Pattern Ghost

Another moron using "elude"  instead of "allude" on the internet. Does this mean the descriptivists are going to change the meaning of the words soon? #GetOffMyLawn.

I'd like to know my offspring are going to live a happy life beyond me.  Other than that, what good does 'my mark' (or material things, having my existence acknowledged, etc.) do me when I'm dead?
 
I just try to be happy and live positive in the present.  YMMV.
 
 

Scientists turn Cancer cells into Fat cells

I linked the chart a few pages back in this post.
 
It's from a Vox article that Sociotard originally posted. The chart is from the International Crime Victims Survey, Gallup Europe. It shows that the US is a bit below average of 15 industrialized countries in 11 violent crimes. (The next chart shows that we have about three times more homicides.)
 
The Vox is trying to use the two charts to support the following conclusion:
 
"This is in many ways intuitive: People of every country get into arguments and fights with friends, family, and peers. But in the US, it’s much more likely that someone will get angry at an argument and be able to pull out a gun and kill someone."
 
Of course, they're making an enormous logical leap here, since their chart doesn't address crime motives at all, and most of our crime is concentrated into certain areas (per the earlier article found on one of the anti-gun lobby websites by csyphrett), which is more of an indicator that most homicides aren't crimes of passion. They've not actually shown how many of those we have. (I'd say the rate of success is probably a bit higher in those sorts of homicides given odds of guns becoming involved being greater in the US, but there aren't really any numbers presented by the Vox author to show exactly what the ratio of these crimes of passion is.)

Just being aware is 95% of self defense.  
 
It's very rare that someone is out there just looking to fight some random dude on the street - there's always a goal and that goal is almost always best met (by the attacker) by avoiding physical conflict.  Physical conflicts are risky...and noisy.
 
Put yourself in the mind of, say, a mugger.  You're not in this to fight, you're in this to find a target that you can take off guard, get their stuff, and get away with minimal commotion.  Get in, get your stuff, get out.  That guy who's walking down the street with his head down as he texts on his iPhone?  Great target.  Barely has the self awareness to avoid a pot hole much less see you coming up behind him.  That woman walking along with her purse over the opposite shoulder (not easy to take off), head up, and aware of where she is?  Not a great target...likely going to make a huge racket even if she doesn't actively fight back.  That's just initial target selection, but that self-aware woman stopped things before they ever moved past that.

First and foremost:  what Ternaugh said...x1000.  Too many people think that "defending" starts when you're under active attack -- it's too late then.  At that point, you're hoping that you're better than your attacker.  There's no magic, no mystery -- you are either better than your attacker or you're willing and able to take things further than your attacker is willing to go (e.g. your attacker is just in it as a "simple" bar fight...and you're taking it to the gouging of eyes, stabbing, imminent death level -- that's a whole 'nother fight that they're likely not in for).

Before talking defenses (beyond what Ternaugh hit upon), let's talk about guns...since there's a LOT of misinformation and misconception about them.  A gun is pretty danged effective as an offensive weapon...from about 8 feet on.  Inside of 8 feet, it's non-ideal.  If you don't have the weapon drawn and your attacker is 8 feet away, forget about it.  We would routinely train police in exactly that point -- having a beginning student with a pool noodle run across the entire dojang floor and whap them over the head with it while they were fumbling for their sidearm (airsoft, in those cases).  All they had to do was move, but they were fixated on their gun.
 
Inside of 6 feet and it doesn't matter if you have the gun drawn -- they're too close.  IF you have it trained on them and they're inside of 6 feet, maybe you stand a chance...but again, you're back to are you better than they are....and are they not fully committed to the attack. If you're trying to draw or raise your weapon and someone is inside of 6 feet, you're more likely to have it used against you than you are to actually bring it into play against your attacker.
 
So...guns: great at distance, horrible close up.   

Keep in mind what Ternaugh posted -- if you're unaware of your situation to the point that you get attacked (maybe they were actively in hiding -- this isn't a knock on the person attacked), then you're dealing with an attacker that is well within that 6 foot radius.  You're in HTH range and need to handle it as such.  And by "handle it" I'm not referring to taking the fight to them...that just goes back to who's better trained and more committed to the fight.  De-escalating and avoiding a fight entirely should be your goal...and it's really not that hard (hint: a gun ALWAYS escalates, that's it's main purpose -- showing that one side is willing to take the fight to the lethal level).  A common/believable situation we often used to highlight de-escalating:
 
You're in a bar hanging out with friends, beer in hand.  The bar's pretty crowded...a big guy is walking by and bumps into you, causing you to spill your beer.  Gets mainly on you, but a little splashes on him.  He loses it and starts berating you, clearly angling for a fight.  You've done nothing wrong...you can yell back (escalating things) and hope that he backs down (he's not willing to take it to a fight)...you can actively escalate it to the point of a fight (ala Joe Pesci)...or you can try to de-escalate -- calm him down.  "Whoa, I am so sorry....I didn't see you.  Let me get something at the bar to dry you off.  What are you drinking?  I'll get your next round."  You've gone from your night being over (should a fight have broken out) and likely having some rather expensive medical bills (even if you won) to being out $6 and most likely not even that once the guy calms down...and they almost always do.  
 
You can apply similar in most situations.  Being mugged?  Unless you have thousands on you, give them what they're after -- you're already at a disadvantage (you didn't see them until it was too late) and you're likely going to get injured in a fight, even if you win and keep your stuff.  The cost of those injuries is going to vastly outweigh whatever it is that you're carrying in most cases.  

Too often we're more concerned with what's "fair" or "right" and end up escalating things needlessly.

Try this: http://www.functionalselfdefense.org/awareness-prevention
 
 

I'm OK with certain levels of restriction, though not as many as you'd probably like. For instance:
 
I think it'd be great if training in gun safety, marksmanship, and local use of force laws were mandatory . . . but only if the government funded that training. They could raise the money with a very small tax on firearms, firearms parts, ammo and accessories. Less than a 1% tax could probably cover it.
 
I think it'd be great if the government partnered with the (don't freak out) NRA and developed a free online safety and legal course for new gun owners and made it mandatory to include links to said course with every firearms purchase. Yeah, I know I said NRA, but they do already have decent material available, and it'd be nice to see them do something useful for a change.
 
I think that safe storage incentives are a good thing. For example, my state doesn't charge sales tax on gun safes.
 
I think that no state should put licensing requirements or any other requirements on a firearm that's not being carried outside of the home or is only used outside the home for other legal activities (hunting, taking to train,  sporting use, etc. -- those things usually exempted by law anyway even where guns aren't legal to carry outside the home).
 
Once you move outside the home with a firearm, then the impact you have on the rights of others skyrockets. Here, I'm fine with training and background check requirements, and in passing those costs to the gun owner directly, so long as they aren't punitive. I don't, however, believe that the state requiring a reason to carry passes constitutional muster.
 
I'm OK with banning the carry of long arms outside the home, aside from the usual hunting and sporting use exemptions. I'm perfectly fine if morons who take their ARs to the park to "educate" the public on gun rights were thoroughly stifled. I don't think this one would have any real impact on mass shootings with rifles, aside from being automatic probable cause to stop someone, I just don't like morons running around in public with rifles.
 
As I said before, I'm OK with magazine capacity restrictions on centerfire rifle caliber weapons. I'm not OK with banning AR15 rifles, or other rifles based on their cosmetic or ergonomic features. Canada's model for long guns (aside from the stringent requirements to even own a firearm) might not be too bad of a one to adopt in the US, though doing so would involve a confiscation buyback.
 
 
 

You're not wrong. I've often said that if you really want to know where this President stands in terms of the importance of Education, just look at who he appointed to be in charge of it.

Krypton is NOT in danger, and the council will not hear anyone raising such baseless concerns. Someone one kindly tell Citizen Jor-El to please sit down.
 
 

The optimal outcome, frankly, does  not include a drunk with a machete, samurai sword and rifle charging around yelling "Your heads belong to me".  While not "optimal", I would much rather the officer took the action most likely to stop that drunk - even if that option is lethal force - than take the risk of someone else being seriously injured or killed.  He seriously abridged his own rights by his own actions.
 
While I would also prefer that the perpetrator had not had access to a rifle to begin with, the sword and machete are quite enough, in my view. to justify lethal force against him, especially when he has already threatened civilians and is now charging the police.  His rights come far behind all others involved in the scenario, at least in my view.
 
 
"Reduced risk" options are not "no risk options".  The officer could club a guy with a baton and severely injure or kill him.  We know that concussions have serious repercussions.  Violence is risky, and would ideally be avoided, but the real world often falls well short of "ideal".
 
To the traffic stop, if the license plate is the evidence, how do we prove who was driving the car?  We use photo radar a lot here, but the tradeoff is that the only penalty is a fine.  Demerits cannot be issued as it cannot be clearly demonstrated who the driver was.
 
Like Pattern Ghost, I would rather the police were armed and did not need to be than that they were not, and did need to be.  I would want to see a massive reduction of dangerous weapons in the hands of non-police before I would consider reducing their own access to weapons.  If two officers responding to a domestic dispute from a noise complain see Joe SixPack brandishing a knife and threatening his spouse, kids or a neighbour, I'd rather Joe takes a bullet than that his victims' safety is jeopardized.  My priority is victims' rights well over criminals' rights.
 
Assuming Joe SixPack is brought down with non-lethal force, that one incident should be enough that he is never entitled to acquire a firearm, or any other item whose sole, or even primary, use is a weapon.  One strike, you're out.  It should be considerably harder for him to ever recover his Second Amendment rights than for someone convicted of drunk driving to get re-licensed to drive.
 
BTW, like Pattern Ghost, I am curious as to your area of practice in law.
 
 
I would really like to see a study by an objective, non-partisan group not affiliated with the pro- or anti-gun lobby assess the benefits and costs of defensive use of firearms.  My gut feel is that people with ready access to guns in the US are no safer than those with more restricted access to guns in countries with greater gun control regulations.  However, "when your gut talks to you, what does it use for a mouth?"  I would rather rely on expert advice than gut feel, and I would MUCH rather our laws were based on expert analysis than the political agenda of the day.
 
This is something I would support.  Funding it with a tax as you suggest makes it a "user pay" system, not a "general revenue funded" measure, which I believe is appropriate (much like gas taxes used to fund road maintenance).
 
 
Sounds like leveraging expertise to me - always a good idea.  It also puts some onus back on the NRA - contribute to actively reducing the risks, not just rhetoric, to support your preferences.
 
 
Here, I would go further - safe storage should be mandatory, not optional.  I would not, however, extend the "training tax" to such storage devices.
 
 
Here, my bias is to greater restriction, but I do not need to contend with 2nd amendment rights.  I agree restrictions for general "outside the home" carrying should be significantly greater, and should be funded by the gun user, not general revenue.  I would favour "reason to carry", but as long as we are prepared to accept self-defense as a reason, it seems like it would be a rubber stamped formality serving no purpose, even ignoring any constitutional issue.  Loss of right to carry for past violent offenses, mental health issues, uttering threats, past negligence in firearm storage or use, etc. would likely be the better approach - target the exceptions who merit restrictions, not those who are responsible.
 
 
Canada has had a variety of approaches to deal with long guns, some more successful than others.  Again, reliance on expert, rather than popular, opinion would be beneficial on both sides of our border.  I see no reason anyone should need to carry such a weapon outside of the exceptions you note.

The optimal outcome is that nobody is injured, and no shots are fired. The subject here was probably not able to be de-escalated (though at least back in the late 80's/early 90s, German police weren't really all that interested in de-escalation), so the next best outcome would be nobody dying. This was indeed achieved. As they say, any landing you can walk away from is a good landing.
 
This doesn't change the fact that shooting for anything other than center of mass is dangerous and stupid.
 
Edit: Of course, shooting someone in the leg can easily be lethal. Given immediate medical attention, a center of mass hit from a handgun isn't really that much more likely to be more lethal than a leg hit.

I frequent the one semi-sane firearms forum that I've found, which I've been visiting about as long as I have here. And I'll tell you that it's WAY more than half the time. Walter Mitty is alive and well.

< ramble >
 
The idea of me trying to handle a firearm at this point in my life is scary.
 
As nearly as I can tell, in my state I'd pass a background check to get a firearm even though I legally have to have someone manage my Social Security check for me and can no longer do jury duty due to "mental incapacity". I also have medical problems where I have trouble controlling my hands and fingers. The system from what I can tell doesn't cross-check with Social Security or with the local or federal jury duty databases and "can you hold a gun and consistently control your trigger finger" isn't one of the questions they ask. (The check they have on mental problems from what I see only checks to see if you've been officially institutionalized at some point, not whether you're diagnosed.)
 
Last time I shot a gun. 5-6 years ago, I hit the target dead center. But it took me about 90 seconds of waving the gun uncontrollably in small circles before I was able to stop it's movement long enough to take a shot (my brother was closely supervising to make sure nothing went wrong). That was with two hands so I'd hate to think about trying it one-handed or in an emergency. (Luckily, I live with people who aren't incapacitated and could act during an emergency.)
 
I'm all for people having guns for self-defense. Criminals knowing everyone is disarmed is asking for trouble. When I was working for an airline in the early 2000's, they warned us that people leaving the airports in several Florida cities were getting robbed and/or carjacked as they left the airport...because those criminals knew you couldn't take weapons onto an airplane, they didn't have to be concerned about the possibility of armed resistance. I think you'd see that kind of increase in deliberately targeting the defenseless all across the country if criminals knew all weapons were confiscated from law-abiding people.
 
  I'm all for for gun owners securing the guns and ammunition they own so the guns can't easily be seized and use without permission.
 
I'm also all for people knowing when it's time to give up their guns permanently when they become incapacitated and can no longer safely use them.
 
< /ramble >

I sometimes wonder if we should allow for instant name legal name changes to all mass shooters.
Joe Smith walks into a place and kills as many people as he can to get famous and spread his message?
Joe Smith is now "Cowardly Putz!"
It's on his ID, it's what he'll be called in the Court cases,   if he died while doing his attack, it's on his tombstone.
Reporters will rightly refer to him as Cowardly Putz (Possibly with a number depending on how many shooters have also had their name changed to that)
 
"Cowardly Putz was sentenced to Life today" has a nice ring to it.
 
 

Based on the recent news on the scandals there, I'm not sure whether the NRA is really viable as an advocacy group without a major house-cleaning.  At a minimum, Wayne Lapierre has to resign.  
I think the government should act on existing ATF research on the sources of crime guns and draft laws and regulations accordingly.  I support fully funding the ATF as opposed to the Republican tactic of starving the agency of funding.  Since the primary concern is about guns getting into the "wrong hands"(violently disturbed individuals, convicted criminals), I'm generally supportive of fine-tuning policy to get closer to that goal without unduly burdening the general public.  

The current lethal force standard rests on "objective reasonableness" and lethal force can be justified if the officer merely perceives a threat.  But, again, justification and necessity are two different things.  "Was the shooting objectively necessary?" is a dicier proposition for the LEO.  
Have you had de-escalation training?  Implicit bias training?  
 
For the record:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/871646/samurai-sword-drunk-shot-as-he-charges-cops/
 

They don't.
 
 
Yet we have many shootings every year, and very, very few cases of bystanders being hit by stray shots. It does happen. It's a serious consequence of a gun fight. But you also can't directly compare civilian defensive gun use directly to police engagements. There are similarities, but there are significant differences in situation and in police vs. civilian tactics. As far as these hypothetical elderly and small female individuals go, I'd hope that part of the "buy in" for them is getting appropriate training. (I can go into the miss rate question in more detail if you want, but I'd rather take more time with that one than I have at the moment.)
 
 
Thank you.
 
 
I used the term problematic, not poor. Firearms are excellent choices for self defense. If someone is actively trying to kill you, you need to bring as much force to bear as you can. I will tell you that if you use a less-lethal force option against someone using lethal force against you, that you are running a serious risk. TASERs are unreliable -- the company's own certification materials spend more time talking about ways they can fail than ways they can succeed. Pepper spray is completely useless against some people, including many ex-military and people on drugs. Melee weapons, whether bludgeons or knives, just aren't as good as firearms. You need to remember that the last thing you want if someone is trying to kill you is a fair fight. If you can avoid the fight at all, you're better off, but if you're forced into it, you want as overwhelming an advantage as you can give yourself.
 
 

Cops also catch a lot of unjustified flak from people who have no idea of how to do their job.

I'll just say two things. First, I agree that firearms are problematic choices for self defense and not without drawbacks. Every option has its pros and cons. Second, I'll say that I know you have a martial arts background and experience in working with your local PD (IIRC, those old conversations have probably been pruned by now), so I respect that you have an informed opinion, though I don't agree.

I agree on the dicey-ness of said laws, which is why that comment came with a caveat in the prior post. But there's a very large gap in legal interventions for all sorts of situations. When a close female friend came to work one day covered in bruises up and down her arms and face from her drunken boyfriend, her restraining order was looking pretty thin compared to the jackass's gun collection. Not to mention the number of times mass shooters were correctly identified before the act was committed (that gap between the inciting incident and the shooting discussed in the Beau video up thread), but went on to shoot for lack of legal intervention. So, this is an area where if the law is written in a way that has enough provisions for due process, I'm OK taking the risk to my rights. At the end of the day, I'd rather have my friends and people like her, and other shooting victims alive than have my firearms. Losing a friend is a heck of a lot worse than losing an object.
 
 

You know, on a similar vein to Simon's post about terminology, I have a pet peeve. A lot of gun writers, and posters on gun forums, refer to criminals as "goblins" or the like. As in, "That guy shot two goblins who broke into his house. Good riddance." That really  bothers me. If you aren't mature enough to deal with the fact that you may kill another human in self defense if you chose a firearm for the purpose, then you're probably not mature enough to own a gun. I think this originated with ex-military gun writers, who go back to old school dehumanization tactics as part of their indoctrination. My generation didn't get that so much, but go not too far back and you're into the era of referring to enemy combatants by racial or ethnic slurs. Which is just distasteful.

New one up!
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1175.html

As a former soldier, I know the differences between a weapon and armor.
 
 
A shield isn't a weapon at all, though it has some offensive use.
 
 
This makes me think you think I said a gun was a defensive weapon. Guns are simply weapons. Weapons are things intended to inflict harm. The whys and the justifications for inflicting that harm aren't related to the design of the object. If the primary function of a thing is to inflict trauma on living tissue, it's a weapon. There's no need to label it as offensive or defensive. Some people may own weapons primarily to use in self defense situations, but that doesn't change the nature of the weapon.
 
Edit: Although I don't like using dictionaries to make a point, in this case the dictionary agrees with me, so I'll use it to make my point (search result for a define:weapon google search):
 
weap·on
/ˈwepən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: weapon; plural noun: weapons
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
"nuclear weapons"
a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.
"resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"
 
shield
/SHēld/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: shield; plural noun: shields
1.
a broad piece of metal or another suitable material, held by straps or a handle attached on one side, used as a protection against blows or missiles.
 
Edit: Aside from the shield bit, I don't really disagree with you here. I'm just thinking that didn't come through in my prior response. Probably the lack of sleep thing.
 
 

This is inaccurate as written. Restricting individual access to firearms is an established and effective deterrent to suicide, it's one of the reasons for the legal standards around firearm access in 5150 code. If you are indicating that suicide rates are not affected by availability of firearms in society, which I gather by the context of the rest of this, that's entirely possible. I don't have expertise in that area. 
 
I found your list of reasoning around your position thoughtful and articulate, and while I do not reach the same conclusions ("rational minds may differ") I appreciate your explanation.