that way.




Joe Nation wrote:
And who are you going to shoot at?
In my example, u shoot at the guy that has a knife at your mom 's throat.
or u shoot at the guy who is shooting all over your classroom in the
Virginia Tech situation. It was not hard to tell the difference between Cho and the victims.
No joking: u gotta do what u gotta do.


Joe Nation wrote:
Not the cops getting out of their car, but how about that other guy coming from the doorway?? Really?
Is he another armed civilian like yourself, or is he the lookout or is he a cop too?
Most robbery situations or murder scenarios like with Cho at V.T. are straightforward, not complicated.
Its not a war.




Joe Nation wrote:
Uh oh, he's aiming right at you and you can't hear what he is shouting....

Joe(squeeze one off just in case?)Nation
There can be big problems with that. Depending on the circumstances,
u just have to do your best to figure it out.
Most of the time its not complicated for ordinary civilian victims
who are actively being threatened or actually attacked.

Bottom line, I guess its better to be tried by 12 men than carried by 6.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:28 am
The gun nut lobby so often brings up the Virginia Tech incident. What idiocy. What would have been the likely outcome of dozens of putzes running around with hand guns that day? The likely outcome would have been that they would have been shooting one another, and one or more of them likely would have been shot by the police when they arrived.

This "self-defense" meme is sheer stupidity, and is offered without the least thought about the likely consequences of dozens of armed people in a densely populated area.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:50 am
@OmSigDAVID,
This is an interesting link comparing the homicide prevelence of states with the highest gun ownership rate to those with the lowest. While the rate of non-gun related homicides are similar (with the high gun ownership states being slightly higher), the rate of gun related homicides in the high gun ownership states is dramatically higher. This clearly refutes the arguement that more guns = more safety. It pretty much shows the opposite.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 09:55 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
This is an interesting link comparing the homicide prevelence of states with the highest gun ownership rate to those with the lowest. While the rate of non-gun related homicides are similar (with the high gun ownership states being slightly higher), the rate of gun related homicides in the high gun ownership states is dramatically higher. This clearly refutes the arguement that more guns = more safety. It pretty much shows the opposite.
How many of those homicides were JUSTIFIED;
i.e., the victim killing the bad guy ??

Anyway, I think what the Governor had in mind
was that there were likely to be fewer felonies
if the criminal predator thought it was too dangerous
because too many victims (or witnesses) kill violent criminals.

Each time a violent young criminal is killed
I wonder how many other violent felonies he will NOT inflict on the rest of us.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:04 am
@engineer,
How do u figure hi or low gun ownership is ascertained?

Is D.C. a "low" gun ownership area?? I don' t think so.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

How many of those homicides were JUSTIFIED;
i.e., the victim killing the bad guy ??

I don't know, but if that were happening on a regular basis, then we should expect an initial spike of criminals getting killed, then a drop as they are removed from the population. We don't see that. These statistics are pretty consistent month to month, year to year.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Anyway, I think what the Governor had in mind
was that there were likely to be fewer felonies
if the criminal predator thought it was too dangerous
because too many victims (or witnesses) kill violent criminals.

That's how I interpreted his remarks was well, but I think the link refutes that idea. There's plenty of data out there to test the hypothesis that more guns imply more safety. Yet time after time, the correlation goes the other way. I only posted one link but we can find many more. More guns does not imply more safety. More guns do imply more homicide which I think to most people would mean less safety.

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Each time a violent young criminal is killed
I wonder how many other violent felonies he will NOT inflict on the rest of us.

But we don't see a drop in crime stats in out years from violent young criminals being killed by law abiding citizens like you would expect if that hypothesis was true.

I don't have an issue with your support for gun rights on a Constitutional basis, but your belief that gun ownership => safety is refuted by every study correlating crime to gun ownership. I once had a supervisor who said that if the results of your experiment don't match your hypothesis, run the experiment again. That was interesting advice, but the reality is that if the results of your experiment prove you wrong time after time, you should probably accept that the hypothesis is disproven.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:37 am
Whether it's the death penalty or handgun ownership, there is a certain stupidity in the deterrence argument. People who act with criminal intent don't leave the house believing that they will be caught, or killed, because they would not otherwise make the attempt. Most criminals aren't that bright to begin with, and i suspect the "it can't happen to me, it can only happen to the other guy" mentality prevails. Once again, if you make crime your profession, it is unlikely that you will "go to work" convinced that you will be arrested or shot, because you might then actually consider getting a real job.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:39 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

How do u figure hi or low gun ownership is ascertained?

Is D.C. a "low" gun ownership area?? I don' t think so.

But D.C. is the area that should confirm your argument. Murder rate is high, legal gun ownership is low. If you are saying that DC is really a high gun ownership area (something I tend to argee with even though I have no data), then that should make it safer if the governor's hypotheis is correct.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:40 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Most criminals aren't that bright to begin with

My wife and I have had this conversation, and I maintain that there's a possible selection bias: the criminals that get caught are the dumb ones. The criminals that don't get caught go to work for Enron and AIG.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:49 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

How do u figure hi or low gun ownership is ascertained?

Is D.C. a "low" gun ownership area?? I don' t think so.

But D.C. is the area that should confirm your argument. Murder rate is high, legal gun ownership is low. If you are saying that DC is really a high gun ownership area (something I tend to argee with even though I have no data), then that should make it safer if the governor's hypotheis is correct.
I understand your point. I will confess my weakness in arguing statistics.
I am not sufficiently well informed on statistics to wield a good argument.
Tentatively, I will concede your point
because of my paucity of counterevidence for the present time.

I very strongly believe that it is a lot better, individually
to HAVE a gun and NOT need it
than it is to NEED a gun and NOT HAVE it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 10:50 am
@DrewDad,
I consider that reasonable. In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche compares criminals to hikers in the mountains--the criminals consider an arrest an event of bad fortune, and not the consequence of their activity, just as a hiker in the mountains would not believe that landslides occur just because he went hiking.

I have long had a personal axiom to the effect that crime usually doesn't pay because of the caliber of those who go into the profession. The only notable exception to this is organized crime, a situation in which the common criminal is immunized against the consequences of his native stupidity by the expertise of the leaders of the organization of which he is a part.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 11:29 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
the criminals consider an arrest an event of bad fortune, and not the consequence of their activity

Based on my wife's experience working with that population, I would have to say that's spot on.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 11:36 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Setanta wrote:
the criminals consider an arrest an event of bad fortune, and not the consequence of their activity

Based on my wife's experience working with that population, I would have to say that's spot on.


It's also a cost-benefit analysis for many non-violent criminals. For example, I have a friend or two who have been known to traffic in banned substances from time to time.

The amount of money made off of the sale only need exceed the amount it costs to hire a lawyer to get one off (by which I mean probation), and you're ahead of the game. Some people have been at it for years and are hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead of the game.

It isn't a question of morality to most who break the law, but practicality.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Guns guns guns guns - Discussion by edgarblythe
More Guns - Question by raprap
FULL GUN FREEDOM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
SAFETY IN THE BEDROOM - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
75% OF STATE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL SUPPORT NRA - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WOMENS' LOVE OF PEACE OF MIND - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
Guns - What You Should Buy Now - Discussion by cjhsa
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 10:08:10