Monday, December 5, 2011

Questions for Greg Camp and the 'Other Gun Loons'

We keep being told over and over again how safe the people are who carry firearms all around us in public, and even sometimes despite the express wishes of those in charge of the locations, on private property.

We are told over and over: they know what they are doing with their 'inanimate object'. We are told over and over that we should just lie back, shut up, and 'trust their judgment'.

No.

Before I believe anyone's expression of competence, I expect them to be able to answer, correctly, the questions I can answer, and that Laci can answer.

So here are the questions(more may be added at a later time).

1. You can identify a dangerous person by just looking at them. True or False?

2. You have to see a weapon to justify being in fear of your life and/or safety.         
True or False?

3. Drug use is a valid basis for shooting someone.  True or False?

4. A person with a concealed carry permit who is carrying a firearm can identify who is a dangerous threat that justifies shooting them, because  the other person has a temporarily enhanced strength or any other quality that presents a greater danger to the gun carrier, than when they are not under the influence of that drug. (This entails both correctly identifying who is under the influence of an illegal drug, AND identifying correctly what that drug is that is in their system, and what the quantity of that drug is, by simply LOOKING AT THEM, not lab work.)  True or False?

5. It is preferable, according to leading experts on the subject of self-defense, such as Massad Ayoob, and law enforcement officers, to give your money and 'toys' (cell phone, ipod, etc.) to a robber rather than shoot them.  True or False?

6.  An armed person is held to a higher standard than an unarmed person, but not as high as the standard of a member of law enforcement. True or False?

7.  Law enforcement can be sued if they fail to conform to the general duty to protect, or to conform to the standards for law enforcement professionals, when they engage in lethal force with a firearm.  True or False?

8.  There is both a general duty in many jurisdictions, to retreat, if possible, when confronted by a threat, and a duty to use less than lethal force if it is possible, safely, to do so, if you are an armed civilian; this is supported by self defense firearm experts.  True or False?

9. Firearms are a separate category from civil rights discrimination relating to identity issues (such as disability, gender, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, or religion).  True or False

10.  Most crime does not involve any kind of weapon; and most violent crime is at an all time low compared to the last half century.  True or False?

Bonus question - someone who is physically or medically impaired cannot properly follow or conform their conduct to the 4 rules of gun safety. True or False?

Just for giggles question - name the four rules of gun safety (without looking them up).


If you cannot correctly answer these ten questions, you should immediately turn your gun over to local law enforcement to hold for you until you retake a firearms certification course -- and get it right. 

And the rest of us SHOULD NOT have to tolerate your damn dangerous fetish.

116 comments:

  1. DG - too bad your wishes have no direct influence on the law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If you cannot correctly answer these ten questions, you should immediately turn your gun over to local law enforcement to hold for you until you retake a firearms certification course -- and get it right. "

    Which firearms certification course covers those questions? Where does one take that course?

    ReplyDelete
  3. These questions are full of fail. Detailed mockery to come.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWM wrote Which firearms certification course covers those questions? Where does one take that course?

    The one I took did, here in MN.

    Jim wrote: DG - too bad your wishes have no direct influence on the law.

    Not at all, knowing for example, what the duty to retreat is in a variety of jurisdictions - most require you to avoid shooting someone if you safely can do so - is key to the passage of the legislation relating to reciprocity of carrying firearms between states.

    I DO have a direct influence on the law, in several respects - there are a LOT of people who read here; there are a lot of people who read on the other places where I write, and I have a very good working relationship with my senators (my Congressman is a fact averse conservative who consistently fails to be factually accurate so much that he rivals Bachmann for inaccuracy.)

    Don't sell my direct influence short. If you gun loons can't pass the test and correctly answer these questions, I intend to supply that information to anyone and everyone who can help with the outcome of pending legislation.

    Anonomi wrote:
    Anonymous said...
    These questions are full of fail. Detailed mockery to come.


    Nope. I've done my homework, and I'll put my research and education against yours any day of the week.

    Anon-numbass, can't you even successfully answer the question on the 4 rules of firearm safety?

    Aw, it must hurt to be you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Which firearms certification course covers those questions? Where does one take that course?"

    Yeah dog gone should leave firearms training to the big boys.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Anon-numbass, can't you even successfully answer the question on the 4 rules of firearm safety?"

    I'm licensed by the MSP to teach basic firearms safety and do so every Saturday to 8-10 students. So yeah, I do. Though the NRA boils them down to three, since one of Cooper's four is redundant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've never given a true/false test in my career that I wasn't required to give. I don't see them as valid instruments for showing me what the student knows. I'll answer your quiz, but I'll feel free to add more to my answer if I wish.

    1. True. If the person is holding a weapon and is acting in a threatening manner, that's an obvious hint.

    2. False. If a person makes a threat and then makes a movement consistent with drawing a weapon, that meets the standard. I'll provide a case, if you insist.

    3. "Drug" is vague. What drug do you mean, and what is the person doing?

    4. True, but a qualified true. A person who is under the influence often will show signs of that condition. If that person threatens my life, I have the right to defend myself. I'm not talking about shooting a drunk on the sidewalk who isn't doing anything dangerous.

    5. Preferable is a matter of one's personal philosophy, and I've already given my opinion.

    6. The question is deliberately tangled. A concealed carry licensee is held to a higher standard--not picking fights, not drinking in some jurisdictions, etc.--but we don't have the same professional standards that a police officer has.

    7. True. As agents of the government, that's as should be.

    8. True, in a number of jurisdictions. Those laws are changing, though, and even in many of those, I have no duty to put myself in danger by retreating. I have to retreat only if it's possible for me to do so. I also don't have to abandon someone else who is at risk from attack.

    9. That's a matter of opinion, again. A firearm isn't something that I'm born with, so in that sense, it's different from race. It's similar to religion in that I choose to have it. Gun rights should be treated the same as all the other rights that we recognize citizens as having.

    10. True, but irrelevant to the question of carrying a handgun.

    Bonus 1. Impossible to answer. You didn't specify the particular disability. A person who is paralyzed from the waist down could still hold and use a gun, for example.

    Bonus 2.

    Rule 1. Treat all firearms as loaded.

    Rule 2. Never let the muzzle cover anything that you're not willing to destroy.

    Rule 3. Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until you're ready to shoot.

    Rule 4. Be aware of your target, what's around it, and what's behind it. (I add the around it part since misses happen.)

    Let the arguing begin.

    You do know, don't you, that many of these questions aren't included in a typical carry class--I've taken two, myself. You're adding in items from your own personal requirements.

    Now, are you going to tell us about your qualifications for carrying and your reasons for doing so?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I'm licensed by the MSP to teach basic firearms safety."

    No, you're not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "I'm licensed by the MSP to teach basic firearms safety."

    No, you're not.

    December 6, 2011 12:55 AM



    Care to elaborate?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Greg makes a point which is incredibly valid to the unacceptability of shall-issue concealed carry laws, that is the average state does not require adequate instruction on when it is proper to use and carry a firearm.

    Civilians are walking around ignorant of what it is that should or should not be doing while carrying a concealed weapon.

    This is wrong--they are accidents waiting to happen without adequate safeguards for public safety.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But you'd oppose ccw regardless of the level of training required. No?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous said...
    But you'd oppose ccw regardless of the level of training required. No?


    Incorrect.

    I would be much more comfortable with ccw with better training. But I do favor restricting concealed carry to those who can demonstrate a specific need to carry - as I've mentioned before, someone who has received a restraining order against a threatening person, for example would be one. Any person who routinely makes bank deposits of checks and cash - which would cover an enormous number of people who work for businesses and non-profits that do fund raisers, as well as any number of other entities that do so - churches with their collections from services, any number of other organizations where someone is depositing fees or dues.

    I think there are a LOT of people who have a real, legitimate need to carry.

    But someone who just wants to, because they are fearful or insecure? Not so much, given the obvious decrease in crime statistics and the number of those fewer crimes which do NOT actually involve a weapon at all. When you contrast that with the number of accidents, homicides, suicides, and instances - such as domestic abuse where it is often part of intimidation and control without specific statistics of injury or death - that we need to do SOMETHING to address how much more death and injury we have from gun violence in comparison to similar countries - like Canada.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Btw , FWM - the classes taught by Massad Ayoob cover this as do any number of other sources I found.

    These should not be difficult questions for a person who is carrying a firearm to answer.

    Laci was able to pass the same set of questions from when he was first licensed for concealed carry.

    I'd bet that the other three of my co-bloggers could also answer these questions successfully.

    Anonymous, since we don't have your name, I hope you will understand my colleague's skepticism. I don't know why Jade contradicted your credentials, but I assume he has a reason which I hope he will share here.

    If you want to boil 4 down to 3 by combining two together, I think we can agree on the content either way of the rules of firearm safety.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Although there is the possibility of vioent and bizarre behavior associated with PCP use, this potential has been greatly exagerated"

    Not necessarily. When I was a detective in LA around 1984, I witnessed a suspect punch clean through a laminated car windshield while high on pcp. Broke every bone in his hand, didn't feel a thing.

    Funny thing, we confiscated an AMC Hardballer 6" longslide from him with one of the first prototype laser aiming devices. That gun would be worth a fortune now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 6. Yes, you DO have all the same obligations that law enforcement has, with the exception of the obligation to identify themselves as law enforcement that LEOS have, and the obligation to Mirandize placing someone under arrest - and neither of those pertain to lethal force in self defense.

    I believe Laci has already addressed this.

    7. Yes Law enforcement can be sued, but so can you, for similar reasons, including for excessive force or wrongful death.

    8. The general presumption is you have an obligation to a point not to shoot someone if you can avoid it - including using non-lethal force.

    9.Whatever you WISH your civil rights were, you don't have the same rights to intrude your firearm on posted locations prohibiting it. These are legally distinctly different categories of rights. But then Greg has already shown he doesn't grasp moral versus civil rights (and I would argue that gun rights are neither).

    10. True; and it goes directly to the argument that handguns are more of a danger and not justified for self defense.

    ReplyDelete
  16. dog gone said...

    Greg,
    1. False is correct. As to moving in a threatening manner, if their motion to do so is in any way ambiguous, AND if they turn out NOT to have a weapon after you shoot them, you better have a witness who can back up that the aggressor claimed to have a weapon, or your ass is in trouble.

    2. True. Any threat has to be clear cut, not ambiguous.

    But go ahead and provide your case citation- I'll leave it to Laci to provide the cases that you had better NOT be guessing, and guess wrong, or you are in fair legal trouble- which also goes for the police btw. You answered that incorrectly.

    But if you have a case, please provide the accurate citation so as to waste less of Laci's time, not just some second hand reference you may or may not have correctly understood.

    3. False. You may be extremely uncomfortable by belligerent and.or impaired behavior and language, either due to illness or due to substance use/ abuse. Belligerent or erratic behavior is NOT justification for lethal force.

    4. YOU Greg have insisted that someone having unusual and disparate strength due to drug use was a valid cause for shooting someone. Two drugs sometimes meet that criteria- PCP aka Angel Dust, and some far less common uses of Ketamine.where people are somewhat numb to pain, primarily in their limbs. Angel Dust aka PCP has had an exaggerated attribution of violent behavior.

    Although there is the possibility of vioent and bizarre behavior associated with PCP use, this potential has been greatly exagerated. Even in professional medical and law enforcement texts this is often apparent, as in this passage taken from a textbook on clinical toxicology (ref 66):

    "Perhaps the hallmark of PCP intoxication is the recurring delusion of superhuman strength and invulnerability resulting from the analgesic and dissociative properties of the drug. Intoxicated patients have been known to snap hancuffs and, unarmed, attack, large groups of people or police officers...."

    http://www.erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/pcp/effects.html

    So, when you have claimed this violent strength as an instance where you would be justified in shooting someone as a threat, I would challenge you to recognize that effect from other drugs that do not cause that side effect. This is a sufficiently rare occurrence as to not really be a valid claim to justify shooting someone. But you have made that an example - drug use- previously as a case in point where you could shoot someone.

    I'm challenging you that you are not qualified to recognize that situation, therefore you cannot fairly claim it as a justification for shooting someone.

    A doctor who with a ccw, maybe - and maybe not. But you, or the overwhelming majority of people commenting here? NO. 3 is False Drug incapacitation is not a valid justification for you to fear for your life,by itself. 4. I don't personally know anyone, including board certified ER MDs who can identify by looking at a person without a lab work up what chemical someone is on makes them a danger to others, much less a danger that would justify shooting them.

    5. Someone robbing you is NOT justification for shooting another person, in and of itself, and it is emphatically per the experts NOT a good idea. If you do so, you face liability and possibly criminal charges.

    Show me experts that as widely recognized as Ayoob who supports doing so as a legitimate shooting in self defense.

    Your opinion versus Ayoob, and law enforcement - your judgment fails. legally, and ethically. There is a presumption in law that human life is more valuable than property. And your assumption about deadly force being implied is not sufficient; there has to be more than you think so to justify legal force.

    You can't just make up when you believe a threat is legitimate for deadly force; it has to pass the judgment of other people who may be more objective - particularly in view of the statistical improbability of a weapon involved.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You're also ignoring my right to be armed in case SHTF while I'm away from home. Murphys law says I'll be at the office when it's go time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 3. Drug use is a valid basis for shooting someone.  True or False?

    I don't think even the most extreme gunloon would argue it's ok to get high and shoot someone.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jadegold
    I called you out, brother. No response?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Don't sell my direct influence short. If you gun loons can't pass the test and correctly answer these questions, I intend to supply that information to anyone and everyone who can help with the outcome of pending legislation"

    You go girl. You go out there and make our voice heard to prevent gun violence. $100 donation just sent to Brady Campaign. Love your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rather than clarifying the badly worded questions, Dog Gone proceeds to the infodump again. Fine. Here's a few points to consider:

    1. In Chapter 4 of "The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry," by Massad Ayoob, the account is given of a Vietnam veteran who was threatened by two twenty-somethings in a parking lot. The young men approached the vet and screamed "I'll kick your ass! I'll kill you!" The vet, Larry Lindsey, pulled his 1911, and the two losers got scared and backed away.

    This case had to go to trial, thanks to the vindictiveness of the Denver prosecutor, but the jury acquited Lindsey of the felony charge.

    Note that the defendant didn't shoot anyone. He simply drew his gun when he was threatened. He was an old man in poor health, facing two young punks who screamed and came at him. And he won.

    2. Can I identify the particular substance that a person is under the influence of? Most of the time, no. Can I see that a person is behaving in a manner that is consistent with being under the influence of something? Yes. If that person makes an aggressive move at me, I would have a good argument for defending myself.

    3. You said that you recognize some cases of legitimate need to carry. But why? Does having a restraining order against someone else give a person magical skill to use a handgun? Does carrying a large pile of cash give someone the judgement to determine when using a gun is justified? I thought that you said that property isn't worth a life. Now you tell us that the cash in my wallet isn't sufficient to justify my carrying. Would you be so kind as to name the figure above which I would have a reason to carry? If I have a restraining order against someone or if I walk around with a bag full of diamonds, will I need training, or may I just carry a handgun?

    Again, you haven't told us what special circumstances justified (in your own mind) the carrying of a handgun, either for you or for Laci the Dog. You'll have to excuse me for not taking you at your word, especially since you haven't given any details.

    Of course, as long as you have a clean criminal record, I wouldn't object to issuing you a license. That's the difference between you and me. As long as you're a good citizen, you're good to go in my book. I don't have a problem with a training class--I've had fun in the ones that I've taken.

    In the case of Laci, I might have a problem, given the threatening and crude things that he's said. But on principle, I'd even approve of his getting a license.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Of course, as long as you have a clean criminal record, I wouldn't object to issuing you a license. That's the difference between you and me."

    And the difference between me and Greg "Vegetable Lasagna" Camp is that I'd issue you a license if you weren't incarcerated.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Golly, it sure is busy on this thread where whining scumbags get to vent their spleens about how important it is for them to have unfettered access to teh gunz. Meanwhile that update on the nice, former LAGO who killed them five kids in N.C.(the ones that were too stupid, lazy or cheap to arm themselves)? Crickets, dude, crickets.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rich Goebbler,

    Isn't freedom wonderful? I hear people are still wasting their money on Herman Cain's campaign too. You send your money to the Brady Bunch, but do ask them how much they actually accomplish. You're not getting a lot of bang for your buck.

    Anonymous,

    I'm not sure what you're saying. In principle, I agree with constitutional carry, but I'm willing to accept a shall-issue licensing system, if that's the limit. That's what a lot of states have done, and the trend is in the direction of requiring no licenses, apparently.

    Democommie,

    I've said what I have to say on that case. You worry that bone all you want.

    ReplyDelete
  25. greg, you only have a problem with me when you say things without a basis, but given that admission--I'm quite willing to wager that you have never actually read the cases you would quote.

    I have demonstrated that Gun loons often cite to cases which are irrelevant to their argument, or straight off contradict their argument.

    They do this because they haven't read the case, and it's obvious to anyone with a shred of legal education.

    I'm not going to clue you in, greg, because I find it amusing to see you wade into topics you have no knowledge or ability and make an idiot of yourself.

    So, your comment is making it painfully obvious that you are more than willing to talk about subjects upon which you are ignorant, yet are unwilling to openly admit your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I will add to that last comment that you made a fool of yourself by calling things which most British and Irish school children know about their history "minutiae".

    I shudder to think that you actually teach.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I DO have a direct influence on the law, in several respects - there are a LOT of people who read here; there are a lot of people who read on the other places where I write, and I have a very good working relationship with my senators"

    So how many gun regulation bills have your senators sponsored and passed based on your input with them? As to the people that read here and other blogs, I would say that they have about the same influence on the law as you do....

    Laci - can you clarify if the courts have ever ruled exactly what "natural born citizen" means or if Congress has clarified that term in other legislation?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Laci the Dog,

    I have no doubt what interpretation you'll take on the case that I named. He was charged and tried. You'll support that. But the jury acquited. That tells me that the people tend to be more reasonable than your kind.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Jim, you are intellectually lazy--the answer is yes--natural born citizen is pretty well expounded upon in legal treatises.

    The Constitutional provisions in question:

    Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:

    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The Twelfth Amendment states that, "No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." The Fourteenth Amendment does not use the phrase natural-born citizen. It does provide that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    Under Article One of the United States Constitution, representatives and senators are only required to be U.S. citizens.

    The first several presidents prior to Martin van Buren, as well as potential presidential candidates, were born as British subjects in British America before the American Revolution.

    In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that

    every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.

    As I said, the US recognises both Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis as making one a natural born citizen.

    And this is a pretty well covered point of law.

    Obama would be a US citizen by birth and by family tie (his mother).

    I should also add that it is next to impossible to renounce US Citizenship.

    Renunciation of US Citizenship is an affirmative act, which must be acknowledged by the US State Department.

    Unless someone can produce documentation that Obama renounced his citizenship, he is a US Citizen.

    To be quite honest, Benjamin Netanyahu (if he were born in the US) could return to the US, fulfill the residency requirement, and run for President!

    Howzat!

    ReplyDelete
  30. A memorandum to Congress dated April 3, 2009, written by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), states:

    Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

    ReplyDelete
  31. I can't wait until doggone answers Greg's question:

    "You said that you recognize some cases of legitimate need to carry. But why? Does having a restraining order against someone else give a person magical skill to use a handgun? Does carrying a large pile of cash give someone the judgement to determine when using a gun is justified? I thought that you said that property isn't worth a life. Now you tell us that the cash in my wallet isn't sufficient to justify my carrying. Would you be so kind as to name the figure above which I would have a reason to carry? If I have a restraining order against someone or if I walk around with a bag full of diamonds, will I need training, or may I just carry a handgun?"

    Sic 'em!

    ReplyDelete
  32. BTW, here's the Official State Department write up on renunciation of Citizenship:

    http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

    As I said, Obama could be born in Kenya, but if his mother is a US citizen--he is a natural born citizen.

    Likewise, John McCain, who was born in Panama was a US Citizen since his parents were US Citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Greg, if you have a court case, with proper citation, I will properly interpret that case.

    if you can't provide the proper citation, then you are full of shit.

    It sounds to me that you are blowing smoke out your ass and not going to produce the case since you can't properly authenticate it.

    So, put up, or shut up, Greg, and stop being the fat whiny shit that you are.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Jim, you are intellectually lazy"

    Yet I got a high powered attorney to provide free legal research for me :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm sending you a bill for $100, Jim.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I just read Ayoob's description of the confrontation, the arrest and trial of Larry Lindsey.

    Ayoob's style of writing is what I would expect from a hack, not a professional. Lindsey's self-report that he was following the other car and then basically boxing himself into a parking lot does not speak well of his marine training.

    It also appears that Ayoob's "expert testimony" was a sandbagging by the defense attorney whose excuse was that his fax didn't get through, unbeknownst to him. Doesn't pass the smell test. But, for Greg Camp's purposes it will do.

    ReplyDelete
  37. As I said, an expert witness only means that this person claims to have more than the average knowledge on a topic.

    Poking holes in expert testimony is what trial attorneys do for a living.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I should add that to get a proper feel for the testimony given by Ayoob in this case and the evidence presented would require actually reading the trial transcript.

    I seriously doubt that greg would do that due to the expense, unless the transcript was published on-line.

    Failing that, you only have second hand reports, which are not sufficient for a proper legal opinion.

    greg wants a lawyer like himself who is willing to speak out of ignorance and tell Greg that he is correct.

    Greg has shown that he could give a shit about proper legal method as long as the outcome is what Greg wants to see.

    So, yes, Greg, I am not the person you want to hire as an lawyer because I won't bullshit you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. If anything, the Larry Lindsay story backs up my opinion--if you do not get your side of the story out--there is a highly likelihood that you will be the one accused of a crime. And while the big tough gunloons like to talk about better to be judges by 12 than carried by six--a Jury is a crapshoot in the hope that you will find a sympathetic person who wants to let you off.

    Win or lose, you will spend a fair amount of cash on legal representation, unless you are fortunate enough to get the public defender or a court appointed attorney.

    But, I would imagine that you would prefer to have the best representation available, rather than a PD or court appointed attorney.

    That will cost well into the thousands of dollars--at least $5,000--probably far more than that.

    Additionally, Ayoob talks of rules of engagement, which is what I pointed out in the Yellow card post.

    So, no, you are not being unfairly singled out when people ask you to use your firearm lawfully.

    If you can't accept that, then you really have no business carrying a firearm.

    if you can't afford the repercussions and take responsibility for your actions, then you really shouldn't carry a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Tony wrote: I can't wait until doggone answers Greg's question:

    "You said that you recognize some cases of legitimate need to carry. But why? Does having a restraining order against someone else give a person magical skill to use a handgun?


    Such a person would still need the requisite training, obviously; I never suggested otherwise.Someone with a restraining order against another person has had to meet a minimum standard of proof that they are in some way threatened or at risk.

    Does carrying a large pile of cash give someone the judgement to determine when using a gun is justified?

    Aw, Tony, now you're just, as the Brits would say, 'playing at silly buggers'.

    Someone who routinely carries a LARGE amount of cash, or some other exceptionally valuable items, is far more likely to be the target of a planned robbery where the criminals have sufficient gain to justify behaving violently.

    This is quite different from someone engaging a random person on the street where they may end up with nothing more than $5 and a cell phone nearly out of minutes. It is, as with the case of someone with a restraining order, the hazard that is different, and it is likely that they will know and recognize the person who presents the danger, unlike guessing about a stranger approaching on the sidewalk.

    Again - training and judgment are still required, but it is reasonable that someone handling those large sums must have some degree of judgment and character to be trusted with that level of responsibility in the first place. The common denominator here is being at greater risk of targeted violence on a regular basis in contrast to an unlikely random instance of crime with a very different level of motivation to harm the victim.

    Further,

    I thought that you said that property isn't worth a life. Now you tell us that the cash in my wallet isn't sufficient to justify my carrying. Would you be so kind as to name the figure above which I would have a reason to carry? If I have a restraining order against someone or if I walk around with a bag full of diamonds, will I need training, or may I just carry a handgun?"

    Sic 'em!


    Aw Tony, I think the distinction is pretty obvious. Further, someone carrying a weapon in the course of risking greater than random danger is also far more likely to be backed up by things like insurance and a bond, which means that if THAT person makes a mistake, someone has a better chance of being indemnified.

    So Tony, do you genuinely not see the differences here? Or do you just like conflating things which are dissimilar?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anon wrote:
    Not necessarily. When I was a detective in LA around 1984, I witnessed a suspect punch clean through a laminated car windshield while high on pcp. Broke every bone in his hand, didn't feel a thing.

    And Anon, what is your basis for determining this was PCP? Are you aware of similar instances of people demonstrating extreme and unexpected strength under ordinary adrenaline?

    How about people having a seizure? You are aware, I assume, that they sometimes can move in uncontrolled and very violent, very physically powerful ways. Or someone who is schizophrenic?

    I mentioned ketamine, which is another pharmaceutical which numbs people to the pain of their actions.

    The problem is with intent; it is doubtful that anyone under the influence of PCP or Ketamine can be intentionally harming another person. The effects of those drugs might be an indicator that they resist restraint, but it is unlikely

    Or what about people under the influence of a chemical substance is they lack the intent to commit robbery or assault, and therefore do not justify a self defense shooting. They lack the mental organization and control.

    I have no doubt they present some very real difficulties to law enforcement or other first responders who have to restrain them -including for their own safety from themselves.

    But that does not generally rise to the level of threat that justifies a self defensive shooting by a civillian.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dog Gone,

    Obviously, there's no sense in trying to reason with you about spotting a drug user, since you refuse to understand what we're saying.

    You still haven't answered why you were justified in carrying a handgun. Thus I call you an elitist prig. You have justification, but we don't. You're better than we are. You know more than we do. We just have to accept that, since you'll bury us in irrelevant dodges if we have doubts. But there remains the glaring omission: You got training to carry. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  43. So, would you agree that once the need for the restraining order is gone, the need for the gun is gone, and it should be surrendered to authorities?

    Would you also agree that people that are targets of a planned robbery would not be able to respond to the surprise by (likely) multiple assailants quickly enough, and that there is no real reason that they should be able to carry guns, no matter what the value of their wallet/briefcase?

    ReplyDelete
  44. "And Anon, what is your basis for determining this was PCP? Are you aware of similar instances of people demonstrating extreme and unexpected strength under ordinary adrenaline"

    Can't be sure. This was the suspect in the Tech Noir nightclub massacre. All we found of his body eventually was his hand.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Can't be sure. This was the suspect in the Tech Noir nightclub massacre. All we found of his body eventually was his hand.

    Wo, I knew you lot were walts, but that takes the cake!

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Really though, what is your justification for carrying?"
    -----
    Keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). Endeth the lesson.

    ReplyDelete
  47. No response?


    So, would you agree that once the need for the restraining order is gone, the need for the gun is gone, and it should be surrendered to authorities?

    Would you also agree that people that are targets of a planned robbery would not be able to respond to the surprise by (likely) multiple assailants quickly enough, and that there is no real reason that they should be able to carry guns, no matter what the value of their wallet/briefcase?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Tony:

    "So, would you agree that once the need for the restraining order is gone, the need for the gun is gone, and it should be surrendered to authorities?"

    Nice strawman. Why would anyone who owns a weapon simply turn it in to the police because they no longer need to carry it due to threats to their personal safety? That sounds too stupid for even you to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Democommie,

    Tony was taking Dog Gone's reasoning to its conclusion. I'm glad to see that you acknowledge such an outcome as stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thanks demo, but I'll wait for doggone to give me a more reasoned response.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Greg Camp:

    No, actually, Tony was doing what you and so many of your gunzloonz palz do. He was conflating. It's a bad habit.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Moonshine,
    I was directing that at dg who said he carries. I also believe that it is a right. I wanted to know why dg feels he us better than the rest of us and therefore allowed to carry.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous, why do you assume 'he'? I think my avatar is pretty clear. I'm female, and NO, I do not carry.

    Please clarify your question to me. We do have contact email; if you have a question, including one you would like to see included in a post, please feel free to use it, in addition to the option of making a comment,if you think that might work better.

    Since you did not know I'm female, I can only assume you are new to the blog. (My other co-bloggers are male,btw.) Welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Tony wrote So, would you agree that once the need for the restraining order is gone, the need for the gun is gone, and it should be surrendered to authorities?

    I would agree that once the need for the restraining order is over, there is no longer a need for a carry permit. What one does with their own property in their own home - whether they keep or dispose of the firearm, including selling it if they no longer want or need it, would be up to the gun owner. I was addressing the carry aspect, not gun ownership.

    Would you also agree that people that are targets of a planned robbery would not be able to respond to the surprise by (likely) multiple assailants quickly enough, and that there is no real reason that they should be able to carry guns, no matter what the value of their wallet/briefcase?

    Not necessarily. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who was, for example, making a bank deposit at their routine time of day, would in fact be more alert and differently prepared during that part of their day than they would be during the rest of the 24 hours in a day. While it might still be possible for a robbery to occur, it is more likely they could be prepared for a specific set of circumstances involved in that period of time - such as recognizing what areas would lend themselves to such an occurrence between a place of business and the bank / savings and loan / credit union.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous asked, "I'm not the anon from earlier and I just have a quick question - are you guys Brits? If not why the UK addresses? "

    We're from all over the place and our e-mail addresses have nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Greg, others.

    I have no objection to concealed or open carry when people have a clear, objective, rational need for carrying a firearm for a specific reason.

    That carry is contingent on that clear, specific, objective greater than random ordinary danger existing.

    A vague maybe it could happen, in the face of steadily decreasing crime statistics does not meet that threshold for a need to carry. 'Because I wanna' does not meet that need to carry.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dog Gone,

    Sorry, it was a typo, stupid iPhone. But you still haven't answered the question - what makes you special enough to carry?

    And as to the question of where you live, if you don't live in the US, why do you care about our laws? If you are looking for a cause to get involved in there are plenty of others that are far more serious going on around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Have you ever thought that the decreasing crime rate might have something to do with the increase in permissive carry laws? Statistically they seem to have a pretty strong correlation on a state by state basis.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Thank you, doggone, for your response. I find your comments and answers very clear and instructive in forming a thoughtful decision about whether someone should or should not own/carry/use a firearm. Whether someone comes to the same conclusion as you or not, you are articulate and patient in your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Dog Gone,

    And there's the problem--need, as defined by you. You won't tell us why you had a need to carry. You've mentioned that your father was involved in banking, and you've named carrying large amounts of cash as one reason to carry a handgun, so was that the reason? If so, where's the line? What is a large amount of cash to one person may be tiny to another. One person can threaten harm to another and commit that harm in less time than it takes to get a restraining order. And so forth.

    We refuse to allow your idea of need to be the defining characteristic in shall-issue states. You do know, don't you, that in some counties of California, for example, self defense is regarded by the sheriff as sufficient need?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Shorter Greg Camp:

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!

    "Have you ever thought that the decreasing crime rate might have something to do with the increase in permissive carry laws? Statistically they seem to have a pretty strong correlation on a state by state basis.

    December 7, 2011 3:29 PM"

    Um, No. CCW is CCW, yes? In fact in some states if you're a CCW licensee and someone SEES your weapon, you have broken the law. So, more people carrying gunz may correlate to lower crime numbers but they are not causative of lower crime numbers, unless someone can show that the thugs are now telepathic.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Actually, it's been shown that the lower crime rate is due to other factors than permissive firearms laws.

    ReplyDelete
  63. GC wrote: And there's the problem--need, as defined by you.

    No, not need defined by ME. I'm perfectly willing to have need defined by others, so long as that need has an objective reality basis. I'd be happy for it to be the courts, when they issue restraining orders, or municipalities when they issue business licenses. I would bet that a computer analysis of the thefts and/or robberies of commercial entities and not-for profit entities like churches and charities that take in cash donations could easily provide a reasonable threshold amount of money as an objective basis.

    You won't tell us why you had a need to carry.
    Incorrect. I've answered that question on this blog at least half a dozen times, and I'm perfectly willing to do so again. I've already complied multiple times with your request - just not immediately upon your demand.

    If you want to know, all you have to do is two things. Provide a court case that you claimed you had to support your argument, and provide a single expert that supports your notions of when it is appropriate - and legal - to shoot in self defense, on the basis of your assumptions of implicit violence being involved (versus overt evidence of a violent threat).

    You've mentioned that your father was involved in banking, and you've named carrying large amounts of cash as one reason to carry a handgun, so was that the reason?

    No. My father never went armed with a firearm, except as a naval aviator flying long range reconaissance in combat. I have been in the position of making substantial cash deposits from businesses where I worked, alone, relatively late at night however - and I never went armed then either.

    If so, where's the line? What is a large amount of cash to one person may be tiny to another.

    See above.

    One person can threaten harm to another and commit that harm in less time than it takes to get a restraining order.

    Yes they can; it is not a perfect solution. However if you take the time to examine the bureau of justice statistics as they relate to analyzing the relationships is crime, you will see that it does address some of the most egregious problems, and that such a basis DOES provide a practical and objective basis - a RATIONAL basis for who carries, why and when.

    The instances of random violence, the very use of weapons, much less highly lethal weapons like firearms by criminals is clearly not even remotely as likely as violence from someone known to you, particularly as it relates to domestic violence or similar instances where someone has a restraining order against another person.

    You might get hit in the head by a piece of space debris, or a small meteorite, but it doesn't mean it makes sense for you to wear a helment 24/7. That would not only be a bad idea because of the relative improbability of the event occurring, but because the helmet wouldn't necessarily provide you adequate protection anyway.

    Kinda like your gun stuck in your belt with your finger on the trigger.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Dog Gone,

    So you won't answer the question. I don't have time to go digging through back issues of this blog to find it. I don't really care, other than to note that you strike me as a hypocrite who felt herself justified to carry, but the rest of us somehow aren't, in her wise opinion.

    I did provide the court case to support one conclusion. I gave the source: Massad Ayoob's "Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry." Read it or don't. I don't care.

    Fortunately for those of us living in shall-issue states, we don't have to meet your standards for a license. States that make a change head in our direction, not yours--Wisconsin being the latest example.

    Have you had yourself evaluated for OCD? You lot are obsessing about one picture meant to represent a piece of history, not present day best practice. Many of you are like little children who put their fingers in their ears and scream as a way of stopping whatever adult conversation is going on. Or perhaps you saw something of yourself in that snotty Cockney schoolgirl in the video of an earlier post.

    ReplyDelete
  65. So you believe that I should Give whatever I have (including my life) to anyone who threatens me with the use of force because if I were to resist(with a gun) I would hurt them?

    Defensive gun use is the criminals fault, not the shooters. Even if the criminal was only planning on intimidation to achieve their goal (robbery, rape, etc.), if they had not initiated contact with the shooter they wouldn't be harmed.

    As to your earlier questions about people carrying concealed knowing an assailants intent. You are correct - I don't know the attacker's intent. You can only assume the worst case scenario and go from there. If I'm carrying, that means the gun is coming into play. I refuse to put my life in the hands of a degenerate lowlife and hope that he won't hurt or kill me.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Actually, Greg, you're the one like the snotty kid.

    I hate to tell you, but most of your beliefs about the Second Amendment are based upon lies and half truths, not backed up by primary source material.

    It makes no sense to me why anyone would want to spread such bullshit since it is contrary to the public interest.

    The real issue was the institution of the militia, as opposed to a standing army. Get away from the US issued gun propaganda (or read between the lines of it) and you will find there is no basis for "gun rights" in the Second Amendment.

    Quite possibly even in the State Analogues.

    To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

    In the case of Simpson vs. The State, 5th Yer. Rep. 356, Judge White, in delivering the opinion of the court, makes use of the general expression, that "by this clause in the constitution, an express power is given, and secured to all the free citizens in the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever, as to their kind and nature."

    But in that case, no question as to the meaning of this provision in the constitution arose, or was decided by the court, and the expression is only an incidental remark of the judge who delivered the opinion, and, therefore, is entitled to no weight.

    We think, therefore, that upon either of the grounds assumed in (p.162)this opinion, the legislature had the right to pass the law under which the plaintiff in error was convicted. Let the judgment be affirmed.

    Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840)

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous wrote:
    So you believe that I should Give whatever I have (including my life) to anyone who threatens me with the use of force because if I were to resist(with a gun) I would hurt them?

    No. The basis for not resisting is that it provides the better chance of YOU not getting hurt. It also reduces the chances that YOU are incorrectly analyzing and observing the situation, and then illegally shooting an unarmed person who is NOT a serous threat to your life and limb. It is a response which is therefore also safer for your ass not ending up in jail, and for you not ending up far poorer than the theft of a minor amount.

    I would specifically direct your attention to the distinction between theft and robbery that Laci outlined. I'm always surprised and frankly disappointed how few gun nuts who do NOT know the difference between the two.

    and

    You can only assume the worst case scenario and go from there.

    NO. Wrong. Bad.

    You can only LEGALLY make a judgment based on the facts, not on your nutty notions of fictional, fantasy 'worst case scenarios'. Your very choice of melodramatic words here, suggests you would be prone to over react.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Laci the Dog,

    English departments use a different system of citation, so excuse me here, but is the case that you cited from 1840? We could mention Bliss v. Commonwealth (of Kentucky) in 1822 that found an individual right. The notions of individual vs. collective right have been tossed about for a long time, but Heller and McDonald declared an individual right that is not tied to militia service.

    The same kind of thing happened with the First Amendment. It took a long while for us to figure out exactly what is guaranteed there. Would anyone seriously suggest that it does not apply to a blog? But we can see how the Founders had no idea of an Internet.

    The courts interpret the laws and constitutions into the present, nd the Supreme Court was correct to find an individual right in the Second Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Laci, in your opinion, are states allowed to issue concealed carry permits, allow open carry of guns with a permit, or allow open or concealed carry of guns without a permit?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Theft is taking something illegally. Robbery is taking something through the use or threat of force. Thus, I may not be aware that a theft is taking place, but I have to be present and feel threatened for a robbery. I've been talking about robbery here--a confrontation between the criminal and me.

    In Arkansas, if I find someone in my home who is there without my permission, the legal presumption is that the person is threatening my life. Outside, an attacker has to do something that a reasonable person would interpret as a threat to life. Unlike Anonymous, I don't regard anything questionable as meeting the standard.

    I note that you haven't given us the answers as you see them to your quiz. Perhaps that warrants a new article, since this one's abundant with commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 1. Unless someone has a weapon (or is ginormous) it's not robbery - it's asking for something. Whoever gives their belongings to someone who is doesn't have the means to take them from you by force is an idiot.

    Also I belive the crimes I stated as examples were robbery and rape - both violent offenses.

    2. By brandishing a weapon and the committing a criminal offense, the attacker is threatening the use of force. They are in effect threatening to harm you if you do not comply with their wishes. They are demonstrating that they are prepared to harm you. This is not something a reasonable person does. Yet you want me to assume that they will be reasonable and spare my life at the end of the encounter.

    What if a guy says he's going to rape you but not kill you? Do you just take the raping or are you justified in shooting?

    Relying on the good nature of criminals is wishful thinking at best, and fatal at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Greg, if someone SAYS they are going to kill you, and they appear to be capable of following through on that threat, I'd have no problem with you using necessary force - the minimum necessary force - to prevent harm coming to yourself.

    As someone who regularly posts news coverage of robberies here, that over statement is atypical of robberies.

    Quite often there is no threat of 'give me your money or I'll kill you' or even just the shorter 'I'm gonna kill you'.

    That is consistent with the data that I posted from the Bureau of Justice statistics, indicating that there was no weapon involved.

    You have an uphill battle to make the case that unarmed theft is robbery; rather you have claimed that anyone attempting theft is automatically threatening your life and safety.

    That is not true.

    For you to adequately answer my challenge to you to produce a case where someone trying to take your money and possessions justifies shooting them, you don't get to use the one you posted. That was a clear separate threatening statement.

    "Gimme your money", or "gimme your money or else" without a weapon is theft; YOU may consider it threatening, but I doubt it would meet the legal standard of robbery.

    You have failed to make your point, and you have failed to meet the challenge to your statements that I gave you.

    The crux of the discussion is, does anyone attempting to steal from you legitimately constitute robbery, does it legally (and morally for that matter) constitute a THREAT to your life and safety.

    I would argue that absent a verbal explicit threat, or the display of a weapon, it does NOT.

    You haven't made the case that contradicts me. Instead you try to waffle, and change the terms to include if someone says they're going to harm you. That is NOT what you were claiming before.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Greg,

    I dint believe that anything questionable is the standard. When I say "threatening" or "coercing" I mean with a weapon or am ability to do me harm. Words alone are not a threat unless backed up with something physical. I believe in the legal precedent is "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous - first a matter of technical business. For some reason duplicates of your comments are turning up for moderation. Apologies if you are having some sort of technical difficulties with comments, and please try on your end so far as you can not to do those duplicates, but I do recognize that it may not be entirely in your control. (It's mostly not much in our control either.)

    Now on to your comment:
    Also I belive the crimes I stated as examples were robbery and rape - both violent offenses.

    Actually rape is quite often NOT a violent offense, and I already wrote about the attempts of the right wing to try to redefine it as only violent sex rather than sex without consent. That would include incapacitation rape, such as that done to a woman under the influence of a date rape drug,and also statutory rape of someone under legal age who cannot consent. The majority of rape is by someone known to the victim, and quite often involves a type of pressure that or coercion that is NOT violent. Please do your homework better on the topic as well as look at the stats for that crime.

    2. By brandishing a weapon and the committing a criminal offense, the attacker is threatening the use of force. They are in effect threatening to harm you if you do not comply with their wishes. They are demonstrating that they are prepared to harm you. This is not something a reasonable person does. Yet you want me to assume that they will be reasonable and spare my life at the end of the encounter.

    It's not just MY recommendation, it is the consistent recommendation of pretty much every law enforcement and self defense expert who strongly suggests that unless you are a martial arts expert, for example, trying to draw a weapon on someone who already is waving one around at you is MORE likely to get you hurt than not doing so.

    But if you can produce statistics in some verifiable form from a credible source, (not the NRA or some gun loon source that has procedural and integrity issues) that resistance is consistently MORE successful, please do so.

    You won't, you can't, it doesn't exist which is why neither law enforcement nor self defense experts recommend YOUR course of action.

    But please do dazzle us with your sources. I always like to hear Laci laugh.

    What if a guy says he's going to rape you but not kill you? Do you just take the raping or are you justified in shooting?

    ReplyDelete
  75. How does someone relieve you of your possessions without a legitimate threat or use of force? Who doesn't just walk away laughing?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous,

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Dog Gone,

    I've asked this before, but you keep missing it. How does a person steal something from me--not from my house when I'm not there, but from me--without the use or threat of force? A pickpocket may take something without my knowledge. A young thug may grab a purse and run. But if someone comes near me and tells me to hand over my wallet, why would I comply?

    Without the threat of force, if I hand over my wallet, that's a gift. Without the threat or use of force, I'm not going to respond with force. I'm also not going to hand over my property, so no theft will occur.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ooops! My response to this part was dropped somehow.

    What if a guy says he's going to rape you but not kill you? Do you just take the raping or are you justified in shooting?

    I rely on my ability to think my way out of situations, not shoot my way out.

    The standard self defense course - I've taken more than one - does recommend that rape victims use their best judgment on when to resist and when not to resist. The DO suggest that in a lot of cases you are less likely to get hurt if you don't resist, and that as bad as the rape is, that still might be your best way out. They also talk about non-violent resistance - throwing up on your assailant, peeing on him, telling him you have a disease. Crying and becoming hysterical, etc.

    In suggesting your choice is to kill or be killed, you do not define the choices correctly, or fairly.

    I don't believe I am inherently a victim just because I'm female. I don't consider myself helpless, nor do I feel I need a gun to avoid being helpless.

    Every circumstance is different, and there are many options other than a firearm (or knife) or other lethal response which can be effective.

    But, please, do share with us what specialized expertise you bring to the subject that makes you more credible than law enforcement or self-defense experts on this.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Sorry about the dupes, I'm not seeing anything hunky on this end.

    Obviously I'm talking about violent rape. How is someone who is incapacitated going to defend themselves? Minors cannot posses handguns. And what is non violent pressure or coercion? If it doesn't involve violence or the treat if violence than you have a choice.

    Why do keep acting as if I'm advocating shooting people who have not demonstrated violent intent? The only reason to engage is force or the threat of immediate force.

    Where are your stats that show it is ineffective? My argument is based on the concept that I will not place my fate in the hands of a criminal threatening force against me. No one should be forced to give up their right to self defense because someone came up with some stats that said they should.

    Also, in the process of being condescending, you failed to answer the last question. Would you lay back and tale it?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Dog Gone,

    Really? Your suggestion to a woman who is threatened with rape is to take a leak on the guy? What if the woman has a gun. Do you really believe that accepting being raped is a superior choice to shooting the would-be rapist?

    See, I don't feel sorry for the rapist. If he dies, so much the better. Sure, if he survives, we'll give him a fair trial, but when a woman with a gun is attacked, I'd say that she should use the best tool to fight off her attacker--a .45 slug through the brain is a good technique.

    ReplyDelete
  80. This is my last post. It has become clear that you are a sheep who will do whatever the wolf asks in return for his promise that he will not devour you. If you are of the sincere belief that leaving your own fate in the hands of those who would dominate over you is an ideal state of existence, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I, however, will continue to be the arbiter of my own existence as much as the fates will allow.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Greg, are you aware that most rapes occur between acquaintances?

    Or is that yet another feature of your ignorance.

    Yet another problem with the "pro-gun" arguments is that they work on emotion, not reality.

    Greg, how aware of the techniques of propaganda are you? Do you realise that you are being played?

    If you were to be objective about all this, you would see that you are being conned!

    BIG TIME

    ReplyDelete
  82. This is my last post.

    I hope that is not a false promise.

    Good!

    Now, fuck off and go shoot yourself!

    I look forward to reading about you on Ohhh Shoot!

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous said...

    This is my last post. It has become clear that you are a sheep who will do whatever the wolf asks in return for his promise that he will not devour you. If you are of the sincere belief that leaving your own fate in the hands of those who would dominate over you is an ideal state of existence, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. I, however, will continue to be the arbiter of my own existence as much as the fates will allow.


    1. I'm not a 'sheep' and never have been.
    It is not MY suggestion a woman pee or puke on an assailant, it is the suggestion as one alternative, by most self defense class instructors for women. The reasoning is that you dissuade him from continuing by effectively grossing him out.

    2. Gee, does ANYTHING about my conduct on this blog suggest to you that I am a docile or easily dominated human being? If so, you're the only one who thinks so; if anything I'm usually criticized for just the opposite.

    Have YOU ever been raped? Ever worked a rape hotline? Have any close friends, either male or female who were raped?

    You're an arrogant ass to assume you know better than anyone who is actually in such a situation what the best response is.

    Care to go into the cases where a gun IS used against women? Or the cases where a serial rapist has only killed those women who resisted, but not those who did not physically attack the rapist?

    3. You can go arbit yourself into a jail cell, you ignorant bombastic macho fool.

    In my experience, the men who are competent, who are genuinely capable of handling an assailant, are calm and quiet and lacking in this kind of belligerence, or macho swagger. And they damn well do NOT require a gun to be men, as opposed to those who are simply adult by the definition of mere chronology and male only by the most generous interpretation of that word.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Dog Gone is as docile as she-wolf!

    And she-wolves run the pack.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I would note per Laci's comment (thank you mon cher) that in canine packs, either wolves or dogs, it is the females who are more often the better hunters, and it is often the females who are the 'pack enforcer'. Anyone conversant with canine pack behavior will tell you, it is less common for the females to get into conflict, but when they do, it is a far more intense fight than from the males.

    When it comes to the Anon-numb-i who insist they MUST have a firearm on them to be safe, I laugh.

    I don't need one to be safe. Combat veterans like Laci do not need one to be safe either.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Greg wrote:

    Can I see that a person is behaving in a manner that is consistent with being under the influence of something? Yes. If that person makes an aggressive move at me, I would have a good argument for defending myself.

    If someone is clearly impaired, for whatever reason - a medical condition, a prescription pharmaceutical bad reaction, or any other cause- you will have a harder time proving that deadly force was your only option, not an easier one, and that 'aggressive' move had better include a weapon.

    And even in those cases where police shoot someone doped out of their minds, for example, wielding a knife or a sword, they often have a heckuva time proving that the lethal force was justified. That is doubly true given the number of such cases that are successfully resolved with pepper spray, tasers, police dogs, or just plain physical intervention by the cops.

    So you should be far less assured that you will be viewed as correctly shooting someone who is impaired. Personally I doubt you Greg can correctly identify respectively, a drug impaired person from a mentally ill person, or adequately show that person is a threat to you.

    As was the case with the story of the 300 lb body builder naked on a couple's porch, the smart thing to do would be to phone the police and NOT engage him, not in a violent confrontation, not even in conversation. It was an avoidable pair of injuries.

    The couple had the opportunity to leave, and did not take it. While I think their injuries are terrible, there was the opportunity to avoid that result. The criminal is the one who is responsible for harming them, but they share a responsibility to not put themselves stupidly in harms way unnecessarily.

    Otherwise, they get hurt in part because they were simply VERY unwise.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dog Gone,

    Regarding the naked man who assaulted the couple, they were in their own home, no? In Arkansas, we have no duty to retreat from our own homes. The situation would have been a clear-cut case of self defense. Do you really believe that it's my moral duty to abandon my own home because some goblin wants to break in?

    What a level of moral decay we have reached in that we have intelligent people advocating retreat, submission, and acquiescence to evil. We came from better ancestors than that.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Greg wrote:
    What if the woman has a gun. Do you really believe that accepting being raped is a superior choice to shooting the would-be rapist?

    If the choice is rape and live versus getting killed - yes.

    As was pointed out to me in what appears to have been a far more extensive and intensive training course than anything YOU'VE taken, a firearm is most useful for it's lethal capacity AT A DISTANCE. At closer range, you as the gun user start getting into greater potential danger.

    So what I was taught, is if you're going to shoot someone, if you have determined it is absolutely necessary and justified, don't wait too long to do it, don't let them get dangerously close before pulling the trigger.

    When you are close to someone, there is the risk of them grappling with you. That means you lose at least some if not all of your ability to control and direct the fire.

    Really Greg - tell me how many real life rapists you know of who made those intentions clear from say 8 to 10 feet away? It is rarely a crime where a woman can expect that kind of opportunity.

    Sounds good, just put a bullet in his brain......until you actually THINK about the most common circumstances of that kind of crime.

    You make a false set of choices Greg, and they are stupid on the face of them.

    Greg then expands on his stupidity with the following:
    See, I don't feel sorry for the rapist. If he dies, so much the better.

    I don't feel SORRY for the rapist EITHER. This is just more of your stupid pseudo-manly posturing. It is stupid, it is an emotional rather than an objective and rational appeal. Don't be so stupid.
    Sure, if he survives, we'll give him a fair trial,
    Wow, yet another indication of your preference for vigilante violence.

    but when a woman with a gun is attacked, I'd say that she should use the best tool to fight off her attacker--a .45 slug through the brain is a good technique.

    Really. Do tell me how you think that shot is going to happen. Because I'd like to compare it to the instruction I was given to aim for a body shot as being a better, more sure target, and one that has the greater likelihood of effective stopping power.

    You dumb-ass swaggering macho wannabe. You incompetent fantasy gunslinger.

    I've got more guts, am probably a better shot, and am a helluva lot more resourceful than you will ever be.

    I would bet you dollars to dough-nuts that I've actually BEEN in more dangerous situations than you have ever been in, in more places.

    ReplyDelete
  89. If a real goblin is breaking into your home, you're fucked, Greg, since they have magic which protects them from firearms.

    I am amazed at the hypocracy of the American people who talk about the sanctity of life, yet are more than willing to kill another human being.

    I'm curious as to whether the criminals will begin to take an attitude of shoot first if they encounter a homeowner--better them then me.

    Like my client who killed the grandmother when he robbed another drug dealer--can't leave any witnesses.

    Of course, for all your bravado, I wonder how you would react if you actually had to kill someone--especially if they died slowly.

    You could deal with the gore and the reality of killing another human being.

    Or is that yet another part of your fantasy world that you have yet to address, Greg?

    ReplyDelete
  90. No, John McCain was not eligible to become president.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157621
    Sincerely,
    the other anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  91. Other anonymous, the children of military, of diplomats, and of any American citizen who is born overseas IS in fact eligible to be President. You are incorrect; one law professor's speculation is not definitive proof nor is it the equivalent of a legal decision.

    But if you are determined to give credence to law professors, here is another one for you that refutes Chin: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-john-mccain-was-a-citizen-at-birth.

    A quick search of legal sources that I did overwhelmingly seemed to be on the side of McCain being a citizen who was in fact eligible for the office of president.

    You might be surprised how many candidates have had questions raised about their eligibility, but were still presumed to be qualified as reflected in their running for office. The most recent example from AZ before McCain was Goldwater, for example.

    But by all means, if you have any SCOTUS decisions that show otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing the citations.

    ReplyDelete
  92. GC wrote: Regarding the naked man who assaulted the couple, they were in their own home, no?

    No they were just coming home,and were still outside the boundaries of their property.

    The smart thing to do would be to stay in their vehicle and call the cops to come do what they eventually did - taser and hand cuff him.

    In Arkansas, we have no duty to retreat from our own homes. The situation would have been a clear-cut case of self defense. Do you really believe that it's my moral duty to abandon my own home because some goblin wants to break in?

    I appreciate that maybe you have played one too many sessions of dungeons and dragons, but this is a human being, not a goblin. Of course, you have a need to try to talk yourself out of any acknowledgment of humanity as part of the justification for killing unnecessarily another human being. It is one of the aspects of your comments which not only demonstrates you lack the capacity for objective analysis, much less any tactical or strategic thinking. Your moral values are contemptible.

    What a level of moral decay we have reached in that we have intelligent people advocating retreat, submission, and acquiescence to evil. We came from better ancestors than that.

    It is not submission to evil to prefer to see someone impaired receive justice and due process of law. But yet again you demonstrate that you don't really understand the terminology or the concept.

    I don't know anything much about YOUR ancestors, but mine have been here since 1803. None of them would have condoned the crap you use in place of thinking,

    Rather I think you Greg are a coward.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Dog Gone,

    I feel largely the same about you. Add in that you're an elitist prig, and that about covers it.

    ReplyDelete
  94. My, it's been a bizzy time for Greg Camp. For a guy who accuses others of lacking concicity and breviousness he's a might long winded. Trying to pin Mr. Camp down is like trying to nail jello to snot--dog gone, you do yeowomanly work in that hopeless endeavor.

    This:

    "How does someone relieve you of your possessions without a legitimate threat or use of force? Who doesn't just walk away laughing?"

    is what, a riddle?

    Okay I know the answer.

    The guy who carries his gun everywhere but has his duster buttoned up so he can't do that Wild West crossdraw. Toughsky shitsky.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Democommie,

    You didn't answer how it could be done. How does an unarmed man who presents no danger to my life get me to hand over my possessions?

    "Please give, or I'll say 'please' again"?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Quite easily, he comes up behind you and tells you that he will shoot you if you don't give him your money.

    Or are you such a hot shot gunslinger, Greg, that you could shoot him when he's standing behind you?

    As I pointed out, an open carry idiot was robbed of his gun.

    ReplyDelete
  97. greg, I notice that you like to use the term elitist quite a bit for those with more knowledge than you have.

    Having knowledge does not make one a part of the elite.

    And praising ignorance is not a virtue.

    But, Greg, you value ignorance. You want to debate people who are obviously far more knowledgeable than you are.

    I would ask you to provide case that that backs up your assertion about the Ninth Amendment giving people a right to deadly weapons.

    I am afraid that assertion falls flat on its face since rights are usually given to things which are a benefit to society--and the proliferation of dangerous objects in the hands of idiots like yourself and other gun loons is not a benefit to soceity.

    I know that you think you are incredibly intelligent, Greg. And that belief allows you to give opinions on topics that you have no knowledge.

    But, glorifying ignorance really isn't elitism.

    ReplyDelete
  98. The problem with your comment, Grge, is that it makes you appear to again admit that I am correct and you are wrong.

    Now, like the every supporter of the individual right when cornered that their position has no basis, you have to try and find some other basis for asserting that the US Constitution offers a basis for claiming "Gun rights".

    Stevens' dissent shows quite clearly that there were at least two known pre-existing statutes in state Constitutions that expressly mentioned an individual's right to the use of guns for self-defense and/or hunting. It was obvious that at least some of the Framers involved in the drafting of the 2nd amendment would have been quite aware of those formulations.

    Yet as the 2nd amendment was drafted, none of that language made it into the amendment.

    In the face of this history, I don't see how one plausibly maintains either that the 2nd amendment was intended to grant to individuals the right to use weapons, or that even that the 9th amendment was intended to cover it. The 9th amendment, presumably, was intended to cover those things that it would not have occurred to the Framers to have expressed. I don't see how that argument gets made with regard to something like an individual's right to use weapons, given that a conscious choice certainly appears to have been made to omit such language (which would literally have required only an additional two or three words regarding self defense in the 2nd amendment.

    So, Greg, unless you can show me that the words are explicitly there in the Second Amendment that you have a right to arms for personal purposes, your argument falls flat on its face.

    ReplyDelete
  99. BTW, Greg, since the right to bear arms is specifically addressed in the Second Amendment, "gun rights" just aren't an "other" right that the Ninth purports to address in any event.

    ReplyDelete
  100. On the other hand, if you can provide real case law that backs up your assertion(as opposed to the twisted opinion coming from your side), I am more than willing to reconsider my opinion.

    But, Greg, no matter how smart you think you are, you aren't a lawyer.

    You have no idea of legal method.

    If you did, you would not make the stupid comments that you do.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Laci The Dog:

    "But, Greg, no matter how smart you think you are, you aren't a lawyer.

    You have no idea of legal method.

    If you did, you would not make the stupid comments that you do.

    December 8, 2011 1:56 PM"

    If he needs a fine legal scholar, he can always hire Orly Taitz--assuming she's not too busy counselling the birfers. After getting benchslapped by that judge in CA for frivolous filings/contempt (to the tune of $20K) I think that Orly could use the do-re-mi.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Yes, this crowd does use some pretty silly arguments which are not properly based in law.

    Greg, one of the reasons I blog as my dog is that she has been in Court more than Harriet Miers or Michele Bachmann.

    ....and quite a few US law school professors--one of them being a highly influential Second Amendment scholar.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Bat shit crazy birther queen OlryTaitz got slapped first with a $10k, then a $20k contempt fine.

    It was GA, not CA, and the Judge was Judge Clay Land, a Republican appointee to the bench, btw. Land's contempt fine document was some of the most entertaining legal reading I have ever done. He was not only very erudite and well organized and well reasoned, with appropriate legal citations, he was witty and in a few spots downright funny, incorporating quotes from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland brilliantly into the document.

    Greg fits right in with Orly Taitz's poor scholarly research, poor writing and reasoning, and just batshit crazy ideas that lack any substance in law or common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Greg asks democommie this question, which I will happily answer:

    How does an unarmed man who presents no danger to my life get me to hand over my possessions?

    Easy. First of all, I doubt that you are really any good with your silly quicks draw McGraw rigs -either the belt OR a holster.

    So I would posit that someone who comes up to you and demands your money scares the bejeesus out of you. I actually believe you would piss yourself and hand it over without putting up a fight at all.

    "Please give, or I'll say 'please' again"?

    Nah, I think any person larger, or just more fit, would intimidate you without threatening violence. Two such people would do so even more easily.

    I'd go further and bet you would then blame YOUR unwillingness to engage in shooting them on me and the other bloggers here rather than own your own cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Well, I know if I saw a guy wearing an ankle length duster and a fat straight out of "Harry Potter--The Curse of the Haberdasher", I would shit MYSELF? Then I'd sneak up behind him, whack him over the head and get myself some cash; a nice shiny, 1911 .45 and a duster. I'd leave the hat.

    ReplyDelete
  106. democommie, that's funny. But in all fairness I took that picture of our most prolific commenter to be a bit tongue-in-cheek. He does live in one of them hillbilly states, so you never know.

    Tell us about that pic, will ya Greg?

    ReplyDelete
  107. The man is an idiot.

    What more needs to be said?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Mikeb302000,

    Your fellow bloggers really fixate on nothing. The hat is a copy of Wild Bill Hickok's. It makes a good rain hat when I don't want to carry an umbrella. (Unless we're talking about the kind that John Steed had. . .)

    In modern day America, I don't actually support open carry, at least in populated areas. It's much better to keep one's sidearm concealed in a proper holster. That's what I do on a daily basis.

    Now when you speak of hillfolk, you are talking about some of my ancestors. Do take off your hat and speak with reverence.

    ReplyDelete
  109. "Your fellow bloggers really fixate on nothing. The hat is a copy of Wild Bill Hickok's."

    Uh, no, actually, we are making fun of the guy who's doing the "fixating".

    I don't know about the hat being a copy but if you're goin' for the "rakish" look--nahgunnahappin.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Your fellow bloggers really fixate on nothing. The hat is a copy of Wild Bill Hickok's.

    Really now, Greg!

    I just did a google search for Pics of Wild Bill Hickock and didn't find a picture to back up your assertion.

    I'll post a pic of him just to show your ignorance!

    Come on, greg, can you back up anything you say with facts?

    So far, you've only had the "lay/lie" thing going for you.

    I'm waiting to hear more of your whining since you're coming off pretty badly here, Greg.

    Of course, you don't see it that way.

    You're an idiot-savant!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Wow, Greg, when we ask you to show us that he wears the exact hat you do--you provide us with picturtes of him wearing a hat that is nothing at all like yours.

    How thick are those glasses you're wearing.

    Can you see well enough to be able to safely shoot a gun?

    Chic Gaylord? Is there something you're not telling us, Greg?

    ReplyDelete
  112. "But if you are determined to give credence to law professors, here is another one for you that refutes Chin: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/why-john-mccain-was-a-citizen-at-birth."

    No, I want to hear you dispute Chin's argument.
    Clearly, the Constitution differentiates between eligibility for Representatives and Senators, than for the President. Yet, no one has clarified that difference, except Vattel who was cited by the founding fathers, by presidents and by Justice Marshall.
    Again, the Constitution does not define citizen from natural born citizen because the difference was common knowledge at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I don't need to bother with arguing that Chin is wrong--the article you cite already does that for me.

    It's conclusion:
    But we must weigh the evidence as we find it, and the balance of that evidence suggests that John McCain was a citizen at birth.

    You did read what you cited, didn't you, anonymous?

    It's fun seeing you lot talk about things you have no idea what you are talking about!

    You are all sooooo ignorant!

    ReplyDelete
  114. BTW, from Jack Chin's article:

    Most scholars, including me, believe that natural born citizenship extends further, to all of those who obtain citizenship at birth by law. Calvin's Case was about subjectship, duties owed by subjects to a monarch who claimed to rule by the grace of God. U.S. citizenship, by contrast, involves membership in a political community based on democratic principles. Those born overseas are natural born citizens not because of natural law, but because Congress determined that they are naturally part of the political community.

    If this argument is right, then even if Obama had been born overseas, he is still a natural born citizen, because he obtained citizenship at birth through his mother who unquestionably was a U.S. citizen.

    If the current controversies about the natural born citizenship clause amount to a tempest in a teapot, that does not mean the clause is wise, or that it might not create a genuine problem in the future. For all of the Framers' wisdom, they erred in the Constitution in denying citizenship and political rights to women, African-Americans and others, and the natural born citizen clause's suspicion of naturalized citizens seems to reflect the same kind of bias.

    In a symposium of distinguished constitutional scholars, the combination of unintelligibility, interference with democratic choice and suspicion of naturalized citizens made Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy and Yale Law School Dean Robert Post nominate the clause as the "stupidest" in the Constitution. They may be right; it may be that We, the People of the United States, are perfectly capable of sensibly choosing presidents. Unless there are some justifications for it that make sense in a modern, free society, it may be time to consider getting rid of the clause.


    So, I am not sure what point anyone is trying to make about Jack's article.

    Yes, I know him--and he is a naturalised US Citizen!

    ReplyDelete
  115. Chin's area of expertise in the law is immigration law, not election law, which covers eligibility.

    Laci actually knows him personally.

    I don't need to refute his argument; he's outside the mainstream of legal opinion, wanting to prevent people being citizens on the basis of being born here. He's a classic exclusionist, where the earliest legislation by our founding fathers makes it clear that being born in this country makes you a citizen, as does the 14th amendment and the other legislation expanding on it which I provided.

    As to Vattel, have you ever READ it? I got a ways into it, it was no better in English translation than it was in the original French that I tried.

    While Vattel was an influence on the political philosophy of the era, his contribution to the thinking or the definition of these terms are vastly over rated by those who lack any better justification for their positions.

    I'd suggest you READ Vattel before you make claims about his work. I'm laughing at you attempting it. It's a helluva slog.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Laci, triple word score for hoisting Anonymous with his own source that contradicts what he thought it said.

    Applause - again.

    ReplyDelete