Wisconsin father defends family from drunk intruder

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The flaw in this logic is always the assumption that the good guy will win these battles. When you endorse the wholesale arming of the populace some of these people, even if usually considered 'good guys', will under certain circumstances be motivated to believe, wrongly, that they have justification for making a physical assault on someone else. It is a not uncommon occurrence in bars, for example. And my experience is that virtually all these people felt they were in the 'right', regardless of who won! When guns are involved the outcomes become much more lethal. Since I don't frequent bars and related locales, I have little personal fear of this type of scenario. But the potential for home invasion by low-lifes who have overt criminal intent does make me consider whether I might want to join the ranks of gun-owners anyway.

Nice theory. Doesn't work. Vermont allows anyone to be armed anywhere and there is very little crime and very few incidents of armed citizens shooting anyone. The fact that ANYone can be armed seems to drive the crime right across the lake into New York. Amazing how that works. We are armed, they aren't. No crime here, lots of crime there. Just doesn't work how you surmise. It turns out we are a very polite armed society. We have lots of bars and the population of our largest city is 25% college students all jazzed up on alcohol and hormones and....no crime. Not to say there is not the occasional barroom fisticuffs, I am sure there is . Just really nothing to make the police blotter. Homicide is virtually non-existant, random assaults non-existant, car-jacking...what? Drive by shootings? huh? It is flat out boring!

If you do decide to breing a firearm into your home, make sure everyone knows about it and how to handle it safely and when NOT to handle it. "gun-proof" the kids, you cannot "kid proof" the guns.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Nope, more interested knowing if there actually take care of the neighborhood.

I do not expect someone else to take care of my neighborhood with their gun. That is your choice, not mine.

Woosh! Genious

the signs ARE meaningless. If you get assaulted will you point to the sign while you call someone with a gun on your cell phone? I won't.

[xebec 195]

Your fuzzy understanding of language and grammar is where you go wrong. I assume you are NOT a lawyer! (Neither am I) My reference to bars (which some CCW advocates believe should be OK for carrying) was to demonstrate the type of typical miscommunication and macho behavior that results in stupid fights! These encounters are by no means limited to bars. I am sure you know this!

My language about "When you endorse the wholesale arming of the populace" refers to a point in time when you (and others) advocate a point of view that widespread CCW by any eligible person is a good thing. I did not then jump forward in time to WHEN everyone is armed but rather stayed within that (present) point in time to bring up an example of the type of encounter that is common at present in many places but stereotypical for bars. I did not say that current CCW holders have often been involved thusly. I also did not refer to "these armed people"! You have to add these words to twist what I said to what you want to believe I meant! I clearly stated only that the people I have seen (often in my line of work) that have been in bar fights always believe they were in the right, at the time anyway! You have to use a lot of "you meant" statements to get what I actually said distorted into what you seem to want to believe I said! You need to read a bit more carefully and not try so hard to read between the lines!

No need to read between the lines. Twist and turn all you want- you have been on this thread and others huffing and puffing about how legally armed people might just shoot an innocent person because they have some sense of invulnerability or authority. I write professionally in an academic field, and I have no trouble with English grammar. You, however, seem to be unaware of the meaning of your own writings. Now you prattle about jumping in time and staying in present points in time, or some such nonsense. I added the brackets to indicate that I streamlined the original wording to match my format....your original was "When you endorse the wholesale arming of the populace some of these people [This phrase must necessarily refer to the subordinate clause that comes before it....i.e. "these people" are a subset of the armed populace], even if usually considered 'good guys', will under certain circumstances be motivated to believe, wrongly, that they have justification for making a physical assault on someone else" and my bracketed words did not change the meaning (at least for a rational reader....oh, BTW grammar master, you should probably seperate the subordinate clause from the following phrase with a comma.... ).

More to the point. When will the sky stop falling, chicken-little? Where are all the shootouts between people legally carrying weapons? We have had concealed carry since the 1980s....where are all the wild west shootouts? This keeps you awake at night? Texas keeps records for every year comparing the crime rates of the general population and CHL holders. CHL holders commit crimes at less than 1% (Usually under half a percent) of the rate of the general population. Read it.....maybe you'll sleep easier. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Edited April 1, 2012 by xebec

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Do you have a link for this interesting claim that legal CCW holders are frequently involved in bar fights involving their weapon. You realize with the above bolded text you have made this claim. You also realize, of course, that all CCW laws (to my knowledge) preclude legal carry in "bars?" If you carried a pistol into a bar in Texas, you would be a felon. Not a legally armed citizen. Do you have any data about legally carried firearms causing an escalation of violence? The problem here is that you very likely have not been around armed civilians, and you are naturally skeptical.....perfectly normal reflex. I have been around armed people all of my life.....from hunting with my father as a child, to the infantry, to competitive shooting, to ongoing training. Most of the people I associate with carry on a regular basis. Not once in my life have I seen a (legally) armed person use their weapon inappropriately. Find a range or gun club, and expose yourself to the culture a little bit. Progressives pride themselves on open-mindedness....enlighten yourself.

Many states with CCW do not allow people to carry guns in bars or some do not allow it in any place that serves alcohol. But not all. Vermont has no "concealed carry law" because it does not need one. It is not illegal to carry a gun in a place that serves alcohol.

While I have no quarrel with such laws in general, it assumes that someone drunk and disorderly to the point of killing someone else will obey the law regarding concealed carry. Not likely. On the other hand, bars in Vermont are not "gun free zones" and despite a high proportion of young men, bars, alcohol, and young women that seem to be able to place their hemline exactly one centimeter below their hoo-hah...no crime.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "We are indeed a safer nation than 20 years ago."

He and others give four main reasons for the decline:

• Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.
• Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.
• The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.
• The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50.

Hmmm I don't see anything in there findings that guns lower crime rate.

Amazing. No mention at all. And you take that to mean that guns have no effect rather than the report is biased?

During the period 1986 to 2011, 44 states added concealed carry and you think that had NO effect? Seriously?

Only problem is who gets to decide! I might not always come to the same conclusion that an adversary of mine might!

Its a joke, James. The law is specific on who and how it gets decided. Each state covers this.

[xebec 195]

You have to use a lot of "you meant" statements to get what I actually said distorted into what you seem to want to believe I said! You need to read a bit more carefully and not try so hard to read between the lines!

No. The "you meant" statements are there because I have dealt with you before- a typical progressive that twists and turns like a Bali dancer as soon as they realize they can't defend their own statements. I know what you meant. You know what you meant. Everyone who read this knows what you meant.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Better yet I'm moving to Vermont to feel safe.We can be neighbors. lol

Thats why I moved here. I have not been disappointed.

[xebec 195]

Many states with CCW do not allow people to carry guns in bars or some do not allow it in any place that serves alcohol. But not all. Vermont has no "concealed carry law" because it does not need one. It is not illegal to carry a gun in a place that serves alcohol.

While I have no quarrel with such laws in general, it assumes that someone drunk and disorderly to the point of killing someone else will obey the law regarding concealed carry. Not likely. On the other hand, bars in Vermont are not "gun free zones" and despite a high proportion of young men, bars, alcohol, and young women that seem to be able to place their hemline exactly one centimeter below their hoo-hah...no crime.

I am enlightened now....thx Charles and Gary. I qualified my statement for the very reason that I suspected that this may be the case.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'll be the first line of defense and once they finish me off you can shoot them,

Yeah, thats how it works. People that depend on other people to have guns usually get killed waiting for the good guys with guns to show up.

Fortunately because everyone CAN carry guns, people who are depepdent on others are protected by the fact that the bad guys do not know how many people have guns and who is carrying them. Kind of like a shell game. Who you gonna rob? Who you gonna rape? "Um, excuse me sir, where is the ferry to New York?"

In states with concealed carry it is fairly well known that not a large percentage of the population has permits. Some do not want them, some depend on calling someone else with a gun, some do not want to bother with the process or fees...whatever, but maybe 2-3% of the population has CCW permits. In a tourist area, much less. On the other hand, you allow ANYone over 18, residents, tourists, non-residents, ANYone to carry a concealed weapon and NOW how many are there?

We welcome you to the state if you wish to move here. Bring skis.

[xebec 195]

While I have no quarrel with such laws in general, it assumes that someone drunk and disorderly to the point of killing someone else will obey the law regarding concealed carry. Not likely. On the other hand, bars in Vermont are not "gun free zones" and despite a high proportion of young men, bars, alcohol, and young women that seem to be able to place their hemline exactly one centimeter below their hoo-hah...no crime.

Perhaps, but I think there is another aspect. It is very possible that a sober, law-abiding armed individual could go into the bar, and become a highly intoxicated, violent, and irrational individual....it all depends on how much a person drinks, I suppose.

[Sayha or bust. 71]

I do not expect someone else to take care of my neighborhood with their gun. That is your choice, not mine.

the signs ARE meaningless. If you get assaulted will you point to the sign while you call someone with a gun on your cell phone? I won't.

"How about these so called vigil antes and neighbor hood watch people be registered(back ground checks) and trained by the state.? I might feel a little more safe if I knew they had training or who they were. I have a neighbor hood watch sign 50 feet from my front door and I honestly don't even know who they are or if they even exist".

Now Gary and Sosuke that's my original post above. Sosuke went on a rant about why do I wanna know and blah blah blah. How hard was that to understand. Read to what I'm responding to. Point being maybe this kind of reform could possibly spare another tragedy like this.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Sayha or bust.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

"How about these so called vigil antes and neighbor hood watch people be registered(back ground checks) and trained by the state.? I might feel a little more safe if I knew they had training or who they were. I have a neighbor hood watch sign 50 feet from my front door and I honestly don't even know who they are or if they even exist".

Now Gary and Sosuke that's my original post above. Sosuke went on a rant about why do I wanna know and blah blah blah. How hard was that to understand. Read to what I'm responding to. Point being maybe this kind of reform could possibly spare another tragedy like this.

I ranted? Really?

I just asked you a question that was a bit of joke. It relates to the recent George Zimmerman case. Are you familiar with that case?

[Sayha or bust. 71]

I ranted? Really?

I just asked you a question that was a bit of joke. It relates to the recent George Zimmerman case. Are you familiar with that case?

Guess I didn't get the joke, sounded more like you didn't understand my post.

[xebec 195]

"How about these so called vigil antes and neighbor hood watch people be registered(back ground checks) and trained by the state.? I might feel a little more safe if I knew they had training or who they were. I have a neighbor hood watch sign 50 feet from my front door and I honestly don't even know who they are or if they even exist".

Why would anyone need to be registered and trained by the state to watch their own neighborhood? Are you advocating the formation of some sort of state-run neighborhood militia? Does that sound like a good plan to you?

[james&olya 1,121]

No. The "you meant" statements are there because I have dealt with you before- a typical progressive that twists and turns like a Bali dancer as soon as they realize they can't defend their own statements. I know what you meant. You know what you meant. Everyone who read this knows what you meant.

I know what I meant. I said what I meant but I obviously used too much an economy of words to help those such as yourself understand what I meant. You obviously did not understand what I wrote! I apologize for not being explicit enough for you to prevent your misunderstanding. Maybe if I draw pictures as well next time? Nah, I am a lousy artist and don't have the time!