View Full Version : Why do people feel the need to carry a gun?
I'm not sure this post belongs here, but here goes.....
After reading the thread on the Tuscon shootings, and the response by Alan and bae, who carry a gun around all the time.......It makes me wonder why? Have you two (and others) ever had an experience where you needed a gun?
Do you live in a high crime area? Were you involved in a crime against you before you owned a gun? Are there grizzly bears where you live? No police protection in your area? Just curious what has made you think you need that kind of protection.
And please don't take this question the wrong way..........were you abused as a child?
I'm trying to understand what makes people think they need that kind of protection.
goldensmom
1-11-11, 8:59am
I don't know if this is helpful or not but here goes. I have relatives in law enforcement and yes, they do carry their guns all the time except of course where firearms are prohibited such as on an airplane. I guess as police officers they are really never off duty even when off the clock. I have a gun but I keep it locked in a gun safe. I will never shoot anyone or anything other than the occasional tin can and then I usually miss hitting the can. Hunting is big my neck of the woods. I am not adverse to hunting but I do not hunt. I could never shoot someones deer or rabbit mother, father, brother, sister, etc.. but I do not attach a familial relationship to a tin can.
I totally understand an off-duty police officer carrying his/her gun all the time. I'm curious why regular citizens feel the need to do so. And I understand owning a gun and keeping it locked up in your house.......in case someone is breaking into your house......but for just regular non-trained citizens to carry a gun is curious to me. Seems like if you're not extensively trained in using your gun in dynamic/unexpected situations, it could make the situations worse and more deadly.
Dharma Bum
1-11-11, 9:27am
There's the old saying "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."
I live in a high crime area. Over the years more than one police officer has advised people here to gt a gun and learn how to use it. That is in opposition to the police department's official public stance which seeks to reduce the number of guns on the street. But when you live shoulder by shoulder with the badnicks, you know that they aren't following laws of any kind. Register their gun? Permit to carry? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....
I don't have a gun, though, it's just too much trouble. I don't even like to carry a purse.
That's a difficult question to answer in a way that everyone would understand. I'll give it a shot though.
I enlisted in the Air Force in 1973 and served as a Law Enforcement Specialist, which entailed carrying a weapon while on duty. Upon discharge, I went to work for a major corporation in the Corporate Security department, with heavy emphasis on Executive Protection.
Now it may or may not come as a surprise to many that there is a segment of society which believes that corporate CEO's are evil people, and a subset of that group has no qualms making threats to high profile corporate executives and their families. In order to mitigate those threats, the business world is filled with people like me who spend their lives doing threat assessements, advance work, special event security planning, executive and dignitary protection details, etc. Think private sector secret service and you'll get an idea.
Anyone who has spent 30 plus years filling that role naturally takes on a "sheep dog" persona, even if it's not a part of their natural psyche. If you don't understand the sheep dog reference, take a look at this (http://marinecorpsmoms.com/archives/2004/08/on_sheep_wolves_and_sheepdogs.html)for insight.
It has nothing to do with living in a high crime area or being abused as a child, and if you think that the vast majority of people who do carry weapons are not trained, you're mistaken.
It has everything to do with being a sheepdog.
Zigzagman
1-11-11, 10:50am
I don't feel the need to carry a gun.
I live in the country and I own multiple guns - shotguns, rifles, even a couple of handguns. Having said that I don't carry a weapon, I haven't since leaving the Army in early 70's. In my case most all of my guns have been accumulated through the years. Growing up I deer-hunted, target practiced, shot skeet, dove hunted, etc. This experience came in handy when I went into the military and even now when being forced to deal with varmints around my place, having to put down injured livestock and animals, etc.
I think the reason people carry is simply "because they can". Were it illegal, I suspect that most people would not consider doing it. I seriously doubt that it has much to do with "constitutional rights" and probably more to do with fear and protection. Guns are the "Great Equalizer".
I live a very simple life, don't go out much at night (when evil tends to be more prevalent), try not associate with unstable people, and mostly avoid crowds. I guess I just don't feel threatened and personally don't want the responsibility of carrying a weapon.
I personally don't think that guns are our problem - people are - and we really do have a lot of unstable people in our society. I also think that we would have less violence if we had fewer guns but that is another topic.
Peace
Thanks Alan. But I think you would be the exception to most people carrying a gun. I have a sheepdog persona too.......but I don't carry a gun. (just a very loud bark!) I know that loud barks don't stop the bad guys, but I guess our position on how far we want to go is on a very long continuum. I have some back-up plans ready to go in emergency situations, whether they be in my house or out in public. Having worked in an E.R. and critical care, I feel sort of prepared to think quickly and take action. But life has a way of throwing curved balls at us.
I'm sure there are alot of people carrying guns who I would trust........sort of like there are people who drive cars/semi's that I would trust (and I consider these lethal weapons). But there are probably more that I wouldn't.
Guns are just so darned deadly and unforgiving. For the masses to have access to them really concerns me.
Thanks zigzagman, We were writing at the same time.
I feel as you do. If I lived alone out here in the country, I might consider one........but for now, I'll stick to my back-up plans, tire irons and ball bats.
After reading Bae's characterization of his sidearm as a "tool," I wracked my brain trying to think of a time in my many decades of life when carrying one might have been useful to me, and came up empty. In my world, a tool is a Leatherman or a spork.
Like millions of citizens in scores of civilized countries, I've never felt a need to carry weaponry on my person. I think guns do far more harm than good in this society, and I didn't have to look very far to find examples:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/432659_motoristshot02.html
Gun rights are not a big deal to me; they're certainly not a hot-button issue, but I absolutely agree with Greg Palast that this country has become "an armed madhouse." Evidence abounds.
The Storyteller
1-11-11, 12:56pm
I reckon it's fear for the most part. Sometimes it may be justified, depending on where folks live, but not usually.
Like I said before, all the needs and wants and supposed "rights" of each individual in this country end up being more important and given more attention than the good of the whole.
I really look on our society as full of Id and not enough Superego. (meaning maturity/conscience) It reminds me of children who get what they want all the time.
Why do disenfranchised young men carry guns in East St. Louis? Or South LA? Or the bad parts of Atlanta, Detroit and Chicago? A gun equals intimidation and power. And of course the not so subtle message of Step back and get out of my way. It's the desire for deferential treatment and power. It's a power play.
I've found these types to have an over inflated view of their importance and/or safety level. Just watch someone who is carrying walk, or rather swagger. You can almost tell they are carrying whether you see a bulge in the jacket or not. Cops and security guards and the like being the exception.
The primary reason I carry weapons is a moral one. I believe I have a moral and ethical duty to render aid to others to the best of my ability, as long as in doing so I do not sacrifice something of equal or greater moral significance. (See Peter Singer for expansion on this). To this end, I have a duty to be as prepared to render aid as I am reasonably able to be. Proper planning, training, conditioning, practice, and equipment are necessary to be able to carry out my moral obligations.
Furthermore, I am pacific. I am not however a pacifist. I believe it is wrong to initiate the use of force against another. I believe also that those who *do* initiate force must be resisted to the utmost. It's a games theory thing, or a Taoist thing, depending on your outlook. Mine is both.
I don't think a firearm is a magic tool whose mere presence makes me safe. It does however give me more of a chance if I have a firearm handy, and know how to use it, in some circumstances. And with 30+ years of daily training in a quite effective system of unarmed combat, I know well how easily I can lose a fight even to an untrained individual, much less multiple opponents or an armed one, especially in circumstances where my opponents choose the time and manner of the attack. There's no "secret sauce" that will make you immune from attack, there's only training, conditioning, and awareness to give you as much of a chance as you can.
As to the tool-nature of the firearm I carry, I live in a rural area with many more deer than people, and frequent deer->auto interactions that end poorly for both participants. Probably once a month I have to put down an injured deer along the road. We also have a significant problem with visitors who allow their dogs to run loose, chasing livestock, and those dogs are dealt with. We have raccoons and minks that are active even in the daytime devouring poultry, and those also are dealt with.
And we have local criminals, who mistake lightly populated rural areas for targets.
Law enforcement response time here is 30 minutes on a good day, and it can be multiple hours. You are often the first responder, and it can be quite a while before the Sheriff arrives.
As to other specifics, before I retired and moved to Brigadoon here:
- My wife was a lawyer, who took away assets and freedoms from some Very Very Bad People, while working for the FBI. The Very Bad People and their friends weren't too happy about this.
- My business was robbed several times for expensive semiconductors. After the second robbery, we armed many of the night-shift engineers...
- I used to work a lot with battered women who were attempting to leave their partners, or evade the ongoing attentions of ex-partners. This work was not without hazard.
- I had a family member who had made credible threats against the life of myself, my wife, my child, and my parents. To the point where we had restraining orders and bodyguards. He's dead now.
- Once we moved here, my wife for some years ran a family law clinic. Turns out there are some angry people out there in difficult family situations, who fixate upon their spouse's attorney. Go figure.
- Working with the Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Services outfit here also attracts some unwelcome attention from violent people.
- As does work I do in local government.
I didn't just throw a gun into a holster, and swagger down the street, as some here suggest. I have for the past several decades shot roughly 1000 rounds a week, I've attended most every significant training program there is available in this country, and several others, I'm an instructor myself in multiple disciplines, and I train in several non-firearms disciplines.
I have had to use my firearm in defense of myself and/or others, I suspect I wouldn't be here typing if I hadn't.
And no, I wasn't abused as a child, unless you count my mother forcing me to learn Latin.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
loosechickens
1-11-11, 5:13pm
To me, (and I do not carry a gun, or even own one anymore), as I survey the people I know, people in my own family and acquaintances who are armed at all times, they present a very different picture than that shown by bae and alan. Bae and Alan seem to be both responsible, trained people, and have legitimate reasons for going around armed, at least to them. To me, when I think of the people who "openly carry" as those people themselves describe it, it's a very different picture.
I've been held at gunpoint twice in my life, with my life hanging in the balance. In neither case would I have been helped in any way by being armed, and in fact, may have been in even more danger. Once, I woke to find a 45 at my head, and once I was standing beside a Land Rover at 8 a.m. on a Sunday morning, drinking a cup of coffee, and out of literally NOWHERE was surrounded by men with automatic rifles. So much for the "carrying a gun will keep me safe". In these cases, cooperation, calmness, language proficiency, force and weight of retaliation by authorities and probably guardian angels unknown, I lived through the process. But, I lost forever the idea that if I were armed, somehow I would be more safe.
The motivation that I can see that is uppermost among the people you see doing the "swaggering" around with visible sidearms, especially in places like Arizona, is fear, distrust of minorities, desire to feel powerful, and feeling that the gun is the "great equalizer" if they encounter "bad guys".
We had a son-in-law like that, have a few people still in our family that fit that description and have done a lot of work down along the border that brought us into contact with the Minutemen. I am sure there are some in that organization that are genuinely concerned about their country, but I never saw more open, ugly racism and bigotry than I saw in that bunch, who were ALL fully armed, very openly, (legally), and honestly, just ITCHING to shoot some illegal immigrant if they could have gotten away with it.
I'm not against guns at all. I lived in rural PA, my father was a hunter, my ex-husband and my son are hunters, and I've hunted myself. I lived where it was perfectly ordinary for every pickup truck to have a gun rack in the cab, and ours was no exception. My father was an NRA member back in the day when it was primarily hunters.
I'm not against carrying guns the way that bae and alan have described that they do (although I suspect those guns are not able to provide what they think they might in most cases), but this "new breed" of open carry people in places like AZ are not the same. We're seeing mostly very hard core right wing folks, antigovernment attitudes, a very strong indication of racism, in some cases probable militia membership, and while underneath feeling frightened and powerless, trying to exhibit a daunting picture of power, intimidation and "get outta my way" attitude. Not one of those people would be carrying their weapon quietly, unobtrusively, and concealed as Alan and bae describe, because that would just not portray themselves as they wish to be betrayed.
I think in the case of those people, in effect "brandishing" the weapon is where it's at. I don't know if that is true for all, but I do know that it's true for the ones I know and have had to deal with in real life.
IshbelRobertson
1-11-11, 5:34pm
I grew up in a UK military family - my father had guns about the house - but they were locked in a gun cabinet. I grew up with a morbid fear of the things.
I am truly grateful I live in a country where handguns are banned for most people. Whilst I acknowledge that people can be attacked with knives, with swords or whatever.... the few guns on the streets here are used either by military/police personnel or criminals. I have little interaction with either group.
I think the key is is someone qualified to own a firearm. Yes by the 2nd amendment everyone can own a firearm but are they mentally qualified. Also have they been trained in the use of them and when to use or not use them. With over 300 million people in the US now how many do you feel are qualified to own a firearm. I too have had a firearm pointed at me. I was the manager of a bank when three men came through the front door one had a shotgun the other two had pistols. One came up to my desk and asked me not so politely to hang up the phone while he pointed a 9mm at my head. I grew up with firearms and have firearms. But I have never felt the need to carry one with me. That is me. If you are qualified and have the proper license to carry one I am ok with that. The Arizona hand gun laws are far too liberal. Almost anyone can carry a concealed weapon no matter how unqualified they are.
The interview of one guy who helped to subdue the shooter was interesting. He was carrying a pistol but did not use it he almost shot the wrong person. But when asked why he was carrying a firearm he said for self protection. He went to the Walgreen to buy a pack of cigarettes in broad daylight and the store did not look like it was in a bad part of town. Why did he feel he needed to be armed is something I don't under stand. The 61 year old lady that took the clip away was not armed as was the other man who took the shooter down.
They don't allow people to walk around with firearms here in Canada and after reading some of these posts I think I'm pretty glad about that. Reading loosechickens' post about being held at gunpoint TWICE would be terrifying!!! I don't think I'd ever leave my house again after TWO experiences like those!
We live in a very rural area with lots of deer, bear and cougar. Hubby hunts grouse during hunting season but just uses an airgun for that. We get hunters up here during hunting season so we see people with rifles during those times and it makes me nervous sometimes when I see them drinking their beer and then going out hunting.
When hubby and I go out in the bush we take bear bangers, etc. and, while we have come across many bears (including a mama and her cubs), we haven't wished we had a gun on us.
When hubby and I go out in the bush we take bear bangers, etc. and, while we have come across many bears (including a mama and her cubs), we haven't wished we had a gun on us.
So jealous!! What a wonderful environment. I think if more of us could experience this first hand then a lot of the killing mentality would disappear - or maybe it just has to do with urban living? Don't know, but do care!!
Peace
I was the manager of a bank when three men came through the front door one had a shotgun the other two had pistols. One came up to my desk and asked me not so politely to hang up the phone while he pointed a 9mm at my head. I grew up with firearms and have firearms. But I have never felt the need to carry one with me. That is me. If you are qualified and have the proper license to carry one I am ok with that. The Arizona hand gun laws are far too liberal. Almost anyone can carry a concealed weapon no matter how unqualified they are.
Agree, Free. Anyone that has even had to actually shot another human (even in war) knows that there are consequences. Killing another person is not something that is easily forgotten, especially at night. I would much prefer that we all used bows and arrows, or maybe even spears in defending ourselves. I just cannot accept that weapons are an answer to any conflict or problem. Today or tomorrow!
Peace
I have a gun. It's an air rifle. Shoots BBs and pellets. I'm after chipmonks and squirrels that are detrimental to the terrain around my house. And when I trap a raccoon or possum I shoot them at point blank range while they're in the trap/cage. They they are burried. That's all.
Bae, I'm just curious, don't answer if you don't want to, but just how much money does it cost you in bullets each month to keep up your practicing?
An interesting thread. I carried a firearm when I was a sheep farmer, and needed it to protect the sheep from predators. The predators we had were domestic dogs and eagles. We were licensed to shoot blanks to scare the eagles, which was mostly effective. I used a rifle, and target practiced on wild rabbits, which I ate.
I must say that though the sheepdog story is an interesting explanation, it's an inaccurate analogy. Sheep don't actually hide behind a sheepdog when a wolf shows up - they panic and run. Sometimes a trained Border Collie will join the predator in attacking the sheep, as a their instinct is a modified stalk-and-kill behavior. Untrained Border Collies are quite dangerous to livestock. Trained ones protect themselves when a predator endangers the flock.
Guns are unnecessary for anyone other than law enforcement, ranchers and hunters, IMHO.
Bae, I'm just curious, don't answer if you don't want to, but just how much money does it cost you in bullets each month to keep up your practicing?
I spend about $2500 a month in routine expenses, which includes ammunition (1000 rounds of 9mm is about $200 in volume, 1000 rounds of .308 match ammo is about $400)), and two charter flights a month down to the Seattle police training facility ($150 a flight if I'm clever about finding other people to share the ride).
...Guns are unnecessary for anyone other than law enforcement, ranchers and hunters, IMHO.
If you strain your imagination, you cannot think of even one situation where a gun would be considered by many reasonable people to be a useful item? I can:
1) a business owner who regularly makes night deposits at a bank
2) someone who is being stalked, or who has been threatened, by an obvious crazy person and who cannot get relief from the local gendarmes (restraining orders don't phycially keep anyone away)
3) Someone who regulary makes deliveries or serves notices in "bad" neighborhoods
One poster here carries, wonder if she'll show up to talk about her reasons.
The sheepdog analogy--I won't weigh in on how accurate it is in regard to the actual work of a border collie, but I will say that the article is right about sheep.
When I lived in those previous safe middle class bergs, I didn't ever talk to a cop, had little regard for a cop, had no interest in cop issues.
Now that I live in the 'hood I am very plugged into law enforcement issues, am on a first name basis with our neighborhood patrolman, work the "neighborhood safety patrol" (which is really just driving around gossipping with my friend for 2 hours.) We support the sheepdogs in any way we can. You would not believe the relationship this neighborhood has with our beat cop--we love him. It does help that he's just about the cutest thing you've ever seen, but our prior neighborhood cop was very cute and well loved as well.
But guns--if you take on the responsibility you've got to be responsible with it--know who to use it, follows all safety rules, etc. and too many eejits don't do that.
Iris Lily, I don't think any of those situations would warrant having a gun. People can stay safe in many other ways in these circumstances without the risk of having a firearm. I am quite sure reasonable people disagree!
[QUOTE=Iris lily;3149]If you strain your imagination, you cannot think of even one situation where a gun would be considered by many reasonable people to be a useful item? I can:
1) a business owner who regularly makes night deposits at a bank
2) someone who is being stalked, or who has been threatened, by an obvious crazy person and who cannot get relief from the local gendarmes (restraining orders don't phycially keep anyone away)
3) Someone who regulary makes deliveries or serves notices in "bad" neighborhoods
My thoughts on these 3 situations:
1) Could this business owner not rearrange his schedule to make the deposit mid-day? One of the reasons I don't particularly ever feel at risk of being harmed is because I'm rarely out later than 8 or 9 at night, and even then I'm just getting off the light rail and going into my apartment building across the street from the train stop.
2) This is certainly a difficult situation, but unless someone is as well trained as bae is they're probably not going to be able to use a gun to effectively respond if the stalker comes up behind them and grabs them/threatens them/etc.
3) Although they aren't specifically law enforcement, people who serve notices, etc in bad neighborhoods might do well to be prepared with a gun. And probably more importantly, with a helper to keep an eye out for them. Delivery people, I'm not so sure. I have a hard time imagining the dominoes delivery guy standing outside my door holding a pizza in one hand and a pistol in the other. And if he doesn't have it out, or at least his hand on it in its holster the way the money truck guys do when they're moving money around, I have a hard time believing it'll be of much use if someone opens the door with a gun pointed at him or jumps out of the bushes with a gun while he's standing at the door.
gosh, I don't know fi the business owner could do it in the middle of the day. Doncha think there might be some reasons not to do that? I'm sure you could advise him on that, though.
So you don't go out after past 9 AM. Not everyone has the same options you have.
Frankly I would not be a pizza delivery guy in the 'hood due to the safety factor. The delivery guy is a target 'cause he's got money. But guess what, someone's gotta do it.
Re: the stalker: well, SURE he could grab me around the neck but that's just one of many scenarios that COULD happen. I fully support the right of those who wish to defend themselves from threats that the rest of us can't understand and interestingly, dismis
gosh, I don't know fi the business owner could do it in the middle of the day. Doncha think there might be some reasons not to do that? I'm sure you could advise him on that, though.
So you don't go out after past 9 AM. Not everyone has the same options you have.
Frankly I would not be a pizza delivery guy in the 'hood due to the safety factor. The delivery guy is a target 'cause he's got money.
If I'm such a successful business guy that I can't find 20 minutes during the day to run to the bank then I'll hire an assistant. If I'm that busy but can't afford an assistant I'm doing something wrong and need to rethink my business plan.
If I was being stalked I'd be even more likely to get home early or find someone to drive with, etc. Part of being safe is looking at where risks are and taking steps to avoid those risks. That's just common sense. My first reaction if I were being stalked wouldn't be to buy a gun and prepare myself for the possibility of having to blow the person's head off. But that's just me. If I truly thought that was the only option to keep myself safe then yes, I suppose that's what I would do.
I live in Arizona, not that far from where the shooting of Gabby Giffords took place.
I have a handgun. Indeed, I'd have to say I bought it "because I could". Coming from a place where merely purchasing a handgun could take as long as 2 years and getting a concealed carry permit was basically a privilege given to law enforcement, period, it was astonishing to me that I could actually do all of this in less than two weeks.
This said, I can't imagine actually carrying the weapon in public. I'm just not that good, that big, that strong or that smart. My "training" consists of a lifetime of television plus a weekend of instruction. The gun resides in a place where it would be easily accessible if I were attacked in my home, but not obviously found by a burglar.
Considering the number of people who think they are competent when they probably aren't, and the ease with which an Arizonan can purchase and carry a gun, I'd have to say that the laws here are ridiculously permissive. The mere fact that you haven't been convicted of a felony does not make you an appropriate vigilante law enforcement crew.
I actually support carrying of weapons by people who are highly trained in their use and in some way evaluated for mental stability. But ... giving permission to every fool who hasn't managed to land in jail yet? Insanity.
I do not carry. It pains me to say this, but there is one regulation from the National Park Service (NPS) that I absolutely HATE HATE HATE is the ability to have a gun in a National Park. It was the MOST Stupidest regulation passed.
Now when we walk on a trail, we see people carrying guns. My DH and I took a hike (a yowza 9.7 mile hike!) at Lake Mead National Recreation Area - Arizona Hot Springs, and we passed a couple. They had four yipping dogs and the man was carrying a Glock. WHY OH WHY would he carry a gun? There is no wildlife to speak of, especially since his yipping and barking dogs would scare off any kind of creature including people; there were tons of people on the trail, so I doubt there would be a worry about someone else, what, ripping off your water...I mean What the HECK is he doing with a gun? :0
But of course, as a volunteer I am not about to ask him that. I was just glad to see all of the dogs on a leash. :|(
Of course, now that I think about it, we were on the Arizona side of the park, so the regulations would be pretty lax.
Let's see...a few reasons I support the right to own handguns...
1) I was the victim of armed robbery (on the job) twice & attempted robberies on two other occasions (unarmed, drugged out whackos).
2) As a young adult, I was held against my will in a business by someone who (thankfully) was spooked off before he had a chance to rape me or cause me physical harm.
3) For many years I lived in isolated rural areas where response time was a half hour AT BEST and often an hour or more. 2 instances stand out most. In one, a prostitute turned up on our doorstep after being beaten and dumped nearby. The assailant was still in the area. The other was a robbery attempt. The threat of being shot is what prevented the group of four from forcing entry.
4) I have encountered dogs that needed to be shot without hesitation. I like animals, but some dogs need a bullet in the head.
5) I travel alone a lot. If my car breaks down in an isolated area with poor cell reception, and I have to hoof it alone along a highway, I'd really rather be armed...if it comforts you, pretend it's for protection against bear and rattlesnakes.
6) I have a relative who has been an extreme danger to me and my family in the past. I don't know if there is still danger as it's been decades, but the person is still alive.
Those are just some of my reasons. (Bae's reason of putting down animals that have been struck by cars also is another good reason. I've had some times when I needed a gun handy for that purpose and did not have one.)
...I mean What the HECK is he doing with a gun? :0
Did he threaten or harm anyone?
If not, why would it matter?
loosechickens
1-11-11, 10:31pm
Hattie, I know you Canadians often feel the U.S. is a really dangerous and violent place, but I really should allay some of your fears and say that neither of the incidents where my life was in danger was in the United States. Both were some years ago, and one was in the mountains of Guatemala and the other outside the city of Leon, in Nicaragua.
Freein05......I think that is my real problem with the very loose "carry" laws in some states. I honestly have no problems with people who have had extensive experience and training with weapons to be carrying. Folks like Alan and bae are not people who frighten me.
We don't allow people to drive a car without passing a test demonstrating SOME degree of competence in operating it. We don't allow lawyers to defend someone in court without passing the bar. Heck, we don't even let someone cut hair or give perms without schooling and passing of tests of competency.
Yet, pretty much anyone who wants to, in places like AZ, can waltz in, buy a deadly weapon, and get a license to carry it without anyone even knowing if the person is sane or insane, or hardly whether he or she can tell one end from the other. In some states, some minimal competency must be demonstrated, but nothing that would make a person knowledgeable and experienced enough in an emergency to make good decisions with that weapon.
I noticed in one article about this current shooting that when Loughner went to WalMart to buy ammunition, a clerk in one WalMart refused to sell it to him because he was behaving so erratically, but Loughner just went to another WalMart, where he was able to purchase the ammo.
And it was almost just blind luck that the guy who was armed, who rushed out of the store, pulled his weapon, clicked off the safety, etc. when he heard the shots, that he didn't shoot. He said himself that he saw the person with the gun, thought it was the shooter (it was the person who had wrestled the gun away from the shooter), and instead of shooting, yelled for him to drop the gun, and then rushed him and shoved him into a wall. He said himself that it was more a matter of luck that in that split second he made that move instead of shooting.
It's one thing when a trained, law enforcement officer has to encounter a situation like that (and even TRAINED people often lose or forget their training in emergencies), but the ordinary citizen, whose experiences with gunfights is what they see in movies, faced with a real life violent situation, which is nothing like the movies, and the whole thing may erupt and be over in a matter of seconds, again, unlike the movies......the chances of that untrained person actually ADDING to the melee and endangering innocents is huge.
What if that guy had, in that split second, shot instead? Another innocent person might be dead. What if, in his inexperience, he shot and missed, and another child or two didn't grow up? Several of the early reports on the incident erroneously reported that several bystanders were armed, and when I saw the number of people killed or wounded, wasn't surprised when the conjecture was that some may have been hurt by "friendly fire". It didn't seem beyond reasonable to me, given some of the people I've known, who go armed, but are completely incompetent to deal with a real emergency. Thank goodness, that turned out not to be the case.
The most number of the people I have encountered who carry openly in AZ, have little or no training in weapons, no training in split second assessment of emergency situations, are themselves filled with fear, especially fear of minorities, whom they see as dangerous, criminal and "out to get them". So many seem to have a sense of reality about such things from movies, video games, sites they go to on the internet, but honestly, I feel like many of those folks are more dangerous out there than the dangers from criminals. In a real emergency, folks like my ex son-in-law would be likely to just draw and start spraying bullets around in a panic than anything else.
I wish I knew the answer, because I'm not a major gun control person, and I can certainly see that people living in neighborhoods like Iris Lily's might well feel the need to be armed, but..............the idea that people can walk among us, carrying deadly weapons, without real training, and prone to become part of the problem in an emergency scares me to death.
Clementine
1-11-11, 11:05pm
The quote is often taken as flippant, but it's the simple truth: When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns. Systematically removing the only thing that makes me equal to someone twice my size makes me prey. When the predator knows you have no way to protect yourself, the banquet is spread.
Do you know the response rate for your local police force? 5 minutes, or 10, may be too long.
Also, do you know that in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
To me, it seems a simple equation. No one but you is responsible for your safety. That has always been true.
I think the sheep/sheepdogs argument doesn't necessarily apply; I have no delusions of expecting to rescue anyone else (though I hope I would: the story of Kitty Genovese haunts me), but I hope not to be a victim myself.
Clementine
iris lily
1-11-11, 11:27pm
I think I'm getting it:
bae + alan= good gun carriers
everyone else who carries = swaggering mental midgets, no need for them to carry, they clearly cannot make realistic decisions for themselves.
I think I'm getting it.
It is fascinating to me to see the concerns, fears, emotional projections, and assumptions being made by folks.
loosechickens
1-11-11, 11:38pm
You guys can belittle this all you like, but we're going to get crowds MORE unqualified people out there armed to the teeth, now.
This today from Bloomberg.com
After a Glock-wielding gunman killed six people at a Tucson shopping center on Jan. 8, Greg Wolff, the owner of two Arizona gun shops, told his manager to get ready for a stampede of new customers.
Wolff was right. Instead of hurting sales, the massacre had the $499 semi-automatic pistols -- popular with police, sport shooters and gangsters -- flying out the doors of his Glockmeister stores in Mesa and Phoenix.
"We're at double our volume over what we usually do," Wolff said two days after the shooting spree that also left 14 wounded, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in critical condition........
One-day sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60 percent on Jan. 10 compared with the corresponding Monday a year ago, the second-biggest increase of any state in the country, according to Federal Bureau of Investigation data. From a year earlier, handgun sales ticked up yesterday 65 percent in Ohio, 16 percent in California, 38 percent in Illinois and 33 percent in New York, the FBI data show, and increased nationally about 5 percent.
I think I'm getting it:
bae + alan= good gun carriers
everyone else who carries = swaggering mental midgets, no need for them to carry, they clearly cannot make realistic decisions for themselves.
I again agree with Iris. I must be losing my liberal mind.
Zigzagman
1-12-11, 12:48am
I spend about $2500 a month in routine expenses, which includes ammunition (1000 rounds of 9mm is about $200 in volume, 1000 rounds of .308 match ammo is about $400)), and two charter flights a month down to the Seattle police training facility ($150 a flight if I'm clever about finding other people to share the ride).
What? $30K a year shooting guns? Do they call you Rambo around town? :0
Peace
What? $30K a year shooting guns? Do they call you Rambo around town? :0
Peace
No. I bathe, and don't mumble.
I think I'm getting it:
bae + alan= good gun carriers
everyone else who carries = swaggering mental midgets, no need for them to carry, they clearly cannot make realistic decisions for themselves.Well no. But just consider the fact that I could carry a concealed weapon, even though I know the chances are good the weapon would be used against me because I have no self-defense training, or that I would use it badly in my fear and panic. Heck, I've been known to accidentally cut people to ribbons with my tongue if I get agitated enough. And still, I occasionally consider doing it, because after all, I can. I can even take it into a bar and get drunk with it in my purse, what a great idea. I'm not a huge fan of restrictive laws, but this does seem a case where prudence might trump personal liberty.
My husband is an avid hunter and firearm enthusiast. He has both pistols and long guns and he's 100% against people carrying firearms in public. He says guns should be reserved for the range and outdoor sporting applications (events) only. When in and amongst the general public unless one represents law enforcement or other security positions, no guns allowed. Period. (IMO the old saying, "there's a time and a place for everything" rings true on this one).
I'm surprised that the occurrence of gun related violence isn't greater in the US than it already is, considering the governments soft and lax stance on gun control. It's time the US got up to speed and initiated new revised regulations, rules, and policies pertaining to firearms. The old antiquated (cowboy/horse and train robber days) system that's currently in place has proven over and over again to be a breeding ground for violence.
As far as all the talk goes about "the right to bare arms", that's so overused IMO. Yes, right to bare arms as a homeowner, in ones home, not while out among the general public.
I cannot believe that even after all of the violence and carnage we've seen in the US, the government still chooses to abstain from introducing better and more improved measures to rein things in and correct a faltered and severely troubled system. A system that went out with the Gold Rush and 1800's.
Something else I want to add to this thread is public outcry. Here in Canada, if all the bleeding-hearts and radicals had it their way, we'd have to carry special issued licenses, registration, and papers to transport even a set of silverware from store to home if the silverware set included butter knives. It's gotten so ridiculous in our country. Outcry here is deafening. Always someone or some group squawking.
But I never seem to hear any public outcry from the general public in the States. Seems crime can run rampant and everyone seems to pretend it's not happening. Maybe I've got it wrong. Is there strong public outcry for change in your country? The States?
No there doesn't seem to be.......which I don't understand.
There is at least a murder a day in the city near where I live, and nobody even seems to worry about that.........let alone the fact that they are being killed with guns.
This country is headed for a big fall.......
There seemed to be more concern about guns in the 70's and 80's. Maybe we've all been desensitized to it, unless one of our loved ones is a victim.
I don't understand it either CathyA. I'd hate to know people have given up. Outcry is good when it's applied in a reserved and controlled manner.
I was reading an article about this yesterday and it gave an outline of gun legislation in various countries.
For example, in Norway and Japan, gun licensing or registration is either very lax or nonexistent, and both countries have extremely low gun crime statistics. In Switzerland, every able-bodied man between 20 and 34 is required to keep fully automatic firearms in their home, should they be called up for service under 'unversal conscription'. However, no statistics are kept on gun crime as it is so low.
Gun law changed drastically here in the UK after Dunblane.
There is at least a murder a day in the city near where I live, and nobody even seems to worry about that.........let alone the fact that they are being killed with guns.
The obvious question is WHO is committing those murders? If I thought stricter gun ownership laws would significantly decrease violent crime I would immediately rethink my own position, but I don't believe that is true. The people who commit murder and other violent crimes will own guns regardless of what the law says. Anyone willing to risk life in prison for murder isn't going to give a rat's pitutti about having a firearms possession charge added on. Maybe instead of restricting freedoms we would be better off studying the cultural differences in the countries miralaluna mentioned.
Did he threaten or harm anyone?
If not, why would it matter?
What does it matter? WHY would he carry a gun on a hike where there is no reason to carry a gun. It made me uncomfortable. It made me not want to talk to him (and as a volunteer park ranger, I talk to everyone, asking how they are doing and just normal stuff.) It made me concerned for others on the trail. It made me look at them more closely to make sure there was not anything more going on. It drew attention to himself in a negative way. It made me concerned about any possibility of wildlife in the area that he might decide to shoot at, just for fun. I don't know if any of this matters, it just makes no sense to have a gun on a trail.
I volunteer at the state park near us Calaveras Big Trees State Park). This past fall I was volunteering in the visitors center and a young couple comes in the wife is pregnant. He ask me if it is ok to carry a gun on the North Grove trail. I advised him he could not and it is against state park regulations to have a gun in the park.
This young man probably in his late 20s or early 30s was actually afraid for his wife and himself. He asked me about wild animals on the trail. I advised him there are few vicious squirrels and an occasional black bear. Most people want to see a bear. There were hundreds of people on the trail that day.
Dharma Bum
1-12-11, 1:35pm
it just makes no sense to have a gun on a trail.
Maybe your trail is more public or less removed, but wilderness trails are probably the place I carry a gun more than any other. Once you are down the trail there is no cop you can call but there still could be bad people or a wildlife problem.
Something else I want to add to this thread is public outcry. Here in Canada, if all the bleeding-hearts and radicals had it their way, we'd have to carry special issued licenses, registration, and papers to transport even a set of silverware from store to home if the silverware set included butter knives. It's gotten so ridiculous in our country. Outcry here is deafening. Always someone or some group squawking.
But I never seem to hear any public outcry from the general public in the States. Seems crime can run rampant and everyone seems to pretend it's not happening. Maybe I've got it wrong. Is there strong public outcry for change in your country? The States?
Some years back, while shopping with my son, he wanted to buy a pocketknife. It was a small pocketknife with a blade of about 2" and a loop to attach it to a keychain. It wasn't good for much more than cleaning your fingernails. This was at Wal-mart. He was not allowed to buy it, even though I was there with him, because he was under 18. I had to show my i.d. to prove age (though I haven't been carded for alcohol in at least 15 years) and have my d.l. # typed into their register to prove they had verified age. Then, I had to hand over the cash -- he could not do so -- in order to buy a stupid keychain with a pocketknife.
A few weeks later, I bought a set of kitchen knives to give as a wedding gift. For kicks, I handed him the money far before we got to the register to see if they would let him purchase this item (same store). No problem, went right through, no need to verify i.d. This set had a cleaver in it, chef's knife, etc.
Idiocy.
Another store let him pay for a machete...but not a can of spray paint and no glue. It has become a game now to test how stupid such systems are.
Sounds like people have to rise to the occasion of their own personal fears. This is a really interesting thread.
I consider myself to be pretty much of an anti-gun person. I agree with those who have said if I had one, I'd be the one to be harmed with it.
IF I had one (and believe me, I never for one instant have had that thought cross my mind until now), I'd be MORE likely to own one if:
I were living in a rural area. If there are fewer people around, my chances of harming an innocent person is way down. Plus, I'm still naive enough to think that there's safety in numbers. So I might have one around but still can't see myself walking into a gun store.
OR if I had been exposed to violence I'd probably want a gun under my pillow, in my nightstand drawer, whatever. But I haven't been.
OR if I thought it were fun to shoot my dinner, I would. But I'm vegetarian, so that's not likely.
In my little corner of the world, they've done a good job of making me feel safe and secure. I realize that my corner in the world is in no way reflective of where others live, or what they've experienced. So I'm not about to judge.
My son, a golf pro, talks about people who say they can't hit the green because of their driver. His retort is, it's not the arrow, it's the Indian. Probably the same holds true for guns and gun owners. If Switzerland can live in harmony with guns, why can't we?
flowerseverywhere
1-12-11, 1:53pm
Most of us living in the US have no contact with guns, are not crime victims and I have never seen a gun not in a gun case. And those guns were from friends who legally hunt during deer or whatever season.
There was one murder in my town that I have lived in for 20 years and it was a domestic violence stabbing- but the largest close city has a dozen or so gun violence crimes a year- almost all young black men shooting young black men. I have no reason to go to that area of the city so don't.
The perception that in the US there are car chases on every corner, constant contact with guns and violence and we all live on Wisteria lane are incorrect.
On the day of the Arizona shooting Sacramento and Stockton California had multiple shootings and at least one death. These were probably gang related. California has some of the toughest gun regulations in the country and there are shootings everyday. My guess is most of these bad guys get their guns from burglaries. So it is very important to have a gun safe or some other method to secure your weapons when you are not at home. If you don't you are just as much at fault if your weapon is used in a crime.
Most of us living in the US have no contact with guns...
My understanding is that roughly half the households in the USA have at least one firearm, and that there are ~300 million firearms in private hands in this country.
So I suppose it depends on your definition of "most of us". :-)
To me, with anyone being able to carry a gun.........Its like they're walking around with a bomb, and its up them if they've taken care of it so it doesn't go off. Who wants to be around that? We just know nothing about the mentality/emotionality of the person carrying it. It kills just too dang fast. At least with a knife, you could hopefully fight for awhile before you died. But bullets are just too fast and deadly.
When I was an RN in an ER and on back-up ambulance, there were so many EMTs doing their short clinical, (guys especially) who wanted to be heroes. They wanted to look powerful and like superman. That was their reason for being an EMT. It had nothing to do with helping people through bad situations........it was just to look good and feel powerful.
I think the same thing is true for lots of young men who own guns. Its an instant "power" image for them.
I wish we could go back to just fighting with our fists and our wits.
I carry. I had no desire to carry before I had children. When I had children, my momma-bear instinct kicked in. I carry to protect my children.
I live in a rural area, police response time is at least 30 minutes. We have mountain lions, bobcats, & black bears but I am more fearful of the dogs that are owned by the meth houses in town.
I do also carry during women's only events. I used to think, well, a church Bible study is safe, so I don't need my pistol. But I now see that it would be an easy target for some lunatic to come in.
I take self-defense training as often as I can, about every other year. I also dry-fire at home to build muscle-memory. That way my ammo bill isn't as high as Bae's :)
I hope to never, ever, ever need to draw my pistol. But I do want to have it available if a horrible situation arises.
I recently heard that line about having to protect yourself from wildlife on a radio show. It was rebutted by a wildlife biologist who had worked in the wilds of Alaska and other places and had never carried or needed a weapon. He said he'd been within feet of bears more than once and they fled when they saw him. From what I read here, wildlife has a lot more to fear from gun owners than vice versa. Do you really need to blast away at raccoons "to protect your chickens?" My chicken-owning friend has a big stout pen and an alert companion dog that seem to do the trick just fine.
Do you really need to blast away at raccoons "to protect your chickens?"
Yes. Though I don't "blast away", I simply aim and shoot them dead.
My chicken-owning friend has a big stout pen and an alert companion dog that seem to do the trick just fine.
Circumstances are different here.
Do you have killer raccoons bae? :0
Of course people who carry guns will always have what sounds like a very good reason to them.
Haven't read all the threads yet but I am an anti-hunting, vegan, NRA card-carrying, gun toting woman. I have been carrying a gun for more than 35 years and truthfully feel nekkid without it. And no, I wasn't abused as a child :-)! I began carrying a weapon while in the Coast Guard and have done so ever since. I have several weapons (shotguns, rifles, and several handguns - all loaded) at home as well as a small pistol (Baretta .380) that I carry in my little knapsack. I carry it with me for personal protection - when travelling, camping, car breaking down, being in a remote areas hiking, etc... not to ward off would-be terrorists or unibombers or even wild animals. It's just something that makes me feel safer and gives me a greater freedom to do things out in the great wide world alone. My sister, who was armed security for a very large aerospace defense government contractor, also has several weapins and carries a loaded gun too. Again, she wasn't abused as a kid ;-)! Instead of Tupperware parties, we have gun cleaning parties!
The Storyteller
1-12-11, 4:38pm
Do you really need to blast away at raccoons "to protect your chickens?" My chicken-owning friend has a big stout pen and an alert companion dog that seem to do the trick just fine.
I have three LGDs (well, 8 if you count the puppies, but we are only keeping three of those and they will live with the goats). We haven't had a predator attack on our animals in a coon's age.
But we do have packs of coyotes and the occasional bobcat and even cougar around here. And even a possum can do some damage even to a big dog. The dogs are a great deterrent, but if something is brave enough or stupid enough to go up against them (which sometimes happens), I don't want them to have to take care of it themselves. I would rather shoot it than take the chance of harm coming to my dogs. Even if I didn't, it would be dead, anyway. Better to be dead quick from my gun than a mauling by my dogs.
I volunteer at the state park near us Calaveras Big Trees State Park). This past fall I was volunteering in the visitors center and a young couple comes in the wife is pregnant. He ask me if it is ok to carry a gun on the North Grove trail. I advised him he could not and it is against state park regulations to have a gun in the park.
This young man probably in his late 20s or early 30s was actually afraid for his wife and himself. He asked me about wild animals on the trail. I advised him there are few vicious squirrels and an occasional black bear. Most people want to see a bear. There were hundreds of people on the trail that day.
Although (as Dharma Bum said) carrying a gun on a wilderness trail may make some sense, that is still a really good example of irrational fear and the false belief that an inanimate object can protect us from all evil. How do people even get to that point? Too much Hollywood on every size of screen, I suppose. Guns don't kill people, people kill people is an old cliche', but it's also true. In the same regard guns don't protect people. Being aware of your surroundings (on the trail or in the "bad" part of town) will go alot farther toward keeping you safe than pulling a gun. Once you are in such deep $#!+ that you need a gun you've already messed up. Even so, that is no reason to deny gun ownership to the millions of responsible people who have legitimate reasons to want/need a gun. Those reasons definitely include hunting, target shooting, protecting chickens and (among many other reason) security. I don't know of a single person in my close circle of friends that doesn't have a gun in the house and not one of them believes that makes for the ultimate security system, but if it adds a layer of security without adding a false sense of security then that person should buy a gun. It is possible to not get sucked into the Hollywood glorification of a relatively simple tool.
Must be a Eugene-thing, but I have never seen anyone walking around with a gun that I could see. I have a good friend who is retired from the police force. He keeps his permit up to date with ongoing trainings and is allowed to carry a concealed weapon, although I have not seem him do so. Our families camp together often and I suppose he brings his gun camping, I've never thought to ask.
Do you have killer raccoons bae? :0
Yes, raccoons here will devour the entire flock in short order, if the mink don't get them first.
Of course people who carry guns will always have what sounds like a very good reason to them.
So your original post was not in fact an honest attempt to develop understanding and engage in dialog? Discounting the experiences and circumstances of others, and disparaging their motives seems to be the order of the day instead. So noted.
One poster here carries, wonder if she'll show up to talk about her reasons.
"Are you talkin' to me?" Are you talkin' to me?" OK so I'm not Robert DeNiro :confused:
The Storyteller
1-12-11, 5:09pm
Yes, raccoons here will devour the entire flock in short order,
You have unusual raccoons. Most just kill everything they can get their cute little hands on and then eat maybe half of one.
But I think CathyA is well aware of the damage a raccoon can do.
Haven't read all the threads yet but I am an anti-hunting vegan gun toting woman. I have been carrying a gun for more than 30 years and truthfully feel neKkid without it. And no, I wasn't abused as a child :-)! I began carrying a weapon while in the Coast Guard and have done so ever since. I have several weapons (shotguns, rifles, and several handguns - all loaded) at home as well as a small pistol (Beretta .380) that I carry in my little knapsack. I carry it with me for personal protection - like when travelling alone alot, camping alone, car breaking down in a remote area, etc... not to ward off would-be terrorists or unibombers. It's just something that makes me feel safer and gives me a greater freedom to do things out in the great wide world alone. My sister, who was armed security for a very large aerospace defense government contractor, also has several weapins and carries a loaded gun too. Again, she wasn't abused as a kid ;-)! Instead of Tupperware parties, we have gun cleaning parties!
Lindi - You're scaring me!! :~)
Peace
Lindi - You're scaring me!! :~)
Peace
Ha! Once a guy I was dating stopped by the house and my sister and I had all our weapons stripped down on the dining room table cleaning them. Probably about 8 handguns. Poor guy ran for his life :D! Her new job entails carrying an M-16 - just like big sis (moi) use to have. I was also a gunnar on both a .50 & .60 Cal machine gun. Fun!!
I would like to add that it seems most people here think that we are all locked and loaded and waiting for the show down. That's not always true. I usually don't have a round chambered in in my pistol and, even though I'm fast, it would take me a bit to get the gun out of my knapsack, chamber a round and fire. It's not fcarried for immediate self protection purposes, it's for persoanl protection in the advent of something going wrong. For instance, the other day I got a flat on the highway and the first thing I did before I stepped out of my car to change the tire was to get my gun, chamber a round, put on the safety and tuck it into my jeans. While I was changing the tire, several men (way bigger than me) stopped and asked if I need ed help. Just having the gun - weather I chose to change the tire myself (late at night in the dark I might add) or wait in my car for AAA, ghave me HUGE peace of mind. Of course I'm professionally trained and spend lots of time at the range - even re-load my own rounds - so am completely comfortable with any weapon. It's like wearing a safety belt to me - I can't feel comfortable driving unless I have it on and I feel very uncomfortable without fairly close access to a loaded weapon.
I don't feel the need to carry a gun because I live in a relatively safe place. I do love to visit the range and shoot targets though. It's a very addictive sport.
Ha! Once a guy I was dating stopped by the house and my sister and I had all our weapons stripped down on the dining room table cleaning them. Probably about 8 handguns. Poor guy ran for his life
Once had a very similar meeting with a guy who wanted to date DD#1. I was cleaning up after trap shooting with the full intention of putting things away before he came in. He pulled up and honked and thought DD would dome running. Bad move. It was a single date romance.
bae......wrong. I was sincerely interested in why people feel the need to carry a gun. That doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
You must free-range your chickens. Mine would all be dead with a few days if I free-ranged them. A good secure coop/run is what I use. Although I did lose 2 to a coon last summer. After which time I added fencing to the top of the 6 and 1/2 foot high run, instead of just 2 layers of netting. If a person really wants their chickensllivestock to survive, they have to outsmart the predators. You can't sit there 24 hours a day with your gun.
My coop is like a bank vault. It opens into the garden, which is fenced 8 feet high, to keep the locust-like deer out. The garden opens onto the main part of the property, which has a 6 foot wooden fence around much of it. The property adjoins a forest, a wetlands, and the ocean. I have an Australian Shepherd dog that thinks the chickens are some form of mutant sheep, and will work the flock and round it up when it is time to put it back in the garden or coop. The chickens are secure at night.
However, the population density is so low, and the habitat so favorable, that predators that are normally stealthy and nocturnal will strike here during the day. Even with a dog handy. I don't sit in a tower 24 hours a day with a sniper rifle and night vision gear waiting for raccoons. But when I'm out working during the day, if I see one, it's a hat shortly thereafter. There are no predators for raccoons here really, and lots of food, so they get completely out of control.
Raccoons are a real PITA. They are so vicious and determined. I would fear minks and weasels more though. Fortunately, they're not real common around here. I knew a guy who lost 50 pullets to a weasel. They like to kill just to kill.....but then coons do too.
I volunteer at the state park near us Calaveras Big Trees State Park). This past fall I was volunteering in the visitors center and a young couple comes in the wife is pregnant. He ask me if it is ok to carry a gun on the North Grove trail. I advised him he could not and it is against state park regulations to have a gun in the park.
This young man probably in his late 20s or early 30s was actually afraid for his wife and himself. He asked me about wild animals on the trail. I advised him there are few vicious squirrels and an occasional black bear. Most people want to see a bear. There were hundreds of people on the trail that day. I totally get you! And thank you for being a volunteer! You are too :cool: :cool: :cool:
Unfortunately, as people watch too much TV, they hear more and more attacks by bears, cougars (mountain lions), and rattlesnakes. Therefore, they feel there is a need to have a gun to "protect" themselves. Only trouble is, they do things that if they had paid attention to the rangers and volunteers, there would be no need to "protect" themselves with a gun.
Most often when hiking in national parks, Bureau of Land Management areas, Forest Service forests, and other places, you take precautions. If you are in bear country, you make noises, which scare away the bears. If you are in cat country, you make noises to scare away the cats. Bears, look small and be a ball, cats look big but don't run. And Rattlesnakes, be careful where you walk.
But in most instances, especially with cats - cougars, mountain lions, etc., it would be too late by the time you got your gun out of the holster, took off the safety, and loaded up. The cat would be upon you and going for your neck. But most often, cats are so unbelievably elusive, most park rangers do not ever see one.
Regarding bears:
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner - No charges filed in Denali grizzly bear shooting (http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/8939745/article-No-charges-filed-in-Denali-grizzly-bear-shooting?)
Regarding cats:
Read all the way down Please! (http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html)
Maybe your trail is more public or less removed, but wilderness trails are probably the place I carry a gun more than any other. Once you are down the trail there is no cop you can call but there still could be bad people or a wildlife problem.
The trail is not any more or less than most trails. While hiking along a trail during the day, the possibility of coming under attack by wildlife is much less than you think. You are in more danger getting into a car and driving to the park than you are to get attacked by a person or an animal in that park.
My understanding is that roughly half the households in the USA have at least one firearm, and that there are ~300 million firearms in private hands in this country.
Actually: From Just Facts (http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.
* Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.
* Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:
Households With a Gun
40-45%
47-53 million
Adults Owning a Gun
30-34%
70-80 million
Adults Owning a Handgun
17-19%
40-45 million
So not really half. Adults owning a gun is only between 30-34% - which is interesting, so that Children must be the other 10-11%?
I did not read the entire website, but the graphs in the beginning, and the polls done, were interesting too.
JaneV2.0 - so true what the biologist said, but again it goes back to the fear of animals attacking (Isn't there a show called exactly that?)
Gregg:
Although (as Dharma Bum said) carrying a gun on a wilderness trail may make some sense no it does not, still does not make sense, as stated above and before.
I said "roughly half the households" and "~300 million firearms", which the data you quoted seems to support just fine.
Especially in the context of trying to understand what "most" means.
Dharma Bum
1-12-11, 9:58pm
When I am driving to the park I wear my seatbelt and have insurance even though the odds are I will not get in an accident. "Odds are" statements are irrelevant. I have had two occasions where it made sense. The first time my dog and I were stalked by a coyote in broad daylight. It would not retreat in the face of loud noises and came within a couple dozen yards of us in an aggressive posture when we tried to retreat. It wasn't until I fired a warring shot that it fled. That's not normal behavior and I probably should have shot it for rabies or to prevent other attacks. The second time I had to withdraw my family from a campsite due to the drunks that were harassing us. We were off the cell phone grid. There was no cop to call. The only thing between the half dozen drunk rednecks busting bottles and yelling crude things at my girls was me. We made it out without with only a dent to my truck but its still better to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun even though I could (AZ no longer has a permit necessity to carry a firearm). My MIL has a permit, and does. She is afraid that she might be a target because she's a single older woman and I can understand her fear. However, my logical voice says "what if it came to that?" If you aren't in your own home and someone winds up dead there are going to be legal questions. I suppose if I were fearful I would carry a gun, but "aim to maim" outside of my house. In my own house I would aim to kill, simply because the evidence would be more obvious if a stranger were in my house and also because someone injured in my house, even by my hand in the course of trying to get them to leave, would then have the potential to sue me. A dead person would not have that potential. Sad, but true as far as I know.
I am not particularly concerned with bears when hiking, except in parts of Alaska and Canada. I used to own property in Northern California that was infested with human-acclimated bears (aka "mugger bears"), and found that understanding their behaviour and modifying my own allowed us to coexist peacefully. I have been in parts of the world where bears and other large carnivores were way ahead of me on the food chain, however, and took appropriate precautions.
I *am* concerned with other humans when hiking, especially on trails in areas far from law enforcement. It is unclear to me how a park volunteer in such an area is going to be able to help me out when I come across a two-legged predator.
Well, bae, while as a park ranger or as a volunteer, I am more likely to help you if you had a medical emergency more than anything. I carry extra water, food, and medical supplies. I carry a radio, which sometimes works :laff: and a cell phone, again which sometimes works ;)
I do agree that it is better to be prepared on your own especially when in remote areas. Parts of Canyonlands where I worked, it was a good 6 to 8 hours of hiking before you got back to the trailhead, while most trails were overnight ones. While the park tries to have as many people hitting the trail as possible - most of the description of a park ranger is to ROVE, it is not always possible. That is why education is important, educating people on being prepared and understanding what is out there.
Lots of hikers are not prepared: don't have the water or the nutrients to keep them going on the hike. The guy I saw on the trail was not prepared for a long hike, only had less than a liter of water for two people and four dogs, was wearing tennis shoes, and a leather jacket. While the temperature was cool, those types of gear are not really suitable for the rocky terrain that they would have experienced. However, I believe they turned around before it got too bad, but I can only guess if that was true.
Regarding how I would help out in the case of a two-legged predator. I think, and I could of course be wrong, when people even see a volunteer, who is in uniform, out on the trails, there is a sense of calmness, a sense of everything is OK. It is kind of hard to describe, but when people see hikers on the trail, there is a suspicion of strangers. But when there is a person in uniform, volunteer or ranger, the suspicion is gone and is replaced by general thoughtfulness and good humor. I am often thanked by people who are on the trail, just because I answer their questions.
http://www.aldha.org/murders.htm - Julianne Williams and Lollie Winans didn't have such a good hike.
Quite locally, in 2006, Mary Cooper and her daughter, Susanna Stodden were murdered along the Pinnacle Lake Trail in Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest.
Anytime we go out as a family to pick berries or mushrooms, my husband brings a rifle. We've had one too many experiences/happenings with bears, both grizzly and black, and although (at the time) everything happens so fast, knowing my husband is armed and is an experienced hunter calms the moment. I'm able to relax more knowing we have protection. Last year combined with the year before (in our area) have been the worst for attacks, maulings, and deaths related to bears.
Bae. What part of Canada have you visited? Do you ever come up this way to hunt? (Kootenay Country).
Bae. What part of Canada have you visited? Do you ever come up this way to hunt? (Kootenay Country).
I go to Victoria and the Gulf Islands more often than I go to the US mainland. I go up the BC coast a lot, and to mainland BC, the Yukon, the NWT, and Nunavut. Lovely places - I adore the Arctic. And some areas you surely need to be bear-aware, and perhaps even loaded for bear, as they say :-) I don't hunt in Canada, though much fishing happens.
And contrary to what many Americans think, the Canadian government is quite reasonable about allowing you to bring in many sorts of firearms, if you do the proper paperwork, and they are pleasant and helpful with it.
iris lily
1-13-11, 10:04am
"Are you talkin' to me?" Are you talkin' to me?" OK so I'm not Robert DeNiro :confused:
yup it were you I was thinking of.:cool:
In our business we often have to take two forms of ID for the banks. Probably our 2nd most popular form of ID is a concealed weapons permit.
Years ago a man killed another man at a local Carl's Jr. (It was a father who killed a drug dealer who had threatened his daughter). Several people pulled out weapons when this went down - my wife later commented are we the only ones who don't go for fast food without a gun?!
Poco Pelo
1-13-11, 12:29pm
I'm not sure this post belongs here, but here goes.....
After reading the thread on the Tuscon shootings, and the response by Alan and bae, who carry a gun around all the time.......It makes me wonder why? Have you two (and others) ever had an experience where you needed a gun?
Do you live in a high crime area? Were you involved in a crime against you before you owned a gun? Are there grizzly bears where you live? No police protection in your area? Just curious what has made you think you need that kind of protection.
And please don't take this question the wrong way..........were you abused as a child?
I'm trying to understand what makes people think they need that kind of protection.
i have a short and simple answer...... Guns save lives ! http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm
Plain and simple. you don't have to like it but you are much safer where people have guns than where people do not. If you fear for your safety, perhaps you should fear being in a car. That is the leading case of death in america, but no one thinks twice about that.
I think about cars alot, and find the fact that anyone can drive a car very frightening too.
I think with this gun issue..........east is east and west is west and ne'r shall the twain meet. We all have what we feel to be reasonable feelings on this topic.
[QUOTE=Dharma Bum;3506]When I am driving to the park I wear my seatbelt and have insurance even though the odds are I will not get in an accident. "Odds are" statements are irrelevant. QUOTE]
Agreed. I have never been in an car accident in the 30 plus years I've been driving - probably never will be. But I still wear my seat belt, and I want a car with air bags and as much safety features as I can afford. I want to FEEL safe even if the possibility of an accident happining is small or nil. And more importantly, I want the freedom that a car gives me. The ability to go where ever I want, when I want, without having to fear for my safety. Does that mean I am not a cautious driver because I wear a seat belt and have air bags? Does that mean I don't pay attention to what I'm doing because I feel safer? No. I am as vigilant of a driver - maybe more vigilant - than if I didn't wear my seat belt or have other safety features on my car. Accidents still happen - I'm sure way more deadly car accidents happen than firearms accident.
So the same goes with carrying a handgun. Nothing has ever happened in the 30 plus years I've been carrying a firearm that required me to use it except while in the service. Nothing will probably ever happen. But I FEEL safer. And, more importantly, I feel a much greater sense of freedom to go about my life without fear of my car breaking down on some deserted road, miles from the nearest town and no cell phone coverage. I feel more freedom to go off hiking alone in remote areas without the worry of meeting up with some guys out of "Deliverence" (I carry a different gun for hiking (sorry Laura ;)) that I have instance access too and has no safety and is fully loaded in a specially made "gun" holster fanny pack), to travel cross country alone, or sleep alone in my tent in some off season and fairly vacant campground or scanky motel. So many people I know (and most women) will absolutely not do those things alone because of fear of attack. That fear to live your life fully, to go and do whatever you want alone, is much more restrictive and confining then any extra caution I may take to protect myself. I don't want to have to huddle in my broken down car or walk miles to get cell reception on some dark desert highway hoping that the persons who stops isn't going to drag me out of my car and throw me into theirs. Carrying a weapon for self protection is about freedom from fear - not because of fear and having one doesn't mean you are any less vigilant about your safety than you would be without one. More vigilant IMHO.
edditted to add: While I don't carry a gun while hiking to protect my self from wildlife (just those "Deliverence" boys :-)!), I doid carry one for that purpose when I lived in Alaska even though I took all the anti-bear precautions Laura mentioned. However, I like having a weapon on me to protect from wildlife (lions and tigars and bears, oh my) in the event I get hurt on the trail and need to hole up somewhere waiting for help. Nice to have some protection from the local critters then - and those pesky CHUD (cannibalistic humaniod underground dwellers)
We all have what we feel to be reasonable feelings on this topic.
Some have feelings. Some have data and experience.
Some people "reason" with their emotions. Some people use their intellect.
This is probably why there won't ever be agreement.
If you aren't in your own home and someone winds up dead there are going to be legal questions.
I think I'd rather be the person left behind to deal with the legal issues rather than the dead person :)!
One thing I'd like to add, as per my post above, since Rosie brought up the fact that her MIL carried a gun because she's a single woman I wonder how many single women here refuse to do things (like drive long distances or hike, etc..) alone because of fear of attack. I think women alone ARE more likely to be targets because we are seen as weaker, and many men never think of woman as armed (generalizing here). With the exception of my sister, who is also armed, I don't know of any of my female friends who will do anything alone - even take a vacation - out of fear. I find that to be a very restrictive way to live one's life. How many people here have daughters they would feel comfortable driving cross country alone or hiking alone without another person with them? I know my Mom, who absolutely hated and feared guns and hated that my sister and I carried them for our jobs, was always much more comfortable knowing that if our cars broke down that we could protect ourselves. I think if I had a daughter (or a son) who was out doing things alone in the world, I would want to know that they had the means to protect themselves.
I have several firearms but choose not to carry a concealed weapon. That being said, I appreciate the right to carry one if I feel the need to do so and will probably get a CCW permit to give me that freedom. I'm also not intimidated by other law abiding citizens who choose to carry a firearm.
That being said, to those that are advocating additional restrictions - How do you explain what is going on in Mexico? Gun ownership is much more restrictive there yet violence (including gun violence) is much worse. The criminals in Mexico are obviously unconcerned about gun laws but the ordinary citizen is left largely defenseless. It's the perfect example of if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
bae....oh, so now those of us who don't like to use guns are just emotional, and those of you who do, are the ones with the intellect??
loosechickens
1-13-11, 4:42pm
"That being said, to those that are advocating additional restrictions - How do you explain what is going on in Mexico? Gun ownership is much more restrictive there yet violence (including gun violence) is much worse. The criminals in Mexico are obviously unconcerned about gun laws but the ordinary citizen is left largely defenseless. It's the perfect example of if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." (Midwest)
-----------------------------------------------------
well, Mexico is not really a good example, if for no other reason than the flood of guns into Mexico is coming from.....guess where? Drugs coming north to a hungry market in the U.S. , guns going south from the U.S. to a hungry market of gangs who are engaged really in a not so covert civil war with the corrupt Mexican government, as well as large numbers of Mexican citizens buying illegal guns because of the kidnappings and violence. Lots of layers of complexities in this problem, but not a good example of "having tough gun laws, but......".
The same smugglers who come north with people and drugs, go south with large numbers of weapons and ammunition. Mexico suffers not only from a corrupt government, a border with virtually the highest income inequality on either side as anywhere in the world, a virtual civil war going on between that government and the drug cartels for control of the country, exploitation by the U.S. corporations in league with that corrupt Mexican government, A NAFTA agreement that enriched U.S. corporations and the wealthiest among Mexicans, but dealt terrible blows to small Mexican farmers, peasants and others, widespread poverty, control by a small number of wealthy, powerful families, large numbers of really poor citizens, a slowly disappearing and small to begin with middle class,......etc. You could write a book on the problems. But, arguable, it may be that Mexico's BIGGEST problem is its proximity to the United States and their dealings with us, most of which have reverberated against the ordinary people in Mexico.
bae....oh, so now those of us who don't like to use guns are just emotional, and those of you who do, are the ones with the intellect??
That's not what I said, now is it?
The Storyteller
1-13-11, 6:04pm
I reckon it's fear for the most part.
This discussion has pretty much proved I'm right about that, I think.
This discussion has pretty much proved I'm right about that, I think.
How so?
Seems to me you were intimating that. But I don't want to argue with you.
"That being said, to those that are advocating additional restrictions - How do you explain what is going on in Mexico? Gun ownership is much more restrictive there yet violence (including gun violence) is much worse. The criminals in Mexico are obviously unconcerned about gun laws but the ordinary citizen is left largely defenseless. It's the perfect example of if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." (Midwest)
-----------------------------------------------------
well, Mexico is not really a good example, if for no other reason than the flood of guns into Mexico is coming from.....guess where? Drugs coming north to a hungry market in the U.S. , guns going south from the U.S. to a hungry market of gangs who are engaged really in a not so covert civil war with the corrupt Mexican government, as well as large numbers of Mexican citizens buying illegal guns because of the kidnappings and violence. Lots of layers of complexities in this problem, but not a good example of "having tough gun laws, but......".
The same smugglers who come north with people and drugs, go south with large numbers of weapons and ammunition. Mexico suffers not only from a corrupt government, a border with virtually the highest income inequality on either side as anywhere in the world, a virtual civil war going on between that government and the drug cartels for control of the country, exploitation by the U.S. corporations in league with that corrupt Mexican government, A NAFTA agreement that enriched U.S. corporations and the wealthiest among Mexicans, but dealt terrible blows to small Mexican farmers, peasants and others, widespread poverty, control by a small number of wealthy, powerful families, large numbers of really poor citizens, a slowly disappearing and small to begin with middle class,......etc. You could write a book on the problems. But, arguable, it may be that Mexico's BIGGEST problem is its proximity to the United States and their dealings with us, most of which have reverberated against the ordinary people in Mexico.
We have drug prohibition that isn't working and Mexico has gun prohibition that isn't working so the answer is more prohibition? Granted Mexico has other problems, but their gun prohibition has done virtually nothing to stop the criminals from obtaining firearms (who are already breaking the law by buying and smuggling them into Mexico). From my perspective, Mexico is a perfect examples of why gun prohibition won't work in the US.
The big arrests I've seen covered in the Mexican media show vast spreads of fully-automatic weapons, grenades, RPG launchers and projectiles, and all sorts of other goodies that just aren't available at the average US gun show, or gun store, or over the average American kitchen table. Those things are for the most part heavily regulated or outright forbidden here in the US.
They are however available dirt cheap on the black markets, or from government sources, in countries immediately to the south of Mexico. I bet if you snuck an AK-47 into the middle of a shipping pallet of cocaine, nobody would notice as it was heading North....
In terms of the shooting, I can't imagine a good turnout if a shot rang out in the crowd and then all of a sudden a number of weapons were drawn by civilians. What do the police do - wait and see which one (if they assume it's one) is obviously the shooter or take out everyone holding a gun? Even worse if all the people with drawn weapons are doing the same and multiple people are shooting. The amount of colateral damage could be huge.
I'm not saying guns should be illegal or people not allowed to carry. In a number of scenarios described it's not a bad idea. But I think there would be a down side if a lot of people carried a weapon.
loosechickens
1-13-11, 10:47pm
Well, both the U.S. and Mexican governments agree that large numbers of arms, and lots of ammunition are flowing into Mexico from the U.S., but I'm sure there are some coming north from Central America as well. Some definitely have been "liberated" from the Mexican military to the drug cartels, and there has been some evidence of U.S. military materiel having found its way into the black market as well.
The stuff that is "heavily regulated" and "outright forbidden" here in the U.S. is somewhat readily available here as well, as many gun aficianados know.
I am not a person who believes that prohibition in anything really works well, whether it is alcohol, drugs, firearms or abortion. I'd like to see the level of generalized fear in this country reduced, because I think as a population, we are amazingly fearful, far out of proportion to the real danger, of "the other", crime and random violence.
Most people in this country, unless they live in the inner city or very high crime areas will go their entire lives without being affected personally by random violence, and like fears of child molestation, our fears often are in the wrong direction, against the wrong people, while ignoring very real dangers far closer to home.
This is no different. Just as you are statistically more likely to be killed on your way to the grocery store in your automobile than you are flying cross country on an airline, you are far more likely to die by violence from someone in your own family or among your acquaintances than you are to be the object of violence from a stranger.
Perceived dangers and real dangers, and our assessment of them is often very much at fault, and it's my belief that people have a level of fear and anxiety that leads them to feel they "need" weapons, that is often way out of proportion to any real dangers they may ever face. JMHO.
I think I'd rather be the person left behind to deal with the legal issues rather than the dead person :)!
One thing I'd like to add, as per my post above, since Rosie brought up the fact that her MIL carried a gun because she's a single woman I wonder how many single women here refuse to do things (like drive long distances or hike, etc..) alone because of fear of attack. I think women alone ARE more likely to be targets because we are seen as weaker, and many men never think of woman as armed (generalizing here). With the exception of my sister, who is also armed, I don't know of any of my female friends who will do anything alone - even take a vacation - out of fear. I find that to be a very restrictive way to live one's life. How many people here have daughters they would feel comfortable driving cross country alone or hiking alone without another person with them? I know my Mom, who absolutely hated and feared guns and hated that my sister and I carried them for our jobs, was always much more comfortable knowing that if our cars broke down that we could protect ourselves. I think if I had a daughter (or a son) who was out doing things alone in the world, I would want to know that they had the means to protect themselves.
Interesting. I did go hiking alone last weekend with just the dog (who weights all of 20 lbs and would more likely lick someone to death than anything else). I was fearful of two things: 1) running out of sunlight on the drive out since that would increase the chances of hitting a deer or wild pig and 2) having something happen to the car since it was a so-so dirt road with water running across it in places. I probably wouldn't want the extra weight of a firearm when hiking, though I might consider it on some trails. Especially ones near Mexico which have signs about illegal smugglers at the trailhead. I can see where a well-trained, well-armed woman would have confidence that would likely make her less of a target in the first place so the gun would be useful in that respect. I wouldn't consider myself well-trained in firearms though, and that's where I'd like AZ to have a little bit stronger requirements. Only an unacceptable level of gun restriction would keep the Loughners of the world from their sick missions, but I think a small requirement of some amount of education when purchasing or carrying a firearm isn't onerous and would probably save lives from accidental gunshot wounds. After all, there are requirements for fencing around pools in Phoenix because pools kill children more often than guns do. Nobody thinks this is a huge problem, even though the cost of installing and maintaining a fence has got to be more than what it takes in many states for a carry permit and associated class. The hunter safety class in Phoenix is somewhere on the order of $15 and can be taken all online except for the field part that involves safely loading, unloading and shooting a firearm. To compare, a driver's license in Phoenix for an adult costs $25; not sure what any of the classes cost. I do think it's interesting that the arguments are always "criminals don't bother to get permits for guns so why should law-abiding citizens have to?" Criminals also don't license or insure their vehicles but that doesn't mean nobody should be required to. If it has the potential to kill relatively easily, some amount of education/competence is probably a good idea.
I have several firearms, most of which are vestiges of my hunting days. In addition to my hunter safey certification I have several NRA achievements in marksmanship and additional gun safety training. One of my weapons is stored near my front entrance and this gives me the illusion of security if not more. That said, if you watch the news of gun owners who have actually used their weapons against intruders or for personal protection, I'd give a rough estimate of a 50/50 chance of the average person making the right call vs. the wrong one. The wrong call is one a person may regret for a lifetime. I've often wondered, given the circumstances, which camp I would fall into. There are a few European countries that require military service at a certain age for all males and at the end of their service they are allowed their service weapons. I can see the value of gun ownership in general and with proper training beyond a short course.
However, there are a number of gun types and modifications that really don't have a functional place in our modern society. I'd include rifles and pistols with extended magazines and certain assault type weapons. These are not the types of weapons that the average person would need for home or personal protection. I see two types of use for these types of weapons. One would be just incase "it all come down" and you need to protect your home and food against foreign invaders, terroists, or mass hysteria. This is a romantically appealing notion, but realistically, this has extremely low odds of happening. Or in my words, it just ain't going to happen. Unfortunately I think this is the sort of thing the writers of the constitution had in mind a couple of hundred years ago. This is an outdated notion. The other function is criminal acts. If you look back to the recent mass slayings and major gangland type crimes, these are the weapons of choice. I see little value for the common law abiding person to have these types of arms. IMHO there really needs to be further restictions on the types of firearms and accessories that are legal. Or additional and more extensive training in law enforcement type use.
It's really not a yes or no type question, but one that need more refinement.
The stuff that is "heavily regulated" and "outright forbidden" here in the U.S. is somewhat readily available here as well, as many gun aficianados know.
I was unaware of the fact that these sorts of things are readily available. That's because you're making that part up.
I live in the Seattle area. Please point me to a spot where I can go and purchase a selective-fire AK-47, or an RPG, or heck, even a case of grenades, with cash. You can't, at least, not a place any normal person could wander into who was not a member of certain invitation-only criminal organizations that engage in import/export businesses....
It's against Federal and State law to traffic in such things, or possess them, without the proper licenses, background checks, and paperwork, and it's very restrictive.
I own several items that require such paperwork, and it was loony expensive, time-consuming, and cumbersome to go through the process, and ran me tens of thousands of dollars. I cannot just go to some dark street corner in Tacoma and pick up an AK-47. Nor can "many gun aficianados".
People are simply not sneaking into the US from Mexico, buying these weapons, and smuggling them back, when they can get them far easier, cheaper, and with less risk from other, unregulated (and in some cases sponsored) non-US sources.
Read the reports concerning US-origined weapons in Mexico quite carefully. Those are weapons which the Mexican government decided had a likely chance of being traced, so they bothered to send a trace request into the BATF. Probably because they said "made in USA" on the side of them, or were an American brand. It stands to reason that most of the "made in USA" weapons would have had a US origin, thus the high positive rate. However, the number of traced items, compared to the overall population of firearms, is quite small. AK-47s for the most part are not made here, and essentially no selective-fire ones are made here or imported. RPG rockets are not manufactured in the USA. Soviet-bloc grenades are not manufactured in the USA. Etc.
flowerseverywhere
1-14-11, 8:36am
this has been one of the most enlightening discussions I have ever read- especially about laws and reasons for carrying. Some of you must live in very unsafe areas because I have no qualms about being out and about or living in my area with no guns.
I have worked in areas where I needed a gun. I traveled late at night and carried a pistol for several years. This does not mean I enjoyed it, I have always been afraid of them. I just had it in case I broke down and had to defend myself. I guess most of us are afraid of guns, mine are locked in a cabinet and I hope I never have to get one out.
loosechickens
1-14-11, 12:57pm
Originally Posted by loosechickens
The stuff that is "heavily regulated" and "outright forbidden" here in the U.S. is somewhat readily available here as well, as many gun aficianados know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was unaware of the fact that these sorts of things are readily available. That's because you're making that part up.
I live in the Seattle area. Please point me to a spot where I can go and purchase a selective-fire AK-47, or an RPG, or heck, even a case of grenades, with cash. You can't, at least, not a place any normal person could wander into who was not a member of certain invitation-only criminal organizations that engage in import/export businesses....
It's against Federal and State law to traffic in such things, or possess them, without the proper licenses, background checks, and paperwork, and it's very restrictive. (bae)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm most certainly NOT making it up, bae........the cellmate of someone I correspond with in Federal prison is there for trafficking in machine guns. (After having had a relative serve time in a Federal prison, I correspond with some who have no family and welcome having a penpal of sorts to write to.)
Of course I'm not talking about ordinary "gun aficianados" being able to walk out on the street corner and buy such things. I meant (and you know it), that they KNOW that such things can be bought.
And guess what? WHO is it that I am talking about who is dealing in and purchasing them? Yep. The folks who are in places where ordinary people wouldn't wander into, and people who are members of criminal enterprises engaged in such "import/export business".......the drug cartels.
give me a break........next to these folks, you're like some dickeybird guy with a target pistol that you plink with on occasion. But they are out there, believe me. And trafficking in some very big weaponry. And engaged in civil war to decide whether the Mexican government is going to control Mexico or if the drug cartels are. It's very serious business.
So then, not "readily available" in the sense that a normal, law-abiding "gun aficianado" could simply purchase these items through normal, readily accessible retail channels while complying with the law?
Got it. Words mean what *you* want them to mean, and to imply.
I guess most of us are afraid of guns
I've always found the idea of being afraid of a gun sort of odd. To go back to the car analogy, I'd be more afraid of a 3,000 lb SUV doing 75 down the freeway blowing a tire or the driver losing control than I would be of a small piece of metal with a tiny bullet in it that - for most people - isn't a very accurate killiong machine. But every day millions of people get in their cars, put their kids in it, drive down the freeway at breakneck speed - often with millions of other drivers doing the same as well as yapping on their cell phones, eating their lunch, reading, watching TV, putting on their make-up, drunk - and are completely unafraid.
This discussion has pretty much proved I'm right about that, I think.
There is a big difference between fearing something and wanting to be safe IMHO. I don't fear driving my car (and I should - I'm in SoCal :0) but I want to make driving as safe as I possibly can.
ApatheticNoMore
1-14-11, 1:38pm
You are right of course about the relative dangers. I don't much fear violent crime, cars kill far more.
What I do fear though is MYSELF with a gun. :0
Originally Posted by loosechickens
The stuff that is "heavily regulated" and "outright forbidden" here in the U.S. is somewhat readily available here as well, as many gun aficianados know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was unaware of the fact that these sorts of things are readily available. That's because you're making that part up.
I live in the Seattle area. Please point me to a spot where I can go and purchase a selective-fire AK-47, or an RPG, or heck, even a case of grenades, with cash. You can't, at least, not a place any normal person could wander into who was not a member of certain invitation-only criminal organizations that engage in import/export businesses....
It's against Federal and State law to traffic in such things, or possess them, without the proper licenses, background checks, and paperwork, and it's very restrictive. (bae)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm most certainly NOT making it up, bae........the cellmate of someone I correspond with in Federal prison is there for trafficking in machine guns. (After having had a relative serve time in a Federal prison, I correspond with some who have no family and welcome having a penpal of sorts to write to.)
Of course I'm not talking about ordinary "gun aficianados" being able to walk out on the street corner and buy such things. I meant (and you know it), that they KNOW that such things can be bought.
And guess what? WHO is it that I am talking about who is dealing in and purchasing them? Yep. The folks who are in places where ordinary people wouldn't wander into, and people who are members of criminal enterprises engaged in such "import/export business".......the drug cartels.
give me a break........next to these folks, you're like some dickeybird guy with a target pistol that you plink with on occasion. But they are out there, believe me. And trafficking in some very big weaponry. And engaged in civil war to decide whether the Mexican government is going to control Mexico or if the drug cartels are. It's very serious business.
To summarize, guns are very regulated in Mexico but criminals still have them. Automatic weapons are very regulated in the US but criminals still have them them. Law abiding citizens have less firepower than criminals already due to restrictive laws. Based on that, it would seem unreasonable to pass more restrictive gun laws against law abiding citizens (BTW - I'm fine with running a criminal background as we currently do when purchasing thru a FFL).
Interesting. I did go hiking alone last weekend with just the dog (who weights all of 20 lbs and would more likely lick someone to death than anything else). I was fearful of two things: 1) running out of sunlight on the drive out since that would increase the chances of hitting a deer or wild pig and 2) having something happen to the car since it was a so-so dirt road with water running across it in places. I probably wouldn't want the extra weight of a firearm when hiking, though I might consider it on some trails.
Cool, glad to see others hiking out there. DH and i have been on trails that we were running out of daylight, we are SO not used to the sun setting at 4:30! So DH got two headlamps from Target $20 each. They are LED lights, with high and low beams. We tried one of them out last night, OMG worked extremely well! Of course there was a half moon, so it was real easy to see the trail anyway, but we went through two tunnels, so we tried the lights there. If there is a Target near you, I would suggest getting them.
Can't help you with #2 except that you might just want to get out to check the height of the water before you cross.
John Lott's study "More Guns, Less Crime", University of Chicago Press, was just published in the third edition in 2010, bringing the dataset up to 2008. For those of you who are interested in data.
To summarize, guns are very regulated in Mexico but criminals still have them. Automatic weapons are very regulated in the US but criminals still have them them. Law abiding citizens have less firepower than criminals already due to restrictive laws. Based on that, it would seem unreasonable to pass more restrictive gun laws against law abiding citizens.
Very unreasonable indeed, I completely agree.
Eggs and Shrubs
1-14-11, 3:00pm
Is there a causal link between the level of gun ownership in the US and the very high homicide rate?
loosechickens
1-14-11, 3:50pm
I think you make my point, exactly, Midwest. As I've said, on this and many other threads, I do not believe that prohibition is the answer to much of anything, be it guns, alcohol, other drugs, abortion, or anything else. I HAVE talked about the generalized level of fear in this country that in many cases, unless one lives in a very high crime, inner city sort of area, is probably misplaced, that DRIVES people to feel they must be armed to feel safe in going to the grocery store, a women's bible study group, or other ordinary activities and errands.
I, personally, would address the level of generalized anxiety and fear in this country, and our media's and politicians' efforts in ratcheting it up for ratings or political victories, but you won't see me on the side of prohibition, for no other reason than that it doesn't work. A change in our society might work. But unless you address the levels of fear, no prohibition of keeping people from having guns will make the difference.
The subject we started to discuss on this thread was why people feel the necessity to carry a gun, and in the largest number of cases, the answer seems to be because it makes them feel safer. It can be argued that what they have is the illusion of safety, and that the unintended consequences from those guns (domestic violence, children finding and playing with weapons, etc.) may outweigh the benefits of that illusion of safety, but that does seem to be the reason that most feel the need to carry.
Perhaps why I DON'T feel the need to carry is because I have had it brought home to me in very vivid ways that the feeling of "safety" is often an illusion, and in fact, in the two instances where I WAS confronted with a life and death situation, the possession of weaponry would not have helped me at all, and may actually have caused more problems. I'm also a person who does not often feel afraid, and have a low level of generalized fear and/or anxiety, both by personality and by life experience. Others' experiences may vary.
To me, I think societal attitudes toward guns, the level of fear in a population, and lots of other things contribute. But in most cases, I think that statistics lean toward more guns/more violence, but I can't state that as fact. It's just my own feeling. Kind of like "to a hammer, everything is a nail", and when guns are present, they often seem to be seen as the solution to problems.
Is there a causal link between the level of gun ownership in the US and the very high homicide rate?
I expect this would be the answer to your question but it will be interesting to hear from others!!
The core of the gun control debate revolves around 1 fundamental question: is there a correlation between the accessibility of guns and the homicide rate?
The two sides (those in favor of gun control and those who want more gun rights) commonly use gun crime statistics to support their respective arguments. Similar to any good debate, both parties will create, alter, and sift through an assortment of gun crime statistics to support their base.
Gun crime statistics are highly elastic, they are sensitive to change based on cultural influences, economic times, or other abstract circumstances. Restricting gun laws will decrease the murder rate in certain areas, while increasing it in others.
Peace
I'm trying to think why I carry. Like, why I carry to a Bible Study. Am I afraid? Would I go without it? Yes. Would I drive to it without wearing my seatbelt? Yes. Should I put my seatbelt on? Yes, you never know. I've never been in a car accident, not thinking about car accidents when I jump in, put on the belt, turn the key...but what if I got in a car accident (which happen so quick)? Wouldn't I be upset for myself without having took that extra few seconds to put on the seat belt? Same as the Bible Study. I don't expect anything to happen. But what if something did? What if one of the meth users in my small town went crazy and decided to pay back one of us or payback society or whatever a mad gunman does. I don't understand their reasoning. And I seriously don't think anything is going to happen--otherwise I'd never leave my house at all! But if I had a chance to protect myself and my friends, and my children, shouldn't I? Does that make me fearful?
I've been in a car wreck. Luckily I was wearing a seat belt. Now I wear my seat belt whenever I get in the car. It's a law in my state, which really pisses me off, but I won't go without it as a form of protest because I understand the dangers of being at the wrong place at the wrong time and know that belt will help at least reduce the risk. I don't see much difference between my clicking and carrying by most of you here who choose to do so.
I'm trying to think why I carry. Like, why I carry to a Bible Study. Am I afraid? Would I go without it? Yes. Would I drive to it without wearing my seatbelt? Yes. Should I put my seatbelt on? Yes, you never know. I've never been in a car accident, not thinking about car accidents when I jump in, put on the belt, turn the key...but what if I got in a car accident (which happen so quick)? Wouldn't I be upset for myself without having took that extra few seconds to put on the seat belt? Same as the Bible Study. I don't expect anything to happen. But what if something did?
Bible Study - really? I think you would be more like most of my neighbors, they simply put their handgun in the console of their truck (yes, we all drive trucks in Texas) Where ever you go you've got that feeling of "control".
What if one of the meth users in my small town went crazy and decided to pay back one of us or payback society or whatever a mad gunman does. I don't understand their reasoning. And I seriously don't think anything is going to happen--otherwise I'd never leave my house at all! But if I had a chance to protect myself and my friends, and my children, shouldn't I? Does that make me fearful?I do think it makes you fearful but now really that extreme. Meth, payback society, mad gunman - now that makes me think you have a mental image of the threat. I have the same image of conservatives everyday as I take my walk - they'll run me down, they'll think I'm nuts, they'll throw a bible at me.
I think you are comfortable with your actions and don't see it as an issue. Be careful out there!!!
Peace
I've been in a car wreck. Luckily I was wearing a seat belt. Now I wear my seat belt whenever I get in the car.
I wear seat belts. I buy relatively crash-resistant vehicles. I maintain auto and medical insurance. I attend driver's training classes taught by world-class professionals. This doesn't mean I'm "fearful" of auto crashes. It does mean I'm being as reasonably prudent as I care to be.
I buy fire insurance for my home. I spend a lot of time and money clearing brush, removing waste, maintaining trees, keeping firefighting equipment on-hand, having evacuation plans and options, and making my home somewhat able to survive a wildfire, because I live in one of the top fire-danger areas of my state. Does that mean I'm fearful of fire? No. I'm simply being as prudent as is consistent with continuing to live here.
I keep backup fuel, food, and water handy, as I'm sometimes without power, and cut off from supplies for a week or more. Does that mean I'm fearful of bad weather? Or simply rationally preparing for a possible, even likely, outcome?
It seems to me the people who are actually fearful here are the ones projecting their own fears and anxieties onto others. ("I'm afraid it would be taken away from me. I'm afraid I'd shoot the wrong person. I'm afraid of domestic violence, or my child getting shot by my gun. I'm afraid of Conservatives. I'm....afraid.") Those who have responded with rational explanations for why they choose to be prepared are having their experiences and judgement belittled. I wonder why that is?
I will give a simple recent personal example. Recently, my community was the victim of a serial burglar/home invader, who received international attention. He was hiding in vacant homes and in the forest. He crashed several planes here, and stole several planes/boats. He crashed one of the planes perhaps 500 yards from my mother's home. He broke into the businesses of several of my friends, and into one building that I personally own. He broke into the homes of two of my friends, and lived in each for days-to-weeks. He was considered armed and dangerous.
He one night tried to break into the house immediately adjacent to my mother's. Her dog alerted her to the fact, and chased him off. My mother is ~70 years old. Law enforcement response time in her area, even with regional and federal law enforcement swarming our island with troops, was over 30 minutes. She's in good shape, strong, and experienced with violent people, but the criminal was a huge young man in great shape, and known to be armed and violent. Was she "fearful" to desire to have a loaded weapon handy in her location, or simply prudent?
As I mentioned earlier, some people are motivated by facts, others by emotions. Sometimes knowledge, experience, and education can overcome the emotional response. Sometimes...not.
Me, I'm going to keep fastening my seatbelt, and keep my insurance premiums paid up. And I suspect my Mom is going to keep her carbine handy, so don't go trying to poach her chickens :-)
We have a big meth problem in my tiny little town, and the law enforcement can't (or won't?) do anything about it. So that it is my mind, yes.
We have a big meth problem in my tiny little town, and the law enforcement can't (or won't?) do anything about it. So that it is my mind, yes.
I understand. I've seen stuff about meth on TV but never personally had any experience or seen anyone on it - that I know of. It does sound pretty scary.
Peace
Cool, glad to see others hiking out there. DH and i have been on trails that we were running out of daylight, we are SO not used to the sun setting at 4:30! So DH got two headlamps from Target $20 each. They are LED lights, with high and low beams. We tried one of them out last night, OMG worked extremely well! Of course there was a half moon, so it was real easy to see the trail anyway, but we went through two tunnels, so we tried the lights there. If there is a Target near you, I would suggest getting them.
Can't help you with #2 except that you might just want to get out to check the height of the water before you cross.
Had 2 headlamps, so I was prepared. I was more worried that near dusk more animals become active esp in the desert and thus it becomes more likely to hit one with the car. The water wouldn't go over the tops of my shoes, but I did have to pay some attention to ruts and such in a 2WD vehicle. I brought up the point since those were highly relevant, much more likely things to fear than a random bad guy on the trail against whom I would need a gun. There could be a bad guy but much more likely to hit a deer with the car than that. I wasn't super-fearful or I wouldn't have gone/would have modified my plans. I had told DH where I would be and to expect a call so if the aforementioned had happened, he would have notified the sheriff.
All that said, I don't have a problem with someone sane and reasonably well-educated in gun use carrying if it makes them feel better.
Eggs and Shrubs
1-15-11, 2:39am
Gun crime in Japan is virtually unknown. Gun ownership in Japan is virtually non existent. Surely even Mr Magoo could see a link.
Gun crime in Japan is virtually unknown. Gun ownership in Japan is virtually non existent. Surely even Mr Magoo could see a link.
But if Mr. Magoo was actually interested in what was going on, he'd put on his glasses and dig a bit deeper...
Eggs and Shrubs
1-15-11, 6:20am
I worry about gun crime in the UK although it is only 1/44th of that in the US. Should I be campaigning for the right to bear arms as the only solution to the problem?
flowerseverywhere
1-15-11, 8:19am
Here is an interesting article on gun deaths and an outline of some of the gun laws in the US from The Atlantic. Many things I did not know.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
the article starts
"Terrible tragedies like last week's mass shootings in Tucson cause us to search for deeper answers. Many were quick to blame America's divisive and vitriolic political culture for the violence; others portray the shooter as an unhinged, clinically deranged person with his own unfathomable agenda. Arizona has been ground zero for the battle over immigration. Were the state's political and economic travails a contributing factor? There has been some talk about guns, too. Might tighter gun control laws have made a difference?"
Gun crime in Japan is virtually unknown. Gun ownership in Japan is virtually non existent. Surely even Mr Magoo could see a link.
Rocket ownership in Nauru is virtually non-existent. Space travel in Nauru is virtually unknown... Alright, alright, I'm sorry for being a little snarky with that, but the point is (as bae said) you have to do more than make an automatic assumption. We know DDT caused cancer. DDT use was banned. Cancer hasn't gone away. Obviously that is because there are multiple cancer causing substances in our world just as there are multiple causes for violent behavior beyond simply owning a gun, if that even is a cause.
I worry about gun crime in the UK although it is only 1/44th of that in the US. Should I be campaigning for the right to bear arms as the only solution to the problem?
The homicide rate in the US is 5.0 per 100,000 versus 1.28 in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate. The British homicide rate is markedly lower, but not anywhere near the 1/44 suggested by the gun crime statistics you quoted. Odds of murder in both countries are very low.
In the US, Washington DC has a homicide rate of 23.9 and some of the strictest gun laws in the nation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C. New York city, with strict gun laws (although not as strict as DC) has a homicide rate of 6.3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_New_York_City
I don't know whether you should campaign for looser guns laws or not, but there is a lot more going on with the homicide rate than gun laws. Given the 5 per 100,000 murder rate in the US, I'll take the small additional risk as a trade off for additional freedom as compared to the UK. I have a much higher risk of death in a vehicle accident and don't plan to quit driving. Life is full of risks.
Dharma Bum
1-15-11, 10:50am
Another issue is who is getting shot. Gangbangers and drug dealers capping each other is a problem, but including them in overall stats overstates the risks to the average person.
Eggs and Shrubs
1-15-11, 10:52am
Are all homicides in the UK and US caused by guns? I think not. In fact here is an extract from the Home Office report on crime.
Of the 16,688 murders that occurred in the US in 2005, 11,346 were perpetrated with a gun. That's 68%. Compare that to the UK, where firearms are relatively scarce, and that figure is reduced to just 6.6%
As for the freedom angle. I quite like the idea of freedom from being shot.
Furthermore, my view is shared by those with a direct and regular involvement in crime. A survey of British Police Officers revealed that 56% would resign from the service if they were forced to carry guns on a routine basis.
Are all homicides in the UK and US caused by guns? I think not. In fact here is an extract from the Home Office report on crime.
Of the 16,688 murders that occurred in the US in 2005, 11,346 were perpetrated with a gun. That's 68%. Compare that to the UK, where firearms are relatively scarce, and that figure is reduced to just 6.6%
As for the freedom angle. I quite like the idea of freedom from being shot.
Furthermore, my view is shared by those with a direct and regular involvement in crime. A survey of British Police Officers revealed that 56% would resign from the service if they were forced to carry guns on a routine basis.
Of course not all homicides are committed by firearms. My point was that absence of firearms, criminals use other means to commit homicide.
Ban firearms and criminals get knives. You folks in the UK are welcome to have your laws, but I believe you are overstating the gain in safety caused by banning firearms.
In the US, police wouldn't be caught without a weapon. The same police, however, sometimes have a viewpoint that citizens shouldn't share that right.
Another issue is who is getting shot. Gangbangers and drug dealers capping each other is a problem, but including them in overall stats overstates the risks to the average person.
This is absolutely true.
I live in a zip code that is in--at one time I calculated it but have forgotten the exact number, but something like--the top 1/2 of 1% of the world in murder rates. My city was recently awarded the #1 Murder City spot.
I am a middle aged white woman and I'm not greatly more in danger of it than if I lived in a regular surburban place. It's young black men who are the shooters and the victims.
The elephant in the room, and our nation's shame.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Homicide_offending_by_race.jpg
Lifetime incarceration prevalence:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Lifetime_prevalence_of_incarceration.png
flowerseverywhere
1-15-11, 4:30pm
So bae, while I agree with the shame, what can the average person do to help? As a middle class white woman I don't know what I can do to make a difference in the lives of the young black men in our neighboring city. Or the children they father then get themselves killed or jailed. I do volunteer at the soup kitchen downtown and there are a lot of young black men who come in, some who are newly released from jail, and believe me they do behave and are very polite because they will get thrown out. Having a warm place to come where no judgements are made, no one is preaching at you and having a good meal is an amazing thing to make people behave at a certain standard. But once they get out the door and back in their neighborhood everything changes.
What concrete things can a person do?
Cool, glad to see others hiking out there. DH and i have been on trails that we were running out of daylight, we are SO not used to the sun setting at 4:30! So DH got two headlamps from Target $20 each. They are LED lights, with high and low beams. We tried one of them out last night, OMG worked extremely well! Of course there was a half moon, so it was real easy to see the trail anyway, but we went through two tunnels, so we tried the lights there. If there is a Target near you, I would suggest getting them.
Can't help you with #2 except that you might just want to get out to check the height of the water before you cross.
I hike and camp, too. This includes border zones in the Southwest. People I know freak out about it. OMG you're going to get killed by drug traffickers, illegal immigrants, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, I'm more likely to get killed on the highway getting to the campground...
loosechickens
1-15-11, 7:11pm
"I hike and camp, too. This includes border zones in the Southwest. People I know freak out about it. OMG you're going to get killed by drug traffickers, illegal immigrants, blah, blah, blah. Frankly, I'm more likely to get killed on the highway getting to the campground... " (Zzz)
================================================== =======================
as folks who have camped for years and years along the Mexican border, seldom in campgrounds, mostly out in the desert on BLM land, unless we were volunteering at the wildlife refuge or something, (and the traffic is a pale imitation of what it used to be some years ago when we could lie in bed at 2 a.m. six or seven miles outside Ajo AZ and listen to the Hummers down in their lowest gears, loaded down with either people or drugs, driving up the washes in avoidance of the Border Patrol, who were policing the roads), I tend to agree.
When we volunteered at the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in the winters and went into Tucson, going back to the refuge after dark, the biggest worry was getting involved in a chase scene between illegals and the Border Patrol, as some fairly large number of people had been injured or killed under those circumstances. Car chases were an every night occurrence.
The rule of thumb with the drug traffickers has always been, hike on the roads and don't strike off cross country, and you won't come over a rise and find yourself in the middle of a transfer, and in a place where you definitely do not want to be. In general, the drug traffickers have no more interest in encountering you than you do them. Treat them like grizzly bears, make lots of noise, stay on roads, and if they are in the area, they will melt away from you.
For illegals, if you leave your rig to go to town, be sure to leave a water jug outside, and some easily openable food that can be eaten without cooking. The only thing the illegals will want will be food and water, and that way you save a person from feeling they have to break into your RV to get it.
That, and, since the laws have changed, you really can't give them a ride to the highway any more, although we have been known to supply a blanket, water and directions in the past. But mostly, by the time they show themselves to you, they are on their last legs, and mostly just want you to call the Border Patrol for them because they are ready to give up.
we've seen and heard drug traffickers over the years, and certainly lots and lots of illegals, but have never been threatened in any way during probably 15 years of spending usually most of the winter months very close to the border in one place or another, but mostly in AZ, in the very areas of high activity, between Yuma and Tucson.
The first years we were at BANWR, in the winter months, we had as many as 10,000 crossers per MONTH, which in recent years has slowed to a trickle, because of increased border security and the recession and lack of jobs. We haven't been there yet this winter, but from emails, etc., it sounds pretty quiet down there again this year.
So bae, while I agree with the shame, what can the average person do to help? As a middle class white woman I don't know what I can do to make a difference in the lives of the young black men in our neighboring city. Or the children they father then get themselves killed or jailed. I do volunteer at the soup kitchen downtown and there are a lot of young black men who come in, some who are newly released from jail, and believe me they do behave and are very polite because they will get thrown out. Having a warm place to come where no judgements are made, no one is preaching at you and having a good meal is an amazing thing to make people behave at a certain standard. But once they get out the door and back in their neighborhood everything changes.
What concrete things can a person do?
Volunteering for Boys and Girls Clubs. Donating $ or time to your local Y or other org that creates activities for at-risk youth. There are lots of cultural issues, esp parenting and cultural standards that give more attention to folks in prison than folks graduating from high school, community college, trade school, college or beyond. You aren't going to totally change that, but for a few kids you could make the difference in whether they get into drugs or whether they get pregnant/get someone pregnant too early. As more people of color become role models for a successful life, I think this will slowly improve. I think having Obama as president will inspire some young, poor black kids to study and stay clean but it's a tough road to go when people give you crap about it and there's little support from family.
loosechickens
1-16-11, 12:00am
One other thing.......when the white, middle class, suburban teenager or young person gets involved with drugs, or has a DUI, or gets in trouble with the law, in most cases, the family gets a competent attorney, efforts are made, diversions to rehab or counseling are accepted, and the kid gets through the trouble without a record, or with a record that is expunged after a certain length of time. Eventually, goes on to school or job and manages to straighten him or herself out and goes straight.
The poor kid, many minority kids, with even MORE in the way of illegal temptations and opportunities in their neighborhoods, make those same, usual dumb teenaged decisions that bring them to the attention of the authorities, they have the indifferent services of a public defender, are run through the system, end up with a record, and then only the very best of luck and determination diverts them toward a productive life.
Once you have a criminal record, it is like having concrete boots, especially for a poor minority kid. And the spiral is most likely to go downward instead of up. There are exceptions, certainly, just as there are exceptions with the well to do suburban kid who spirals down instead of up, regardless of the second or third chance......but the minority kids very seldom get that second chance.
One thing many could do is to recognize that the vast majority of people in this country with a criminal record have committed non-violent offenses, often in the midst of a substance abuse issue, lack of opportunity and poor role models. If we could get over our societal idea of "once a criminal, always a criminal" more young people would have the opportunity to go straight.
We have a relative that served a five year sentence in Federal prison. It was significant to us that when he got out and was seeking employment, EVERY single person who was willing to hire him was an immigrant. Not one native American businessperson or company was willing to give this college graduate, nonviolent offender any kind of job, even to deliver pizzas or similar stuff.
However, he managed six interviews with immigrant business owners, and garnered three job offers, and has been working very successfully at two jobs for the past year. Whether immigrants from other countries may have different ideas about someone who may have been in prison, or whether they feel that they were given chances when they came here, so have more compassion about reaching out to someone else, I don't know. The sample was small, several dozen American born businessmen or American companies, and half a dozen or a little more of businesses owned by immigrants, but it was very interesting to us that it was the immigrants who had no qualms about giving him a chance.
We have one of the highest recidivism rates of developed countries (people who return to prison), and I wonder sometimes if in other countries, the stigma of a prison record does not compute to the concrete boots of the person with the record as it does in this country. After all, if a person serves their debt to society, but then there is no path for them to follow toward a productive life, no jobs they can get, no future they can work toward, well.......that's when you get those kinds of numbers. JMHO
flowerseverywhere
1-16-11, 7:01am
Volunteering for Boys and Girls Clubs. Donating $ or time to your local Y or other org that creates activities for at-risk youth. There are lots of cultural issues, esp parenting and cultural standards that give more attention to folks in prison than folks graduating from high school, community college, trade school, college or beyond. You aren't going to totally change that, but for a few kids you could make the difference in whether they get into drugs or whether they get pregnant/get someone pregnant too early. As more people of color become role models for a successful life, I think this will slowly improve. I think having Obama as president will inspire some young, poor black kids to study and stay clean but it's a tough road to go when people give you crap about it and there's little support from family.
I wish I could believe it is that easy. I already volunteer at the Y and local soup kitchen, and in the past have done literacy volunteers working with their reading program students. My friend works in the poorest junior high and often we do things like send in coats for kids who have none, stock her up with shampoo and soap because the kids have none- they send the kids with food on Friday because they know some won't eat until school opens on Monday morning so a bunch of us give her food as well. I feel like it is a tiny drop in a giant bucket.
I wish I could believe it is that easy. I already volunteer at the Y and local soup kitchen, and in the past have done literacy volunteers working with their reading program students. My friend works in the poorest junior high and often we do things like send in coats for kids who have none, stock her up with shampoo and soap because the kids have none- they send the kids with food on Friday because they know some won't eat until school opens on Monday morning so a bunch of us give her food as well. I feel like it is a tiny drop in a giant bucket.
Often you do not know until way later. But that is true for all of us that volunteer. Sometimes you never know if you made a difference, but you keep plugging away anyway, because even one child, one person, has felt that someone truly cared for them, for their well-being, then YOU HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE!
Thank you for volunteering!
Originally posted by Bae.
I go to Victoria and the Gulf Islands more often than I go to the US mainland. I go up the BC coast a lot, and to mainland BC, the Yukon, the NWT, and Nunavut. Lovely places - I adore the Arctic. And some areas you surely need to be bear-aware, and perhaps even loaded for bear, as they say :-) I don't hunt in Canada, though much fishing happens.Magnificent. The crowning glory of BC.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.