Hey, Mitch, change your blog's name to "a shot in the foot".

Wow! Thanks. I've screen capped the Good Guys And Gals With Guns?  post since you just made the argument for why the relaxing of concealed carry is bullshit from a practical point of view.

According to some reports, the Nashville Covenant school was not a gun free zone...

Some of the usual suspects are already trying to use this factoid to indict the idea of armed school staff:...

Even in “Stand your Ground” states, self-defense law doesn’t as a rule allow citizens to close with and engage perpetrators, acting as cops or infantry.

The proper role for an armed staffer, according to the way actual self-defense law works, is to barricade themselves and the kids they’re responsible for into a room, and be ready to shoot at a perp who comes through the door with mayhem in mind.

So, really armed citizens are as ineffective as unarmed ones since as you point out the only people who should be going after the "orcs"are the first responders. Armed citizens with handguns can only hope to stop someone with a long gun which is going to be far more accurate and have a higer velocity than their weapon. 

So, the armed citizen hopes they might get a shot off before being turned to hamburger by someone with an AR-15 or similar weapon. Which does jackshit since the progunners neglect that sometimes mass shooters have shoot outs with real trained professionals to go on to further carnage as was the case with the Columbine Shooters.

Quite likely a mass shooter could have a bullet proof vest which would protect against handgun rounds as well.

Let's toss in the armed citizen could be confused with the active shooter for good measure as to WHY someone has to have shit for brains for even buying this argument for concealed carry in the first place. Nothing like adding to the confusion by being a halfwit with a gun. 

Alas, the dumbfucks who have bought into the "pro-gun" horseshit have probably bred and are not candidates for Darwin Awards. They have progeny which we can only hope will be smarter than their parents. Emphasis on hope since I would hope most people would use their brains, but most people, especially Amerloques, tend to be intellectually challenged.

It would be nice if other pro-gunners were as honest as you. Although, it would be nice if you took your statements to their logical conclusion and realise that you are just full of shit. Also that you have been lied to by the people you see as "leaders". You are one of the sheep if you have bought into this without question.

As I like to say, the pro-gun arguments don't stand scrutiny.

And you just shot yourself in the foot.

Stop shooting in the dark, Mitch. 

And thank you from all the anti-gun organisations who now have copies of this post. You are going to be the anti-gunner poster child for this statement against interest.

You should have a serious rethink of the "pro-gun" position since deep in your subconscious you know it's a pile of horsehit.

Oh, and stop using the word "ignorant" since you obviously have no idea what it means, or you would understand the irony of your posts: this one post in particular.

Would the Conservatives who are praising Kyle Rittenhouse have supported the British who shot during the "Boston Massacre"?

 Fair question--especially given that the British were technically the people charged with preserving the peace at the time. Not to mention it seems that the British and colonists were closer than most people realise at that point in the move towards Independence. See this Boston Magazine article.

On the other hand, the use of deadly force was not a first option in self-defence at the time the founders were alive. That meant that the British soldiers would have had to have done all they could to de-escalate or remove themselves from the situation before deadly force would have remotely been acceptable. When I say that, I mean that deadly force would still be unlawful had there been lesser means to have stopped the threat.

I should add that some other nations require that the police and other security forces use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat. I talk about this in Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided.

Let's toss in there was a defence:

The statement issued by members of the Sons of Liberty, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, painted the event as a malicious and unprovoked slaughter. They attest that the Massacre was retribution for a quarrel three nights prior between soldiers and colonists. Captain Preston, the British commander on duty on the night of March 5, was reported to have ordered his men to fire upon the colonists on King Street, "without the least warning."

William Taint, a Bostonian who witnessed but was not directly involved in the events of March, provided testimony during the trial of the British soldiers. He maintains that a group of colonists was gathered outside of the British Customs House when a formation of British soldiers took position outside of the building. Colonists were yelling, "Fire, fire, and be damned," and throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. Taint heard a musket discharge and then the word, "Fire" yelled by an unknown speaker, after which several more shots were fired.

Taint's account differs from that provided by Adams and Hancock in several respects. Firstly, Taint clearly states that the colonists were taunting and throwing snowballs at the soldiers, while Adams and Hancock portray the colonists peacefully going about their business. Taint also brings an element of uncertainty to the question of who yelled, "Fire." The former account clearly states that Captain Preston issued a direct order to fire, while the latter implies that it may just as well have been a colonist who shouted, "Fire."

Captain Preston's testimony during the trial offers a third source of information regarding March 5. He states that his men were protecting the Customs House from theft by the colonists when they were physically and verbally assaulted. While Taint saw only snowballs being hurled at the British, Preston reported that his men were also beaten with clubs. His soldiers responded by firing upon the colonists, later claiming that they heard the command to fire and assumed it came from Preston. Preston blames members of the mob for yelling, "Fire," and (unsurprisingly) denies issuing any such order.

The outcome was Captain Preston was found not guilty. The remaining soldiers claimed self-defense and were all found not guilty of murder. Two of them—Hugh Montgomery and Matthew Kilroy—were found guilty of manslaughter and were branded on the thumbs as first offenders per English law.

See also:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-massacre

Guns, CCTV, and the Surveillance State

ADT had an ad almost 30 years ago that compared a handgun to a burglar alarm. It pointed out that the alarm would call the cops while the gun was sitting in a drawer or safe. In other words, the alarm could protect your home when you weren't there.

I've had enough experiences over that period between my private life and my work in the criminal justice system to come to the conclusion that CCTV is much better at stopping, or at least deterring, crime than any firearm. Not to mention much safer: unless you are installing it yourself and you have no idea what you are doing.

Having a firearm is probably more of an advertisement to get robbed than having an alarm or CCTV since you have a valuable commodity (or commodities) to the criminal fraternity.

As the gun crowd likes to point out: criminals don't respect the law. And how else are they going to get their guns other than breaking the law?

CCTV images of 2011 UK Rioters

On the other hand, CCTV does indeed stop crime. Likewise, the footage can be stored remotely and shared. Mine is hi-def quality and stored for a month. Any clip I make is stored until I delete it. The best part is that I don't need to be at home for the camera to work since the product is stored on the internet. I can be anywhere there is internet access and flip through the footage. I can share the clip with the law enforcement using a link.

I would also add that my clips use facial recognition. Which is actually sophisticated enough that it can catch someone trying to obscure their face.

And, yes, I have shared my video with LE since my camera is registered with the local police.

While some people may believe that CCTV isn't that much of a deterrent, especially if used by the government, that isn't the case when individuals share the information between themselves and/or law enforcement. Also, the issue about "government intrusion" can be limited if the CCTV info comes from individuals instead of the government or business.

Anyway, CCTV is definitely a crime solver and deterrent where I actually live with quite a few high profile cases being solved using CCTV information. The reason I'm posting this is that my footage has helped apprehend a criminal even though I wasn't home at the time.

The real issue is whether the prosecution want to use CCTV information. Compare the UK's use of CCTV after the 2011 and that of in the US to catch the "peaceful protesters". With the exception of the person who set fire to the police car in Philly, most of the protesters have gotten away with it due to prosecutorial inaction.

The issue is that the surveillance economy is already here. We may as well make it work for the benefit of society.

See also:

• Case Study: CCTV and the London Riots
• London riots: Most wanted suspect CCTV images released
  

BIG BRUTHA IS WATCHING YOU!

OK, the utopians not only want  to rid society of guns, they also want to get rid of the police. Crime will be solved by social programs which ensure equality by providing housing, health care, social services, and lord knows what. Probably drugs will be legal and freely available so that the population is properly drugged up and docile.

Crime suddenly disappears making the police something which a utopian society no longer needs.

Not really. Even utopian ideologies such as anarchy believe in order, but the order comes from people knowing the rules and respecting them. Utopian societies don't exist, but they would be much more "authoritarian" in reality if they did. You don't need the cops because you know the rules and follow them. Otherwise, you do some public self-criticism about your failure to be a good citizen.

But that isn't really my point here since the distopian reality is already here: the surveillance state.

You don't need cops on the street, or even a highly visible force, since the people doing the policing are sitting in some room. They probably don't need to be too attentive either since facial recognition software can keep tracks on people.

The real solution to the police problem is the surveillance state.

And it's already here. To the point I've been tempted to write a post called "Why are you here? Really?" about how social media, which includes Google make their money on surveillance. Trump could have had a field day if he went into how big tech, especially social media, make their money.

And people gladly hand them the info.

But you don't need to have rooms full of monitors to have a surveillance state. All one needs to do is set up a clearing house for the information which is collected by individuals. That doorbell cam can help solve crimes.

I know mine has and I haven't been "home" most of the time.

The surveillance state's neighbourhood watch never sleeps. Even better you don't need to worry about it being brutal. People walk by the eyes of the state blissfully ignorant that they are under observation until the moment they act up.

People might get upset about facial recognition, but how do they feel about it after it helps apprehend the person engaging in sexual assaults in their neighbourhood?

Defunding the police will result in something much more sinister. Hell, it's already here!

A disclaimer: I believe in some of those social programs, but am under no illusion they will be the sole answer to crime.

Defund the Police is Utopian, Misinformed, and Misguided

I witnessed the police beating someone resisting arrest. It was about 4-6 police officers on one small, skinny person.

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/DDN-20190104-1

Was it a bunch of white racist cops in the US?

Nope, it was someone who refused to leave a bar on Gandy Street in Exeter, England in 1991. The person who was being beaten was white, as were the police. The issue was that the person was resisting arrest.

This is why I say "Defund the Police" is misinformed. It is based on pretty much upon ignorance since the police will use force on someone who is resisting arrest no matter where one happens to be in the world.

The Atlantic sort of gets the point as to a couple of issues which help explain why the US is "more violent" than Europe:

The morbid exceptionalism of American police violence cannot be explained by the amount of money the U.S. spends on police, or by the number of cops it employs. The U.S. spends less on police than the European Union does, as a share of GDP. Italy has more officers per capita than any state in the U.S., according to a comparison of FBI and Eurostat databases. Greece has more officers per person than Newark, New Jersey; Baltimore; and Chicago.

But none of those places shares our epidemic of police violence. American police kill about 1,000 people every year. Adjusted for population, that body count is five times higher than that in Sweden, 30 times higher than that in Germany, and 100 times higher than that in the United Kingdom.

Many differences between the U.S. and the European Union can partly explain these gaps, including our history of systemic racism and our porous social safety net. But without the mention of guns, no explanation for America’s record of police violence is complete.

OK, the "Gun Violence Prevention" types should be upset about the guns on the street, but they are getting way ahead of where they should be in this process: especially if they are serious about cutting back on how many people patrol the streets. Getting the guns off the streets should be priority number one for the people who are going to float this crazy concept. Not to mention they should be really careful about how they frame the issue in regard to people who carry guns.

Guns are not the problem in Europe and most of the rest of the world that they are in the US.

Acquiring guns illegally in the US is not much harder. About 57% of this year’s deadly force victims to date were allegedly armed with actual, toy or replica guns. American police are primed to expect guns. The specter of gun violence may make them prone to misidentifying or magnifying threats like cellphones and screwdrivers. It may make American policing more dangerous and combat-oriented. It also fosters police cultures that emphasize bravery and aggression.

But the biggest issue is the legal framework regarding the use of deadly force in self-defence in the US. Let's go beyond the enhanced castle doctrine/stand your ground laws to get to the amount of force police are allowed to use in the US and EU. 

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the use of deadly force by the police. Graham can be boiled down to:

Any use of force by law enforcement officers needs to take into account "severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

"The 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."

"The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation."

Bottom line is that it is constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they “reasonably” perceive imminent and grave harm. There are 38 State laws regulating deadly force which are almost always as permissive as Supreme Court precedent allows. Sometimes those laws are even more permissive than the federal law  in the latitude they give officers to use deadly force.

Contrast that to the European Union where the European Convention on Human Rights allows police to use only the deadly force that is “absolutely necessary.” In contrast, police in the United States are permitted if they have a “reasonable belief” that their lives are in danger. Under these differing principles, a police shooting might be lawful in the United States and not according to European standards.

Add in that European Union countries set their own regulations within the commission’s framework. Similar to the US some countries have stricter rules than others in regard to the application of that framework. Again, we see a difference between the US and EU attitudes toward the use of deadly force by the police. In Finland, for example, a cop is expected if possible to seek a superior’s approval before using deadly force. In Spain, if possible the police officer must first fire a warning shot and shoot at a non-vital part of the body before they can shoot to kill. Those examples were not meant to advocate attempting to shoot a "non-vital part of the body".

Likewise, racism alone can’t explain why non-Latino white Americans are 26 times

more likely to die by police gunfire than Germans. And racism alone doesn’t explain why states like Montana, West Virginia and Wyoming, where both perpetrators and victims of deadly force are almost always white, exhibit relatively high rates of police lethality. I would add that the Guardian feature on people killed by the police showed that (1) more whites were killed, but (2) the population most effected by police violence was native americans (10.13 to blacks at 6.66)!

One other thing which is common in European, and other non-US forces, is that they are not locally controlled. One of the reforms in Belgian Policing after 2001 was that the forces were reformed into to different national branches. Most European Police departments are accountable to a national body.

The bottom line is that simply saying "defund the police" will be a failure until there are drastic changes in US society, which I don't see happening. Those are the enactment of effective gun regulations and a change in the standard for the application of deadly force in self-defence.

Two thing that the "gun violence prevention" crowd and "Black Lives Matter" would be well advised to spend their time addressing. Otherwise, they are acting against their stated interests.

See also:

• Understanding Graham v Connor
• Why American Cops Kill So Many Compared To European Cops
  
• The Counted: People Killed by the Police Counted by the Guardian
  

I get self-defence, especially when people talk about "defunding the police"

I did a couple of posts titled "Cringeworthy, But Understandable" about Patricia and Mark McCloskey, the couple who defended their home in a gated community against BLM trespassers with an AR-15. Almost two months later, Kyle Rittenhouse goes to Kenosha, WI in a completely misguided and illegal act to travel to a city that was suffering from "unrest" caused by "peaceful protests".

Straight off, what Rittenhouse did was not only illegal, but totally wrong.

On the other hand, I get why he would do it. 

What a lot of people who want to "defund the police" don't get is that one of the purposes of a government is to provide order. It isn't stated  in the US Constitution as openly as this is in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen Article 12 states:.

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

The US Constitution talks about the common defence, suppressing insurrection, and "domestic violence". But the constitution makes it clear that the militia is supposed to be the body that is the one suppressing insurrection (Article I section 8, clause 15), but that body is the one authorised by congress (Article I section 8, clause 15 and Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 [1886]). The Second Amendment does not create the militia, it only ensures its existence. 

The issue is who is going to keep the order if the police or militia/national guard aren't doing that job? Or at least it looks as if they aren't able to do that job.

What makes me different from a lot of other people on the left is that I believe in the military and the police. They are necessary evils. But they are evils which, as was stated in the literature surrounding the Second Amendment and US Constitution's drafting need to be "in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power".

This is why a strong government should have a police force which is accountable, but probably not to the court of public opinion. 

I wonder if a lot of the cheering for the verdict in the Chauvin trial is like that from Greg Gutfeld:

The verdict in the Derek Chauvin trial is a great relief. I say that for cynical, sad, selfish reasons, because I knew that if it went the other way, my city would have been in flames. I know Chauvin is guilty, but I wonder if it's normal for a country to be so worried about unrest no matter what the outcome of a trial is. I know I was, because I've seen this before.

I wasn't sure about Greg Gutfeld, but I get him even if we are politically opposites. I could probably have a discussion with him without wanting to punch him out, but there would be a lot of shouting.

But, Greg says what's on his mind, and so do I, which is why I like him. I'm not going to wear kinte cloth, get on my knee, and virtue signal: I'm going to say what I think. 

Or know.

And the BLM thing has sold way more guns and is far more counterproductive than productive. (Hey Greg, move to Philly where you can own an AR-15).

Patrisse Khan Cullors goes and buys a few couple of million dollar houses in white neighbourhoods. She's a Groucho Marxist if she is one at all. But it shows how hypocritical the BLM crowd happens to be. She's destroying the people she claims to want to believe in.

Sadly, we've normalized the threat of violence as a method to exact justice. After an event occurs, mayhem is now like a weather pattern -- "74% chance of arson, 90% chance of assault. Better board up those windows." Worse, our acceptance of anarchy has made it a wonderful opportunity for looters to step in and decry racial injustice by stealing a rack of expensive jackets.

So when something like the Chauvin story comes along, it's not just about justice. It's about how we process information, how we process our anger, and truth. If justice is predicated on a sense that mayhem can and will occur if it doesn't go a certain way, then we're all screwed for good.

Yep. What happened wasn't good, but I don't think we will have a serious discussion of this issue.

Unless more Kyle Rittenhouses come out of the woodwork to fill the vacuum. Is that what people want?

Missouri has a "stand your ground law" (Or Cingeworthy, but understandable Part II)

In Missouri, you also have a right to protect yourself if you’re in imminent threat of deadly harm if you have a legal right to be in a location. Missouri allows you to defend yourself with the use of deadly force if you’re under imminent threat of deadly force, without a duty to retreat in public. Even more so if you are at your home.

Now, wouldn't a mob of defiant and destructive trespassers on their property count as a threat of  deadly harm given that Patricia and Mark McCloskey were at their home in a gated community and that gate had been destroyed?

Missouri's has a Castle Doctrine law and these guns were lawfully possessed.  The law states, in subsection 3,  that deadly force cannot be used unless “[s]uch force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual.” However, no lethal force was used here. It was threatened.

Last I checked: trespassing was a crime in most jurisdictions. That means the protesters are shit out of luck the moment they crossed the gate and violated the country code (sarcasm).

It sounds pretty cut and dried that the McCloskeys have a defence there. While Missouri's law may be an affirmative defence, the McCloskeys were in their home. They were also facing off a mob. I would add that a person who is deemed to be the aggressor in a confrontation that turns deadly is not eligible to raise a “stand your ground” defence.

I'm not a fan of these laws. I would also add that Black Lives Matter should have placed their efforts in trying to repeal these laws.

On the other hand, it would have been ironic had Stand Your Ground been used to protect someone who had shot defiant Black Lives Matter protesters. But that is lost on the people who are virtue signalling in these protests.

Cringworthy, but understandable

Article 12 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen states:.

The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.

What that means in regard to any civilised and functional society is that the government has an obligation to provide public order through a force created for that purpose: e.g., the police. That is not a privilege, Lisa Bender, it is a right. It is also the obligation of ANY governmental body. The inability to provide for public order is one of the definitions of a failed state.

A friend's picture of her view of Dilworth Plaza.

People have been arming themselves in order to provide for the lack of public security currently given by the state. Not only are firearms being snapped up, but so are tear gas grenades! The people who don't understand this phenomenon are blissfully away from where the destruction happens: not across the street from it.

I am not surprised to see Patricia and Mark McCloskey defending their St. Louis home. Yes, it may be expensive (although a house like that would be infinitely more expensive on the coasts), but the cost isn't the issue. It is their home; whether it is a humble shack or a palatial mansion.

I would add that they may have appeared cringeworthy, but they were acting in defence of their home. There are less drastic methods of mob control: for example tear gas grenades are available in some jurisdictions. People have already begun to arm themselves in self-defence because of the lack of a public force to provide order, or that force is being overworked.

Violent protests are counterproductive if one wishes to see a change in how that force is used. While people may not come out and say they support the police, they know that force is a necessity for public order. I would also add that getting rid of the public force will mean that there will ultimately be a private substitute.

Patricia and Mark McCloskey were the first, but they are far from the last. People shouldn't be laughing since this is serious.

Reality versus gun rights

It's really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I'm going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let's add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, "couldn't you get out of their way, or leave town?" Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN'T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type's question: "shouldn't the person be allowed to defend themselves?" To which "Fuck, yeah!" seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is "justified" or "understandable" should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts."

While I don't like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don't support "gun rights" or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn't ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

 You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

Are you reallly sure you want a gun in the house?

Gun deaths rising among white kids as more families own handguns

Hey, they aren't my kids.

But if you really care about your kids are you sure you want to risk it? Remember that dead is hard to cure if you are willing to chance it.

Still, feel free to collect your Darwin Awards! No, I can't be sympathetic since your kind has shown you don't care about other people's children.

Why should we give a fuck about yours?


Talk about counterproductive though.

Grasping at Straws (or the Pro-gun side really has a problem)

I was trying to find the study that demonstrated using a gun for self-defence is usually counterproductive. Instead of finding that data, I was bombarded with this "Secret CDC Study" that "confirms" The 2-3 Million annual DGU number. It doesn't which is why I am publishing it in full.

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

Odd that most of the people who want to use this fail to quote the title: Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence

The reason I call this post what I do is that any person who says this somehow "confirms" the 2-3 million annual DGUs is either dishonest as fuck or illiterate.

This doesn't confirm anything other than gun violence research is not being properly carried out. The fact that the progun side is using this to back up their claims shows that they are really desperate to prove their claim.

Which this doesn't do.

Sorry, but the reason for the research ban was that the facts were against the "pro-gun" side. And it doesn't seem that is going to change looking at how they are using something like this to back up their claims.

The progunners would be better off letting the research happen and let if fall where it may

See also:

• How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?
• Gun deaths rising among white kids as more families own handguns

Just thinking

One of the 1 Aug 1966 University of Texas victims was an unborn child. 

How many more Gun Violence victims have been unborn children? By the pro-life way of thinking, these "unborn children" are innocent no matter what their parents are like.

Usual question: where are the pro-lifers on this one?

Sorry, but you can't say you are pro-life and go with the gun lobby's pushing the envelope on self-defence to make it easier to kill people. Traditional common law makes self-defence (1) a mitigation, not a complete defence, (2) places the decision on whether force was necessary to the finder of fact (usually the jury), and (3) makes excessive force, even deadly force, a hard hurdle to get past.

But even more importantly if you are going to be against "killing babies", then you should be firmly against guns.

Sorry, but you can't be pro-life and pro-gun without being in serious denial.

Footnote: the University of Texas shooting pretty much put the pro-gun arguments to rest: especially armed civilians stopping the incident. According to people who were there, there were armed civilians, but they made the situation much worse.

Murder or self-defence?

Person gets out of a car, or leaves their house, with a loaded gun. There was a stated intent to go after someone who looked "suspicious".

Is it self-defence or murder if the person who "looked suspicious" is killed?

To make it fun, let's use this statute!

Feel free to use this guide to help you come up with something vaguely intelligent should you wish to answer this: open.lib.umn.edu/criminallaw/chapter/4-2-criminal-intent/

BTW, this uses two situations where get away with murder laws were used.  Extra credit for guessing which two situations I am thinking of and their outcomes!

Gun Control Irony

It would be really ironic if instead of all the mass shootings the US has suffered (my condolences to the victims and their families), that the incident that caused people to realise the US needs gun control is an out of control suburban mother fighting over a notebook in a suburban Wal-Mart.

No, pulling a gun in this situation is not self-defence by any stretch of the imagination.  No one was fearing death or serious bodily injury which would justify even the threat of deadly force.

The woman pulling the gun is committing Felony Assault under Michigan law, Section 750.82.

The offense of Assault with a Deadly Weapon (ADW), is also known as Felonious Assault in Michigan. ADW is felony which is punishable by up to 4 years in prison. ADW is a crime which involves an assault with a deadly weapon (such as a gun or knife) or any other instrumentality which is fashioned or used as a weapon (car, club, bottle) which is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death. A criminal charge or conviction does not require actual physical contact or an injury. The offense is considered complete upon placing another in fear of an assault by a person who possesses a deadly weapon 

Michigan law requires that the defendant "must have honestly and reasonably believed that he or she was in danger of being killed, seriously injured or sexually assaulted" in order to use deadly force.  Additionally, the defendant "may only use as much force as he or she thinks is necessary at the time to protect himself or herself."

While a person may believe he or she had acted in self-defense, the police, prosecutor, judge and jury may disagree.


No shots need to be fired for her to be found guilty.

I'm not sure how the "pro-gun" crowd can defend this action.  I know responsible gun owners don't, but it's time they stepped up to the plate and admitted this shit happens too often with the relaxing of concealed carry law for it to be condoned.

It's time to give Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) yet another plug.

One of the many failings of the Heller-McDonald bullshit is that those cases were not cases of first impression, but that post is coming in the future.

See also:

• What Does Brandishing Mean? And Why You Should Never Do It…
• Five Shootings in Seven Days on Tennessee Interstates