I agree with Ben 100%

Me too, of course.

All you have done is convince me that *you* should not be trusted with firearms. I, on the other hand, am a trained responsible adult with a CHL whose personality does not change merely because I carry a tool for self-defense.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/7th-circuit-finds-constitutional-right-to-carry-guns.php

Don't forget that pesky "keep" and "bear" part of the 2nd. When was the last shooting involving a CCL person? You are clueless.

What about my right "not to get shot" in public accidentally or unjustly by someone exercising their constitutional right to carry a gun? Because that sort of thing happens all the time, if you haven't noticed.

I missed the part in the constitution where it said "you have the right to just shoot whoever the heck you want."

Actually, it's because the NRA has a stranglehold on the government. It has nothing to do with benefits - there *are* no societal benefits to hidden firearms laws.

I carry a concealed firearm for a very simple reason: I refuse to be a victim, and I refuse to sit by idly and allow those in my company to become victims.
An unarmed man can only flee from evil, but evil cannot be overcome by fleeing from it.
Perhaps LJ would prefer to huddle and beg for mercy from those intent on rape, robbery or murder. That's his/her choice. It isn't my choice.

*Exactly*

I'm always also often dismayed at how the gun lobby completely disregards the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment.

It's the constitution. If you do not like it, change it. But the second part is clear and has been affirmed again recently by the federal 7th circuit court of appeals.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/7th-circuit-finds-constitutional-right-to-carry-guns.php

People who are licensed to carry, don't 'run around with guns'. When was the last shooting of any kind that involved a person licensed to carry? Legal gun owners are the most responsible people in society. There are over 300,000 people in MA who are licensed to carry concealed. Some are women who have been raped or are in fear of a violent ex. How could an elderly person or woman fight off an attack from a man?

When seconds count, cops are only minutes away. The shooting in CT? The cops took 20 minutes to get there. Yeah, calling 911 was all that was needed, right?

Gee, Joe, seems like you advocate for the Government to be able to force individuals to make a purchase they might not otherwise make.

I guess you're a big supporter of the Affordable Care Act, eh?

1. Statistical analysis from the time of the 1981 gun law over a long period of time shows that the law had no effect on crime rates. http://books.google.com/books?id=GP5-MfGZOcgC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

2. It's pretty rich when a disciple of the KKK's own David Duke compares someone negatively to Hitler.

If this has nothing to do with guns, then why is the NRA the largest national player in Stand Your Ground laws? http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/27/3517168/nra-helped-spread-stand-your-ground.html

This has everything to do with guns. In every state, there is already self-defense law on the books, which allow the individual to use non-deadly force to defend oneself against attack, and deadly force when in mortal danger. The difference in this case is the "duty to retreat" which in most states requires an attempt to retreat if you can safely do so, and that you may only use deadly force when you are unable to safely retreat from mortal danger.

The "Stand your ground" laws remove this duty to retreat, which is stupid and dangerous. It puts the interpretation of "mortal danger" into the hands of an individual. If this individual has a gun, what do you think they are going to do? It is a dovetail with carry/conceal laws, and it is all kinds of wrong.

Ben: As you point out, the interpretation of "mortal danger" is already in the hands of the individual under current laws that allow one to use only non-deadly force unless the individual is in mortal danger.

*ANY TIME* a stranger comes up to me to take my money or property, with the threat of "your money or your life", whether explicit or implied, I am justifiably in fear of my life and if I am able, will use force, including deadly force, to save my life. When I refuse to hand over my wallet or I resist being raped, I am not the one responsible for putting my life in "mortal danger" because I failed to attempt to retreat; it is the criminal who created the situation.

Justification #1: The police can't be everywhere all the time. I demand the right to protect myself against criminals who have guns.

Justification #2: Those young adults carrying guns have complied with all the laws regarding licensing, background checks, interviews with the police chief, and gun registration. They know that if they break the law, they lose their right to carry, so they act responsibly.

Justification #3: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. By further limiting the rights of citizens to carry guns legally, you will cause more people to carry guns illegally.

"Justification #3: When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. By further limiting the rights of citizens to carry guns legally, you will cause more people to carry guns illegally."

This is bumper-sticker circular logic. I have an idea - let's not outlaw anyting! I mean, relaly, when you outlaw drinking and driving, only outlaws will drink and drive. When you outlaw murder, only outlaws will be murderers. It's bologna.

"Justification #1: The police can't be everywhere all the time. I demand the right to protect myself against criminals who have guns." By this reasoning, we create an armed citizenry in which police are redundant--everyone is their own police. Wild West, anybody? This is the surest path to total chaos: the best gunman wins, or the "team" with the most guns rules. Absurd.

"Justification #2: Those young adults carrying guns have complied with all the laws regarding licensing, background checks, interviews with the police chief, and gun registration." Yes, and their younger brother, who isn't so conscientious? Or their neighbor, with a criminal record, who takes their gun away for his own purposes (remember that a significant number of shooting victims are the victims of their own weapons used against them).

This gun-toting ideal is so truly full of holes. Are we really to return--to be reduced--to the "old" way, in which might is all that matters? No one is suggesting, Cochituate, that you not defend yourself or help others--but as in any dangerous situation, the intelligent thing to do is to remove the potential victim from that danger, not to "take out" the (presumed...) source of the danger in a permanent way--thereby removing the possibility of any debate as to exactly what happened. Surely that is madness, and leads to bad temptations and worse behavior. It generates an ever larger gray zone for criminal activity.

And Ben is right--of course it is about guns.

Should criminals be the only one's with guns then? What should we do if someone breaks into our house at 3 in the morning and you have 2 small children? Should you wake them and try to run out the door and leave your house to be destroyed or should you be able to protect yourself and your family? Criminals are the one's that are being protected here.

(1) Only military and law enforcement you say? What about bank guards? Even the most militant gun banner is willing to allow bank guards to carry weapons. So I ask you: private security guarding banksters' lucre should be allowed to carry weapons, but I who seek to carry to protect myself, my loved ones, and my property should be prohibited?
(2) Article 2 of the US Constitution does not deal with firearms. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
(3) I am not a sportsman; I do not kill for pleasure. I own and carry firearms responsibly for defense of myself, my loved ones, and my lawfully-acquired property.
(4) I am a collector in that I own two rifles, one handgun, and a Taser. When you and your ilk pass victim-disarmament laws, no doubt my gun collection will be called a "weapons cashe."
(5) Why are you people so determined to disarm us? What do you intend to do to us for which we must first be disarmed?
(6) We allow young adults as young as 18 to carry weapons. They're called soldiers and marines. But you people do not even trust them to exercise responsibly the very freedom for which they are willing to die to protect.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/12/7th-circuit-finds-constitutional-right-to-carry-guns.php

You are wrong

Jim, that article is so wrong in so many ways, I don't even know where to start. So I'll start with this - you realize that the *MOST RECENT* bit of evidence therein is from 1991? you know, 21 years ago?

Jim is right. The judiciary has decided that the police have no duty to protect you. Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981. Their duty is only to "public safety" in the abstract. In other words, 9-1 is merely government-sponsored dial-a-prayer.

"This is the same public which consistently ranks among the top in the world among firearm related deaths..."

Wrong.

Fact: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest
homicide rates. Brazil, Mexico, Venezuela, Jamaica, and South Africa are have gun laws much stricter, and all have rate of violent crime far higher than ours. Those are just the countries which I can name off the top of my head.
Source: Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001.

Disarming the sheep does not protect them from the wolves.

"Yeah, I don't think we should be armed."

You've convinced me that *you* should not be armed.

I agree.

David, you raise some good points. I don't disagree with everything you write, but want to make a couple of points:

In the world I describe, not everyone has a gun. Rather, every criminal has easy access to a gun, and every law-abiding citizen has the right to obtain one as well by following the rules. I expect only a small percentage of law-abiding citizens will choose to actually carry a weapon.

That, and not every human instinct or social policy is rational. It is a normal human trait to sometimes act irrationally. Which is more rational: To try to escape a rapist, leaving him free to terrorize others, or seize the opportunity to defend yourself and in the process perhaps kill him, preventing him from victimizing others? Is it rational to turn and run from an armed mugger when he might shoot you in the back and take your wallet anyway, or to defend yourself when you have the opportunity to remove the criminal from society?

There is no clearly correct answer, but I believe disarming law-abiding citizens, or prohibiting them from defending themselves is less correct than the alternative.

Thanks, Cochituate. But there's an inconsistency here: you say that the criminals have guns, and that is a reason for us to have them, but you don't expect everybody to have them--but by your reasoning, shouldn't everybody have them? And with the proliferation, it is perfectly logical to assume that the level of misuse will also rise (yep, I'm still thinking about the West, and how it was governed BEFORE the rule of rational law). And I agree that it is natural at times to act irrationally--that is exactly why I think fewer guns will mean fewer innocent dead.

But my argument here is not even to disarm anybody; what I'm against is having this specific legislation, which seems to some extent to guarantee that the survivor of a conflict (whether an attack, or some less clear-cut scenario--and these already abound...) is somehow in the right. It is the word of the killer, whose incentive is to make sure that his (or hers) is the only word left to hear. And I disagree, it is neither the right nor the responsibility of the individual to permanently "remove the criminal from society"--though I would never deny that this can and does happen, in situations of passion and violence.

David: No, I don't expect or desire that every citizen carry a gun. Only that those who wish to do so might carry. I just want to preserve that right to choose. The purpose is not to supplant or eliminate the police. The purpose is to allow people to use available tools to protect themselves if they wish. Much like learning plumbing or cooking; you can then be more independent and not have to always rely on others to fix your toilet or prepare your meals, but you don't want to put all restaurants out of business.

I think the "stand your ground" law at issue here is desirable and good. I believe that an appropriate investigation of the facts would reveal whether the survivor exercised reasonable judgment and was in fact the victim, or not, in the Florida case or any other similar situation. Say the survivor is known to law enforcement, has a record, and can't give a plausible reason why he was in that neighborhood; and let's say the decedent was unarmed, had no criminal record, and lived in the neighborhood. It will be pretty difficult for that survivor to be cleared by asserting the protection of the stand your ground law.

How do you feel about the stand your ground laws currently in place regarding your home? Do you believe that you should be required to retreat from your home rather than use deadly force against an invader?

We will have to agree to disagree that it is my right to use deadly force on someone whom I believe intends to do me physical harm.

Cochituate. You are very reasonable. As I said, I am not, here anyway, arguing against the possession of guns. And I am certainly going to do my best (I hope) to protect myself in my home. I recognize as a human instinct AND right the option to kill someone who would kill me, or kill someone else for that matter (though already, that declaration raises issues of the fallibility of interpretation: how often has someone killed someone he or she THOUGHT had a gun, and it turned out they did not? A LOT OF TIMES, and once is too many). But one of my goals in life--not an instinct, but the result of reasoning, or at least a hopeful decision--is that I never cause anyone's death, not even in passion or self-defense. I recognize the seeming contradiction in myself. But I prefer the law to give the person or persons with the gun(s) as little leeway as possible, as little gray area as possible, and no encouragement whatsoever, especially not outside one's own property, where, as often as not, appearances are deceiving, and temptations to passionate or irrational behavior abound.

Well I certainly agree that causing another's death should be a last resort.

I think my biggest reason for supporting the law is that without it, victims are incentivized to run away and not fight back; never resist a mugger or rapist or burglar, because, if they do resist and injure or kill the aggressor, he or his family could sue the victim for damages and the justice system could prosecute the victim, and, even if a gun is not involved, the victim could lose his right to carry.

I think the law should be on the side of the victim, allowing citizens to resist a criminal without fear of civil or criminal penalties.

So it boils down to this: we're both on the side of the victim. But who is the victim is not always clear. And who survives to tell the story has the advantage by far (yep, even when there's an investigation, etc.) when it comes to claiming who was the victim. I'm not saying one shouldn't resist, or that one shouldn't fight back. I'm saying that once you've killed someone, there are no longer two sides to the story, and the law should not by any means encourage that. You can't go out and kill someone because you think they might be violent. You can't kill someone because they make a sharp gesture in your direction. You will be better off--inevitably, you will be MORE innocent, and safer, and pose less harm to other innocent people--if you take every opportunity to remove yourself from violence rather than increase or amplify it. It's not cowardice or giving in--it's the higher form of justice, which is what the law should advocate for the greater safety of all.

Perhaps the law shouldn't encourage killing, but it also shouldn't discourage fighting back and resisting an assault. Why should the victim potentially be subject to criminal and civil liability for refusing to either flee or submit to a robbery or rape?

My problem is this: Putting the burden on the victim to justify why she injured or killed her attacker rather than retreated, and if, months later during the investigation, people who were not at the scene find that there was any possibility that she could perhaps have retreated without injuring the attacker, she could be subject to possible civil liability and criminal penalties. Victims should not have any legal DUTY to retreat.

Agreed. We agree on most things. With this exception. You speak of the victim as being clearly and inarguably identifiable as the victim ("putting the burden on the victim..." "Why should the victim potentially be subject..."). But who the victim is is often unclear (the current headlines provide yet another illustration of this common case). So it is incorrect to act as though the victim is a pre-determined person, easily identified as such during and after the case. Not to mention that, as you focus on female victims, the weapons they carry on them can and are (again, to read the newspapers) used against them by those very people who overpower them. No one would advocate shooting a rapist from twenty feet off--because at that distance, presumably, the rapist is not a rapist, unless he has conveniently and uncharacteristically made his intentions clear. When somebody is killed, it naturally becomes the burden of the killer to justify that act. That may be sad--it may be sad to insist that the rape victim who kills her assailant is forced to justify her act as self-defense--but the alternative (not having to justify your act of self-defense) is a much scarier prospect. And of course, so many crimes are not so clear-cut as a rapist stopped in mid-attack by a strong woman's bullet. The case in the news today is again a valuable example.

This has been fun, but I gotta get back to work! One last comment, and don't be offended if I drop off after this:

I don't read the stand your ground law as removing the existing burden on the victim to 'prove' that she acted in self-defense. She still has to make that case. This law only removes the legal duty to flee, giving the victim the option of standing her ground and fighting back. And it doesn't apply solely to guns. The attacker could be felled by mace, a stun gun, a baseball bat, a brick, or a swift kick to the head, or a shove into an oncoming bus, which might result in death or injury to the assailant. Currently, that assailant could make out a case (however frivolous) for civil damages. Under the stand your ground law, the victim still has to prove victimhood, but once established that would shield her from the civil or criminal liabilities that would otherwise be available to punish her for failing to flee.

I am old enough to remember the debate over concealed carry laws starting in the 1980s when Florida first considered passing its shall-issue concealed carry law. Much was heard from opponents of concealed carry that it would lead to the Wild West, shootouts over fender-benders, and blood in the streets.
Look at what actually happened. State that adopted concealed carry saw declining homicide rates. See John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime." The wild predictions offered by gun banners simply did not come true. Concealed carry licensees are not the problem. In fact, America doesn't have a "gun problem." It has a problem of criminal violence.
Hint: Utah's gun laws are so freedom-oriented that ordinary law-abiding citizens may legally own machine guns, and yet Salt Lake City has a homicide rate of 1.64/100,000. Washington, DC, with its very repressive gun laws, has a homicide rate of 24 - 14 times higher.
It's not the guns, but everybody is too chicken to discuss honestly the facts of criminal violence in public. So instead discussion is about trivialities such as whether it should be legal to own a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds, or whether it should be legal for my rifle to have a pistol grip, or whether a ten-day waiting period is an effective measure to reduce violence.

No Jim, but we license them. We test them on their ability to use the car at regular intervals. We annually have the cars inspected by professionals for safety and compliance with laws. We have them registered with the government. And cars aren't *designed* to kill people, which is exactly what guns are designed to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DTbGvthH1M

Oh my goodness - these clever musical references are cracking me up today!

I actually followed your link, Ben, something I tend to do less and less on these sites, and, once again, I couldn't agree more.

I won't acknowledge it because it isn't a fact.

1. This number can not be verified on any single academic, peer-reviewed study. Not. one.

2. This number does not exist on any single non-political government study (census, DoJ, etc.). Not. One.

3. This number, in fact, exists only the tinfoil hat xenophobic "get rid of all the immigrants" websites.

4. The methodology used in the website to substantiate this "fact" is, frankly, stupid. It certainly is not scientific. It takes a 2005 GAO study which stated that 27% of the US prison population is composed of "criminal aliens." This includes people who are here both legally AND illegally. Secondly, it takes that 27% number and multiplies it across the US murder rate. This, then, presumes that these criminal aliens commit murder at the same rate as US citizens. However, a majority of murders are committed by relatives or acquaintances of the victim. Statistically, this would indicate that undocumented workers are *less* likely to commit murder, as they have fewer familial ties to the united states. There is certainly no documented evidence in the report that 27% of the murders committed in the US were committed by immigrants, regardless of status.

Saying something over and over again because it fits your narrow and incorrect worldview does not make it any more true, Jim.

This "methodology" also presumes that all murders in the US were solved, that the perpetrator was both surviving *and* incarcerated, and that each murder had a single perpetrator. There is so very much wrong with this.