Pharyngula

Posted by: RNA Helix | November 26, 2010 3:36 PM

Don't believe him at all.

Posted by: wilsim | November 26, 2010 3:50 PM

This guy needs to be censured and possibly removed from office.
What i glean from this is that he was trying to intimidate people visiting the planned parenthood office.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | November 26, 2010 3:51 PM

Chuck - sure, I buy it. Guy meets girl online, they have coffee once or twice with no promises and no committment, he then feels entitled to follow her around with a gun to make sure she's not dating anyone else. Happens all the time.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | November 26, 2010 3:57 PM

Carlie,
I would go a step further, based on where he was I would be surprised if there wasn't more than coffee shared. Either way, it's scary how stalkers can happen from the mildest of beginnings.

Posted by: SimonC | November 26, 2010 4:08 PM

So, he had a moment of mistrust with his internet girlfriend? And he headed for the parking lot of the Planned Parenthood Clinic? With a gun? Makes sense if the girl was a liberal leftie - that's where all liberal women go in their spare time. To have an abortion... wait... must stop thinking like a wingnut.

More likely his paramour suggested that she didn't want to carry a pregnancy to term and he was stalking her to stop her... or there was no girlfriend and he was having an 'if only I could live my fantasies' moment.

Or it was plain and simple dog whistle politics - I have a gun, I'm near an abortion clinic. When you see me you will think 'ideal teabagger'. Vote won.

Posted by: lykex | November 26, 2010 4:09 PM

in the midst of a divorce

Gee, I wonder why.

When your defense is just as bad as what you're accused of, it's time to seriously rethink your approach.

Posted by: SundogA | November 26, 2010 4:15 PM

May I play Devil's Advocate for a moment?

Everyone is focusing on the gun. However, many people carry a weapon when going about their regular business (I know several). It seems to me that if he is one such person, it becomes significantly less creepy (and given the article specifies he has a concealed carry permit, I suspect he might be one of those people).

Posted by: Zabinatrix | November 26, 2010 4:24 PM

SundogA:

However, many people carry a weapon when going about their regular business (I know several). It seems to me that if he is one such person, it becomes significantly less creepy

People carrying deadly weapons while going about their regular business will never be anything but creepy to me.

Posted by: oodiesmith | November 26, 2010 4:26 PM

'(Police) did not press charges, and returned Hackbarth's gun to him a week later.'

I'm happy to find out that there are crazy parts and sane parts in Minnesota. I can extrapolate that there may be crazy parts of the entire USA and sane parts. Because for a while now I thought it was all fucking crazy.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | November 26, 2010 4:29 PM

I wasn't being snarky, I was being serious. Guys feel entitled to attention from women all the time, and get overly "protective" of what they now see as their property.

Actually, if his story is true it would be about entitlement (how people like him think they are entitled to a woman). If his story is a lie to cover up trying to intimidate girls, then it's still about entitlement (how people like him think they are entitle to what a woman does to her body.)

Posted by: greame | November 26, 2010 4:32 PM

People carrying deadly weapons while going about their regular business will never be anything but creepy to me.

Same here. Sorry, I know I live in mild mannered Canada, but I see no reason why anyone needs a gun while going to get their dry cleaning.

Posted by: Parse | November 26, 2010 4:35 PM

I'd potentially believe that he was in the Planned Parenthood lot unintentionally - if it were an hour after the clinic closes like the article says, it was probably a convenient empty parking lot. The lot in question doesn't give much indication that it's for Planned Parenthood, and I'd guess that - like the majority of state politicians in Harrisburg - he considers himself above the standard 'No noncustomer parking' rules that everybody else has to follow. Hanlon's razor would excuse that part of it. (Besides, if you want to intimidate the clientelle, it's probably better to do that when there's customers there.) That being said, that doesn't excuse his behavior. Coffee once doesn't give you stalking privileges - well, nothing does, but especially not only meeting once prior.

I have to wonder exactly what website he was using. The ass 'cares' enough to stalk her, but he conveniently forgets the only method he has of actually contacting the woman. There's a story there for an aspiring journalist, I'd think.

Posted by: lykex | November 26, 2010 4:38 PM

I see no reason why anyone needs a gun while going to get their dry cleaning.

Well, if you're living in a country where a significant number of other people are in the habit of taking their guns with them everywhere, maybe that changes your perspective.

Posted by: NitricAcid | November 26, 2010 4:44 PM

But, but, what if you espy a Redcoat whilst picking up your red coat?

Posted by: Balstrome | November 26, 2010 4:46 PM

And to think in some parts of this world, there are people reading about this guy, and thinking that they have only ever seen pictures of guns.

Posted by: Balstrome | November 26, 2010 4:51 PM

The thing about a weapon, gun or knife, is that if you are willing to use it, you have to be willing to take the life of the person who causes you to use it. Anything less will get you hurt or dead.

So for me, there are two options, run away, or shoot to kill.

Posted by: Buttered Potato | November 26, 2010 4:53 PM

He also told police he didn't remember the name of the site.

But he didn't believe her.

What does he think's gonna happen if he catches and confronts her? Does he think she's not gonna be all "fuck you, you creep!", make a public scene, report this to the local media, get a restraining order, etc.?
@ Carlie #7:
Exactly, it's all rooted in what a guy perceives himself to be 'entitled' to or deems his property. Hackbarth has apparently watched too many movies and thinks that by doing a 'gotcha!' on his date that the story will wrap up in some way that isn't bound to reality.

Posted by: timgueguen | November 26, 2010 4:56 PM

Meanwhile, a Canadian politician argues that God may have smited the leader of the Provincial Opposition in PEI for advocating Sunday shopping.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/11/26/pei-sunday-shopping-god-584.html?ref=rss&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0539971:b39856696

Yep, we have them here too.

Posted by: mck9 | November 26, 2010 4:57 PM

Encouraging news in an update to the article (no time stamp):

Late update: Republican leaders in the Minnesota state house have stripped Hackbarth of his leadership positions, reports the Star Tribune.

"Due to an incident on Tuesday, November 16, State Representative Tom Hackbarth has been suspended from any current and pending leadership roles within the House GOP Caucus," House Speaker-elect Kurt Zellers said in a statement. "The suspension will remain in effect until the issue is fully resolved."

Because there are no charges pending against Hackbarth, it is unclear what Zellers means by "fully resolved."

Assuming there really was a woman involved, she may very well have been fibbing when she said she had prior plans with a friend in Highland Park, as a way of gently turning him down for a dinner date. He didn't take the not-very-subtle hint.

I don't know just how women cope with unwanted attention from men they're not interested in (I've only participated from the other side of that transaction). I suspect that an occasional fib is not unusual.

Posted by: Riptide | November 26, 2010 5:01 PM

The man has a concealed carry permit, but a passing security guard noticed him with the weapon--must not have been concealed very well. As in, he wanted someone (or someones) to notice it. That's what's motivated the outrage over the existence of the firearm, the obvious intent to intimidate or frighten people with it.

Posted by: Geza | November 26, 2010 5:04 PM

The man has a concealed carry permit, but a passing security guard noticed him with the weapon [...] that's what motivated the outrage

Posted by: menckensghost | November 26, 2010 5:04 PM

Geza @ 31:

It isn't necessarily "guy w/ a gun in a parking lot" that's distressing. It's "guy w/ a gun in Planned Parenthood's parking lot" that sets off the bells. When it's "loud angry conservative wingnut w/ a gun in the parking lot of Planned Parenthood," alarms will go off all across even the gun-friendly USA, even if the guy is there at two o'clock in the morning getting his luggage lifted.

Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 26, 2010 5:05 PM

@Bownian OM

But, but, what if you espy a Redcoat whilst picking up your red coat?

But it seems that the weapon of choice for friendly fire incidents on allied troops is an A10 tankbuster.

Posted by: Sonja | November 26, 2010 5:05 PM

"Officer, I'm not threatening Planned Parenthood, I'm just stalking my girlfriend...

"I mean, I'm not stalking my girlfriend, I'm just threatening Planned Parenthood...

"No, wait -- d'oh!"

Posted by: Geza | November 26, 2010 5:08 PM

frustum.myopenid.com @41

Where do you draw the line [...] some people become irrational. Or drunk. I sincerely hope you aren't talking from your own personal experience in becoming irrational or drunk.

You see, I've been angry at people before. Flustered, in fact, to the point of not knowing what to do with myself. However, I've never resorted to punching or hurting, I've always been able to control myself. The argument of "what if you get mad and pull it out and shoot somebody" is kind of silly. I really doubt there's any stories out there of that happening apart from criminals who would shoot people indiscriminately anyway.

As for your problem with that idiot pulling the gun on you, I am in total agreement with stricter licenses and laws. However, I believe the right to self defense is one of the most important rights we have, and my right to it shouldn't be jeopardized by the less than 1% of legal gun owners who do commit crimes with their guns.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 26, 2010 5:11 PM

Geza #31

Now, I live in Canada so I can't carry a gun with me, but if I could, I would. I believe that the ability to defend yourself is important. Right now I carry a knife with me everywhere I go, and that doesn't make me a dangerous person. If a good person carries a weapon, then you should only be afraid if you are a criminal.

"I always carry a knife with me. It lets me forget how tiny my penis is."

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 26, 2010 5:15 PM

I really doubt there's any stories out there of that happening apart from criminals who would shoot people indiscriminately anyway.

Why do gun-lovers always see the world as consisting of two separate populations; law-abiding citizens who always make measured responses to situations, and sociopaths who'll shoot you based on phases of the moon?

Oh, right; because they're idiots.

Posted by: frustum.myopenid.com | November 26, 2010 5:20 PM

Geza @50 --

Your blockquote failed. No, I have never been drunk in my life. You said,

The argument of "what if you get mad and pull it out and shoot somebody" is kind of silly.

Silly? Tell that to the families of thousands of people who have died that way. It doesn't help them or their families to know that they are in the minority. I'll admit that most of the time in such situations it is a raging husband shooting his wife, her lover, and/or their children, and not a stranger killing a random stranger.

You hand wave that stricter laws would have prevented the guy who flashed his gun at me from his car as a show of power. You've stated that self defense one of the most important rights, so you had better have a pretty strong and clear test to determine who should get to own a gun. Should that guy have been denied because he was too blue collar? Or because he is known to drink a lot of beer? Or do we do what we simply do, give them a gun and take it away after they misuse it?

Getting back to the original posting, this guy wasn't just carrying a weapon, which he is legally entitled to do. He was carrying a weapon while admitting to following a woman he barely knows. I'll give him a pass on using the planned parenthood parking lot as he has enough explaining to do even for what he admits to doing.

Posted by: oodiesmith | November 26, 2010 5:28 PM

That's another crazy thing. That so often the guy who kills someone with a handgun actually killed the family member the shooter originally claimed the handgun was supposed to protect.

Posted by: captsam | November 26, 2010 5:31 PM

how naive i once was, when i thought Nixon was as bad as the GOP could get.

Posted by: Blueaussi | November 26, 2010 5:34 PM

There is the possibility that he was being a jerk or a creep on line, so she used Planned Parenthood as her address rather than deal with on-line drama.

If a good person carries a weapon, then you should only be afraid if you are a criminal.

Or if you make a mistake about my intentions, or if you accidentally miss your target, or get a little too drunk and rowdy, or, well, you get the point.

Posted by: llewelly | November 26, 2010 5:38 PM

To all the people who think the man might be a "good person":

Hackbarth later told the Star Tribune that he had had coffee with the woman the day before and asked her out to dinner. She declined, saying she had plans with a female friend in the Highland Park, the neighborhood around the Planned Parenthood clinic.

But he didn't believe her.

"She gave me some line of baloney, and I thought, 'well, she's fibbing to me.' You could tell, and I thought, 'well, I'm going to check it out.' and I went there to see if she was around and her vehicle was not there. And I was just checking on her," he told the local CBS affiliate.

According to the Tribune, he thought she was with another man and wanted to look around the neighborhood for her car. He didn't find it.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | November 26, 2010 5:44 PM

Oh, right; because they're idiots.

Or in anthropological terms, they have a low demand for cognition.

If you want to have a gun, you should realize that the majority of other people aren't out there to do you harm. So there's no need to have it with you 24/7.

Posted by: Tessa Brown | November 26, 2010 6:03 PM

Hey, to be fair, he's right about one thing. He's not a jealous boyfriend - he's a crazed stalker.

Posted by: rystefn | November 26, 2010 6:12 PM

Gyeong Hwa Pak@66

If you want to have a gun, you should realize that the majority of other people aren't out there to do you harm. So there's no need to have it with you 24/7.

Unless you lack the psychic powers to know exactly where and when you will come across one of the people who is out to do you harm, in which case either always carry or never carry, very little between makes much sense.

Posted by: oodiesmith | November 26, 2010 6:14 PM

Too right Dave. But it is also alarming to me that given his carrying a loaded weapon around a Planned Parenting clinic, and given his excuse that he was really just stalking a girlfriend, still the police not only didn't find an offense to charge him with, but also returned the weapon. I'm reminded of the police who found one of Jeffrey Dahlmer's victims, naked and incoherent in the street, and returned him to Dahlmer's apartment.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 26, 2010 6:18 PM

The STrib article Llewelly quoted in #64 was the first article I read this in. Even without the gun, this guy's behavior is wrong. He's acting as though the woman is his property. Dude's a stalker and, unfortunately, there will be any number of people willing to excuse his behavior and re-elect him.

Posted by: raven | November 26, 2010 6:21 PM

sundog the creepy troll:

Everyone is focusing on the gun. However, many people carry a weapon when going about their regular business (I know several).

How many people hang out in Planned Parenthood parking lots with loaded guns in their spare time?

How many people wave a loaded gun around in Planned Parenthood parking lots? He may have had a concealed weapon permit but the security guard called the cops because he saw a gun. This can be a crime, menacing and intimidation.

How many people stalk their girlfriends but don't know their address or phone number?

Tom Hackbarth the Theothuglican is just about as creepy as they get and not be in jail. Where hopefully he is headed before he kills someone. And sundog the creepy troll, so are you.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | November 26, 2010 6:33 PM

Tom Hackbarth was walking around the parking lot of Planned Parenthood with a loaded pistol in his waistband. He also walked around the block looking for the woman's car.

If Hackbarth did indeed meet the woman through an online dating site, said site should consider adding another item to their online questionnaire: "Are you a Republican with a loaded weapon (and by "weapon" we mean "gun" and not your penis)?"

Posted by: rystefn | November 26, 2010 6:38 PM

I reserve the white-knuckled driving for inclement weather and poor visibility.

...so you think holding the steering wheel tighter will protect you from a collision with another car?

Seriously, though, if you think you can predict when you're going to be attacked, you're probably wrong. Aside from a few very obvious higher-risk situations like on-duty police, going to meet someone who has threatened you for some dumb reason) or intentionally starting a fight, it's pretty much a crap-shoot. Rather like driving, actually. Sure, ice on the roads makes a collision more likely, but random drunk driver #735 is a pretty universal risk any time there are other cars on the road.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | November 26, 2010 6:53 PM

...so you think holding the steering wheel tighter will protect you from a collision with another car?

[Rolls eyes and refrains from using metaphorical prose whatsoever.]

Seriously, though, if you think you can predict when you're going to be attacked, you're probably wrong.

That would be an absurd claim. I can say with some certainty that there are situations in which I'm more likely to be attacked. I live two blocks off of a bohemian neighbourhood known for night-life and pubs. If you think I'm as likely to be attacked while picking up my kid from daycare on Monday at 4 PM as I am at 2 AM on a Saturday when all the testosterone and booze-fuelled louts who didn't score are pouring out of the bars, then I don't know what to say to you.

Rather like driving, actually. Sure, ice on the roads makes a collision more likely, but random drunk driver #735 is a pretty universal risk any time there are other cars on the road.

You use words like risk, but then you pair them with words like crap-shoot, making this individual question whether you really know what those words mean.

Either that, or you're incorrectly assuming I don't know what they mean.

But, just to clarify, my claim is that "rather like driving", certain conditions make violent confrontation more likely, just as "ice on the roads makes a collision more likely". Why you're conflating either situation with the non-existence power of prescience, I have no idea.

Unless you think prescience is required to make any claims about the likelihood of future events, maybe? You must have spirited discussions with your insurance broker.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | November 26, 2010 7:02 PM

Unless you lack the psychic powers to know exactly where and when you will come across one of the people who is out to do you harm, in which case either always carry or never carry, very little between makes much sense.

Are you suggesting we all be hyper-paranoid?

Posted by: anumma.com | November 26, 2010 7:19 PM

So…is he a cephalopod, or not?

Posted by: Stardrake | November 26, 2010 7:30 PM

Since I live in Minneapolis (just across the river from the St Paul neighborhood where the PP clinic is) I can supply a few more details.

The local news showed the security cam footage that the PP guard saw. Hackbarth had a small-frame revolver in a waistband holster on his right side. He was changing his jacket from a light driving jacket to a heavier winter coat when the pistol showed up to the camera. With the coat on, it wouldn't be easy to spot.

And Hackbarth may well not have known it was the PP lot--remember, he's from Bachmann country, in Cedar, MN (about 35 mi/56km north of the Cities). He doesn't WANT to know anything about the Twin Cities (except how to get to the Capitol) because that's where all teh eee-vile libruls, sickos, and other such undesirables live--not the Real Amurrikans like his closed-minded neighbors. So I figure he was hunting his "girlfriend" (and I DO mean hunting) but was unsuccessful. (If she was even moderately clever, she'd have said she was meeting someone in the Highland Park neighborhood, all the while planning to be in the suburb of Eden Prairie, on the other side of Minneapolis...)

I just want people to know more precisely what this asshole did to fail so hard.

Posted by: richardrob | November 26, 2010 7:44 PM

I think this is being blown slightly out of proportion. Granted: this guy is a creepy, possibly pervy or closeted, republican gun-nut. And as such he likely bears some general ill-will toward abortion providers. But there's just no evidence of any specific malicious intent regarding this clinic or the people (person?) in it. Had he been mildly less retarded, he would have parked on the street or pulled into a convenience store parking lot and we would have never known.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | November 26, 2010 7:55 PM

I used to go to planned parenthood. No, not for abortions. Just for medical care. Because I was poor and couldn't afford a regular doctor and they will do exams and health checks there for much cheaper. Since I'm insured now and have a nice GP maybe I'll just start delivering my donations in person. Just for solidarity.

Posted by: richardrob | November 26, 2010 8:15 PM

Monado, the clinic employee mentioned as being on site is a security guard. Presumably there is at least one guard present 24/7.

Posted by: timpanogos | November 26, 2010 8:21 PM

No, not surprised that Hackbarth's district overlaps Bachmann's. In fact, I'm sorta thinking his secret, on-line girlfriend probably is Michelle Bachmann, and that they were meeting up in the Planned Parenthood parking lot to, um . . . well, just let your little imagination run wild.

Best,

Ed Darrell

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | November 26, 2010 8:52 PM

Look on the bright side Gregory G. He could just be a crazed stalker who can't take a hint and is willing to track down a woman who had gall to have something better to do than be there when he wanted her to with a loaded gun.

Can you imagine how nice it would be to be having dinner with your friend, or you mom, or your kid and your crazy just-met date from earlier shows up to "make sure."

The sad thing is that this is happening to women all over the place right now :(

I hate reality.

Posted by: skeptifem | November 26, 2010 9:56 PM

@ 22

Same here. Sorry, I know I live in mild mannered Canada, but I see no reason why anyone needs a gun while going to get their dry cleaning.

Its hero insurance. Like, if some other crazy dude with a gun starts firin they get to be a hero. Thats what I gather, after living around a lot of gun happy people. : /

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | November 26, 2010 10:08 PM

Ol' Greg: "I hate reality."

Yes, but unlike the Republicans, you maintain contact with it.

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 26, 2010 10:18 PM

So I fly to Detroit from the UK for a party, i'm staying with a married couple in Detroit for two days before we all move to the hotel for the party, one afternoon the husband asks if I want to see his gun, like a choirboy in a catholic church, all wide eyed and innocent, "sure mate, i've never actually seen a real gun before", we descend to the basement of their house, he opens the door to a room in said basement, I jest ye not, eleventy billion guns, top to bottom of a whole wall, I made my excuses and spent my remaining time in Detroit in a hotel.

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | November 26, 2010 10:26 PM

Why isn't shoot to incapacitate an option?

Really, if you're actually, honestly, in a situation where using a gun is appropriate then your only option is maximum effect and hope you can convince a jury it was justified. Best to try to stay out of trouble in general. You'll live longer.

Posted by: Nij | November 26, 2010 10:50 PM

In contrast to the hundreds of nonviolent uses to which a knife can be put, a gun has very few uses and most of them are violent.

The fact that he always has a gun with him is bothersome, but it also mitigates the specific weight of his possessing it at the time of the stalking.

Then there's the old fight or flight, dawn of time thing, and never underestimate the flight strategy.

Which is larger, do we think? The probability of getting robbed if you run away, or the probability of getting robbed if you let a person start fucking robbing you?

Posted by: rystefn | November 26, 2010 10:58 PM

Nij @ 108

Guns have one use: shooting things. It is violent by definition.

Also, I think you misread, because the post you're responding to advises us to not underestimate the flight part. Just a heads-up.

Oh, and "let a person start fucking robbing you" is dancing on the edge of victim-blaming, at the very least.

Posted by: rystefn | November 26, 2010 11:12 PM

Skeptifem, I have done rather a lot of cutting with swords in my life. Admittedly, most against inanimate objects, but some of it on meat, and I've witnessed a fair bit more on meat. The nature of sword-usage is such that, it you're using it in any way resembling correctly, basically, either you miss, or you seriously mangle the target. Maybe if you're slapping at someone with the sides of a foil (which is not correct usage) or somesuch, there might be a variety of nonlethal strikes you could use, but if a real sword hits a person, it doesn't cut a half-inch deep hack into the meat. It shears through clothes and muscle and bone.

Short of trying to lop off fingers and toes (which is, as previously mentioned, more likely to get you hurt than work), there's either basically a miss, cutting off limbs, or putting holes in major organs. It's about defining anything that's not potentially lethal as a scratch, it's about knowing what happens when someone or something is hit with a sword.

Intentionally trying to apply shallow cuts means pulling the swing, moving slowly, and leaving gaps in your defense, at best. Sometimes it means causing yourself physical injury fighting against the momentum of the weapon rather than using it.

Posted by: george.wiman | November 26, 2010 11:15 PM

Oh, sorry Nij - I forgot to answer your other query. I meant that, if he carries a gun all the time, that meant he didn't necessarily have specific intent in that situation. He might, but not necessarily because carrying the gun is habitual. If he usually didn't carry a gun, but had one on him just then, it would strongly suggest specific intent.

I still think carrying a gun everywhere is a bad idea. SO many ways for that to go wrong...

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | November 26, 2010 11:35 PM

If a good person carries a weapon, then you should only be afraid if you are a criminal.

Are you seriously going to pretend that 'good people' never freak out, and never make mistakes?

Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach | November 26, 2010 11:53 PM

timrowledge @ 106 I think you underestimate the lethality of a sword wound

You know what they say, yes? "The older you get, the better you were"

And my message was supposed to come out like a nice bulleted list. ;-)

Posted by: Anri | November 27, 2010 12:10 AM

If a good person carries a weapon, then you should only be afraid if you are a criminal.

And the statistics back this up, with the number of accidental/passionate homicides with 'good people' wielding guns being negligently small.

Oh, wait, that's utterly and totally wrong.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 27, 2010 12:39 AM

If a good person carries a weapon, then you should only be afraid if you are a criminal.

A fine example of weapons grade stupid.

Posted by: Nij | November 27, 2010 12:59 AM

Well yes, sport shooting is obviously nonviolent.
But we are discussing the carry of firearms on a person whilst going about their daily business such as picking up the kids or getting a bottle of milk from the store.

Meh. Context matters, I guess.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | November 27, 2010 1:25 AM

Know how you get a concealed carry permit in AL? You send in paperwork and pay a fee.

That's it. My brother got one when he was 18. Yeah. 18. That was also how old he was when he bought his AK-47.

Gun restrictions here are a fucking joke.

He did have to pass a background check. He somehow made it to 18 without any involuntary psych admissions (nice and thorough way to check since mental illness often shows up later than 18) and no criminal record (which is easy enough to pull off if you don't have a fucking gun).

Posted by: ScottDogg | November 27, 2010 1:46 AM

Everybody sing!

Well I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or you won't know where I am

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end'a little girl

Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD | November 27, 2010 2:08 AM

Posted by: CamusDude | November 26, 2010 4:57 PM #37

So for me, there are two options, run away, or shoot to kill.

Why isn't shoot to incapacitate an option?

I'm only at post #60, but I just got home from being away for Thanksgiving, it's late, and I'm pissed:

Fifteen years ago I was robbed just outside of my apartment and shot in the leg. It was "only" a .22, went all the way through my thigh, and hurt like a sonofabitch. I got up and staggered to my apartment after they ran off, called 911, and spent 13 hrs in the hospital. I was very fortunate to heal quickly and was running again in 6 weeks. I was "incapacitated".

The doctors told me that it almost got my femoral artery. A quarter of an inch, and instead of "incapacitated", I'd be dead.

Do not talk about incapacitating your victim. You're a fucking idiot. It's not the goddammed movies, and bullets do strange things. Do you think the asshole that shot me intended to just miss my femoral artery? Really?

And furthermore, for any of you NRA jackasses, don't tell me I did anything wrong or that it would have been better if I'd been packing. There were three perps that came out of the shadows with guns, I did everything they told me to do, and the fucker shot me while I was lying face down on the ground. As best as I can tell, he was pissed that I only had a couple of bucks on me (I was a fucking grad student, FFS!).

If I'd had a gun, they would have gotten that, too.

Think I'm in favor of gun control? Goddam fuckin right I am.

I also make a point of carrying more cash with me.

Posted by: Markjn | November 27, 2010 2:31 AM

Mace ftw. I interact daily with all kinds of criminals and undesirables. I figure I have never shot someone and I dont want to be shot with my own gun. My gf and me carry mace everywhere. A gun would escalate a situation crazily, not quite sure I'm willing to go that far.

Crazy stalker yep. I own a gun but only use it at firing ranges or on my parents farm back home. Fun to use.

Even if I was entirely justified in shooting someone, I would still rather just mace them to avoid the world of bureaucratic shit that would no doubt fall on me.

Posted by: jschmeau | November 27, 2010 2:39 AM

So for me, there are two options, run away, or shoot to kill.

Why isn't shoot to incapacitate an option?

Posted by: The Dapper Gent | November 27, 2010 4:00 AM

Man, it disappoints me just to know that I live in the same state as this jackass. How is this any way for an elected official to behave? Hell, how is this any way for a human being to behave?

I don't care if this witless little ratfuck has a permit to carry a gun. There's nothing about his excuse, or the place he was caught, that suggests he intended to do anything with it that wasn't moronic.

Posted by: defides | November 27, 2010 5:21 AM

What really baffles me about America (well, one of the many things) is the fact that there are people - people who are minded to read the Pharyngula blog, with all that implies - who see nothing wrong with the fact that any dickhead can wear a gun openly in the street in a country that otherwise considers itself to be civilised.

It's just nuts. I can only think that such people simply cannot imagine living in a really civilised country where the necessity for wearing concealed side-arms is denied utterly.

Posted by: Eidolon | November 27, 2010 8:21 AM

On the point of is this guy a stalker? You bet. He already has that sense of ownership Carlie described based on some shared "coffee". In any event, this was a potential encounter with a decent risk of becoming violent.

As for the gun issue - I know a lawyer who was wounded and lost an eye during a divorce case. He now carries openly. With regards to the shoot to kill, part of that comes from the old "Never point your gun at anything you don't want dead." gun safety warning. If you fire at someone their death and all the consequences of that act can easily follow.

Out here in Colorado,there are lots of folks who feel summary execution O.K. if you catch someone stealing your trailer. These same folks probably have the "Respect Life" license plates.

Posted by: anumma.com | November 27, 2010 9:13 AM

Scottdog #141

OMFSM! Not lyrics you'd expect from those ol' lovable mop-tops from Liverpool.

Yes. I remember the song, but somehow (I know, I know) never caught the lyrics.

Remember when Sting (of the Police) wrote "Every Breath You Take" about stalking, and listeners so misinterpreted the song that they began playing it at their weddings?

I never realized that the Beatles "got there first."

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 27, 2010 9:47 AM

OMFSM! Not lyrics you'd expect from those ol' lovable mop-tops from Liverpool.

Or as Fox News reported the other day when iTunes added The Beatles catalogue, the mop-tops from Manchester. It seems Fox can fuck up geography even without the help of Palin.

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 10:43 AM

I just love, love, LOVE how some people here are desperately trying to defend carrying around a deadly weapon, as if this is a state of affairs to which the whole world should aspire.

My advice to those types of people: Get the hell over yourselves. The rest of the world sees you as greedy, violent, ignorant and so full of yourselves you can't even imagine a country that isn't a hotbed of ignorance, homophobia, xenophobia and racism.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 27, 2010 11:13 AM

The rest of the world sees you as greedy, violent, ignorant and so full of yourselves you can't even imagine a country that isn't a hotbed of ignorance, homophobia, xenophobia and racism.

And populated by men with tiny penises.

Yeah, I'm a firm believer in "the bigger the gun the smaller the penis." I know a guy with a Smith & Wesson Model 500 .50 cal. magnum pistol. His dick must be microscopic.

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 11:40 AM

@ 'Tis Himself #148:

No, I don't think it has to do with ACTUAL penis size. More like their own perception of what a penis size OUGHT TO BE.

...but yes, I do agree with you in principle. Up here in the Great White North we say the same sort of thing about guys with loud mufflers and flames painted on their cars/trucks/pieces of junk that won't see another 1000 km. I mean, it's obvious that the louder your car and the more crap you've managed to plaster onto it, the larger your member, right?

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 11:49 AM

@Monado - #149

You've hit the nail on the head. It's all bout them FEELING safer. It's not in the least about BEING safer.

As long as these chicken-shits get to pander to their own little scared fee-fees and have their little security blankets, they're happy and; but woe betide any who try to point out that the moldy, smelly scrap of rag they're carrying around might be *just* a diseased scrap that causes a health hazard to all who come near them and not the magic monster preventer they so desperately need it to be.

The more I read the opinions of the "average" American, the more I begin to realize that they are little more than children who scream and rant about Daddy taking the car away after they've run it off a cliff. (Obama was spot on with his analogy.)

It's got to be awfully difficult to be a thinking person in America these days. I weep for the fate of the intelligent and reasonable in that country.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | November 27, 2010 11:53 AM

#151, Kermit:

How is "Gay sex makes me sick to my stomach, so queers are disgusting"
different in justification from
"Guns make me queasy, so folks who carry them must have tiny penises"

Posted by: David Marjanović | November 27, 2010 12:08 PM

SundogA: "People carrying deadly weapons while going about their regular business will never be anything but creepy to me."

Exactly! That's why I only wear a seat belt when I intend to have an automobile accident.

The analogue to a seatbelt is a bulletproof vest. The analogue to a gun would be the gas pedal, if anything, not the seatbelt...

You're the second moron in this thread to get that mixed up. Why? How would anyone even get such an idea?

Did you grow up believing you would always draw faster?

I carry a weapon, and it's not because I am insecure, and it's not because I'm afraid.

Then why is it?

Do you wear seat belts when you drive, and if so, is it because you are in constant fear of traffic accidents?

Yes and yes!!!

Posted by: rystefn | November 27, 2010 12:32 PM

David

You're the second moron in this thread to get that mixed up. Why? How would anyone even get such an idea?

That wasn't my analogy. Someone else compared carrying a gun in case someone is out to harm you with driving carefully in case you get into an accident as if you should only drive carefully when there's ice on the ground. There's a reason cars kill more people than guns...

Oh, and there's NO SUCH THING as a bullet-proof vest. Doesn't exist except in the movies. Even if there was, it doesn't protect your face, does it? Or any of half a dozen major blood vessels, like the aforementioned femoral artery. A vest isn't like a seatbelt, it's like holding the steering wheel REALLY tight.

The gas pedal, by the way, can be very effective at avoiding collisions, so I'll agree with comparing it to the gas pedal. If you know what you're doing, and use it properly, it can save your life. If you don't, then it can cost more lives. Is this an argument in favor of not allowing anyone to have a gas pedal on their cars? Or is it just an argument that people should be trained in their use before driving?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 27, 2010 12:36 PM

googlemess #151

How is "Gay sex makes me sick to my stomach, so queers are disgusting" different in justification from "Guns make me queasy, so folks who carry them must have tiny penises"

First of all, I didn't say or even hint that guns make me queasy. I grew up in semi-rural Wisconsin, I had my first shotgun at age 7, I got my first deer with a Winchester .270 cal Model 54 at age 12. I shot .22 free pistols competitively for years. Nope, guns don't make me queasy.

It's assholes like you who absolutely need to have a bang-bang who make me queasy. You walk around just waiting for The Bad Guy™ to show up so you can whip out your Glock or other penis substitute and prove you're Billy Badass™ by stopping The Bad Guy™'s nefarious scheme. Of course, you'll only threaten The Bad Guy™ or, if absolutely necessary, just to prove you're really Billy Badass™, you'll kill The Bad Guy™ with one shot between the eyes. You'll then revel in the applause of all the bystanders and when the cops show up they'll pin a medal on your chest for being Billy Badass™. Only your modesty will prevent the ticker-tape parade down Main Street or the presentation of the key to the entire fucking universe.

In real life, you have no idea how you'll react if someone puts a gun to your head or a knife to your throat. Maybe you'll the reincarnation of Wyatt Erp and John Wayne. More likely the pee will dribble down your leg as you give The Bad Guy™ your wallet and watch.

It's well known that in combat most infantry soldiers either freeze or shoot aimlessly. Only a small percentage settle down to killing the enemy. If that's how trained soldiers act in a firefight, you shouldn't be too sanguine about being Billy Badass™ when the shit hits the fan.

I carry a weapon, and it's not because I am insecure, and it's not because I'm afraid.

Maybe you believe you're not insecure or afraid but to me it looks like you're terribly frightened about "The Bad Guy™ who'll rape my dachshund and kill my car." Also you must have an incredibly tiny pee-pee.

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 1:14 PM

I think it's unwise to seek moral guidance from anyone who thinks that much about getting violent FOR ANY REASON. I suppose, though, when you've got Caribou Barbie screeching "Reload!" at you, it must be more than a little difficult for the less than bright to use what paltry critical thinking skills they have.

It amazes me that there is such a large segment of the American population which is too juvenile and too pants-pissing scared to live their lives without being armed to the teeth.

I guess for them it's worth a few kids dying from playing with Mummy's and Daddy's guns just so they can *feel* safe. (They aren't really any more safe, though. They're just more likely to kill someone than someone would be without weapons in the house. Hmmmmm... Maybe that's it! Maybe it's the thought that they'll get to blow someone away that has them grasping at their guns the way a three year old grasps at a favorite teddy bear!)

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 1:49 PM

Caine:

Any weapon you have in your possession during an assault is one more weapon than can be used against you.

Carry a pocket knife for the usefulness of it, but please, don't consider it a weapon.

Take some free self-defense classes, as they are far more likely to save you in an assault than a false sense of security and a pointy object that will most likely be thrust back at you (and possibly into you...) the second you brandish it.

I say this as a fellow human who has been attacked while minding their own damn business... I'm not just talking out my ass here. I've lived in some pretty rough places, and have never felt that a weapon makes me safe. What has made me safe is knowing how to protect myself from an attack in ANY situation, not walking through dangerous areas alone (This applies to the men-folk, too!), and always keeping sober and alert.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | November 27, 2010 1:56 PM

'Tis Himself: "Maybe you believe you're not insecure or afraid but to me it looks like you're terribly frightened about "The Bad Guy™ who'll rape my dachshund and kill my car." Also you must have an incredibly tiny pee-pee."

Wow. So I can vote for Obama, support gay marriage, think that the greatest danger to security is global warming, but if I carry a weapon I'm a Palin-lovin' Tea-Bagger more concerned with my junk than a TSA employee?

It's OK; I get that all the time when this subject is brought up.

Help me understand; do you take precautions only when you are afraid? If so, I find that a rather alien frame of mind - and I worry that you may be ignoring a real danger because it doesn't frighten you. On the other hand, if you sometimes simply take precautions because it is prudent, I wonder why you assume otherwise for me.

I am also curious how you discerned this from my post: "In real life, you have no idea how you'll react if someone puts a gun to your head or a knife to your throat."

Kermit

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | November 27, 2010 2:10 PM

dharmasatya: "Any weapon you have in your possession during an assault is one more weapon than can be used against you."

Would cops be advised to leave their weapons behind - would they be safer? Anyone who could take a weapon from me would be far more dangerous if I were unarmed. This is another peculiar idea common to the anti-weapon crowd.

I have no trouble with anybody being disinterested in self-defense, any more than I would if they were bored at the idea of learning CPR and other first aid measures. I was a medic (clinical specialist) in the US Army - do you suppose I learned first aid because if spent my waking hours afraid that others were going to get hurt, or perhaps that I have some love of gore and pain?

Kermit

Posted by: Kagehi | November 27, 2010 3:02 PM

Why isn't shoot to incapacitate an option?

If you going to use a deadly weapon, you must be willing to take full responsibility for all your actions with it. This means that a wounding shot should be considered the same as a killing shot, with only the result being different.

Can you accept that responsibility? If yes, then carry a weapon, anything else you should not own one.

You know.. This brings up an interesting issue. The law says that you can do what is needed to protect yourself, but the moment you *exceed* that mandate, you are also breaking the law. I.e., you can shoot a guy charging at you, but not one already running away. Or, you can knock a weapon out of someone's hands, but not follow up by breaking his neck, etc.

This isn't, unfortunately, always enforced. However it brings up an issue. A gun is likely to be used *precisely* with the intent to kill the person. Shoot to wound sounds nice, but you have to be a total idiot to try it. The easiest place to hit is the center mass, and **anyone** competent at gun training is going to tell you to go for that, because, in a crisis situation, your aim isn't going to be good enough, in most cases, to be sure you will hit an arm, or leg, and not instead end up on your ass, with the angry person you just shot at *holding* your own gun.

So... Is shooting this person, possibly with a round intended to kill, not just wound, the "minimum needed" to defend yourself? Are you crossing the line and going *beyond* your legal right? What the frak do you think happens if you get a judge and jury, and a lawyer to spin things, which makes it clear, or implies, that you could have disarmed, or defended against, or ran from, this person, instead of mortally wounding them with a shot to their chest? There are a lot of reason why carrying guns is shear idiocy. One of the big ones is that its *just short* of a damn grenade in *both* accuracy *you can miss and hit someone else, especially if you try the, "I will shoot his arm!", BS, and flat out excess involved. How many people fire only one shot, for example, and can be 100% sure that, if they fire 30 rounds, all of them end up "in" the person attacking them. Oh, yeah.. and, can reasonably claim they needed all 30 to defend themselves?

Its not about right to defend, or carry, or the rest of the shit. Its about the fact that a gun is indiscriminate, if you fail to aim it right, carries an *excess* of what is needed to do the job, and, with the right rounds loaded ***will*** kill someone, even if the "intent", never mind necessity, only required scaring, or even wounding, them. Which makes them completely frakking stupid imo.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 27, 2010 3:32 PM

I was a medic (clinical specialist) in the US Army - do you suppose I learned first aid because if spent my waking hours afraid that others were going to get hurt, or perhaps that I have some love of gore and pain?

You were an Army medic because that's what you volunteered to do. I was a Machinist's Mate in the Navy because that's what I volunteered to do. Do you think I spent my waking hours (all too many of those) doing preventive maintenance on valves because I was afraid they'd not work if I didn't? Actually yes, I knew valves fail at the most inconvenient times but are less likely to do so if they've been properly maintained.

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 4:02 PM

@ 'Tis Himself:

I don't think rational though is in the cards for the weapon-nuts in this thread. Their only concern is for their precious FEELINGS and to hell with reality or the safety of others.

I see much in the way of childish self-involvement from those who have the blinkered belief that a knife or a gun will protect them from "The Baddies" and very little critical thinking.

Hmmm... reminds me of the religio-bots that usually infest this place.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 27, 2010 5:44 PM

Why are you so angry? You're mad at somebody, but it's not me.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | November 27, 2010 6:16 PM

Rutee: "You're a monster, but I'm going to answer your question anyway.

Being gay is something you are. Carrying a gun is something you do. One is a status that can't be changed."

I agree. Nor does it seem to be anything that should be changed.

"The other is an unnecessary act that only causes danger to everyone. Including the gun owner."

Does it? It's certainly statistically correlated with certain dangers. What evidence do you have that it's a causal factor? More importantly, what evidence indicates that all who carry firearms on a regular basis are necessarily distasteful, dangerous, or otherwise monstrous?

"That you can't tell the difference between a voluntary act and a status says VOLUMES about you."

What indicates that I can't? I presented a statement which most people here would disagree with (the first) and offered a second which most, I think, would agree with.

I have only seen people here offer their gut reaction as justification for accusing anyone who admits to carrying a weapon as being monstrous.

I *have seen you and others insult me and offer schoolyard psychoanalyses based only on my assertion that I typically am armed.

A couple of questions:
1. Do you think that there are circumstances in which the *moral thing to do is violent (e.g. defense of an innocent from a violent criminal?)
2. Do you think that preparing for such an unpleasant possibility is necessarily immoral or pathological?
3. Do you think this might be affected by life experiences, natural proclivities (temperament, talents, etc.), or the environment?

Kermit

Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | November 27, 2010 7:38 PM

Some of the commenters here are far scarier than the nutter in question.
Does simply residing in the US enlarge the Rambo gland?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | November 27, 2010 8:40 PM

'Tis Himself: "...armed to the lower teeth, worrying about The Bad Guy™ murdering Greataunt..."

Damn. I could have sworn there was a comma there. Yup. You're right. My bad.

I apologize for commenting on your wife. Obviously it bothers me that you think I'm a danger and dysfunctional, but she had nothing to do with it.

As for worrying enough about Bad Guys enough to carry bang-bangs, you might have noticed that I don't do that either.

But I see no ethical difference in [my knowing that my pocket knife is a potential weapon] from my friends who do carry firearms. They do not strike me as "scared shitless", nor are they a danger to their families.

"I don't let my fears dictate what I'll do. For instance [stuff]. Is that plain enough for you?"

Yes. Why do you assume I do?

"The point that you don't know what you'd do if The Bad Guy™ offered credible violence to you. You know, the point you've yet to respond to."

I replied "yes". Do you want more details? I've trained for 34 years in martial arts. I have worked with cops, teachers, combat vets, fighters, bouncers, and others - the more street experience the better. I am 59 years old and I still train. If a mugger gets me, it will most likely be because I hesitate to hurt him, despite my cross training in multiple disciplines, psychological as well as physical. One of the hardest things to do is persuade a sane person to hurt another, as has been mentioned here in this thread by others (perhaps you? I don't remember.)

A couple of pistols for the household has been on our "get" list for 30 years, but we somehow always spend our money on something else first. I know what a three inch knife can and can't do, but it seems excessive to hang a 10.25 inch Bowie on my belt to go to work, doesn't it?

I am not going to kill your family, nor mine. If I fight it's to save innocents. I have not yet heard a credible ethical argument why it's wrong.

I have heard "yuck", which is not an argument, and questions as to my stability, morality,

Kermit

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | November 27, 2010 9:16 PM

Educated people know that the police are under no obligation to protect them, and the police are not even obligated to respond to your calls for help.

As an educated person who has NEVER heard this I need citation.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 27, 2010 9:32 PM

Educated people know that the police are under no obligation to protect them, and the police are not even obligated to respond to your calls for help.

I don't know about your planet, 4-13, but on this one, yes, the police are obligated to protect citizens and they are obligated to respond to calls*. See, that's their job, it's what they are paid to do.

*This does not include people who call 911 requesting an escort or seeking a babysitter.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | November 27, 2010 9:39 PM

4-13, I don't know how to break this to you, but police forces are comprised of human beings. Some of those humans are seriously fucked up. In those cases, bad things can (and do) happen. However, that isn't the norm, and you cannot freely extrapolate from a few cases that all police officers are under no obligation to protect or respond to calls.

Are you going to start listing all the instances of police responding to calls and protecting citizens now?

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | November 27, 2010 10:10 PM

I think we can agree that police *typically respond to calls for help. I think we can all agree that typically this takes at least a few minutes. They are not there while the mugger is beating you, holding a gun on you, stabbing you, etc. - they arrive afterward. We couldn't reasonably expect better.

Perhaps if general economic constraints get significantly worse we will see Warren v. DC cited more often. I hope not.

Kermit

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | November 27, 2010 10:44 PM

FWIW, I do not own a gun--never have. I've fired a gun on a target range. Did nothing for me.

The trophy wife owns 4 guns--a .22 rifle, a .38 muzzle loader reproduction period piece and two .38 pistols--again reproductions. She keeps said pieces--or at least the firing pins under lock and key. We have many friends who are MUCH more into guns than she is. Some hunt. None of them carries a firearm for "protection". Most simply are gearheads and love the clockwork of firearms. I am not in a position to comment on penis size. I can, however, say that this is not a very effective argument in debates on gun control.

I am not against firearms. However, the statistics are clear: if you own a gun, you or a loved one are much more likely to die by it than is any attacker--be it by accident, by suicide or by having is taken from you and used against you. I can also say that if you are not a family member, the statistics say that you are most likely not in any danger from someone who owns firearms legally. They're more likely to kill you with their car than with their gun.

The whole gun control debate in this country has been driven by lies and misinformation on both sides.

Posted by: dharmasatya | November 27, 2010 11:03 PM

So you own guns to protect those you love... yet those very same guns increase the prospect of those very same people of dying... by those guns... which are meant to protect the people they are more likely to kill... because the guns are there to protect them.

Yes. Makes perfect sense... or at least as much sense as that whole "dead for three days in a cave and coming back to life" bit in the bible. (Which is to say: No sense at all.)

So let's all wave our big metal penises around and show those big bad criminals who's boss! (Forgetting, of course, in a gun-crazed culture the criminals will usually have bigger, badder and better arms.)

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | November 27, 2010 11:41 PM

The population of the USA seems engaged in a protracted game of "Prisoner's Dilemma," with the NRA and their fellow-thinkers urging us onto the path with the highest costs for all involved.

Posted by: MrFire | November 28, 2010 12:32 AM

'Tis Himself @160 made me piss, shit and vomit myself laughing.

Posted by: mwsletten | November 28, 2010 10:11 AM

Matt@169 said:

I can only assume you are suggesting something that goes way beyond any reasonable definition of self-defence and are advocating somekind of vigilante justice.

Nope, you're wrong. If you don't like the word "murder" use "homicide" instead. My point is I have no problem injuring or killing someone attempting to do the same to me, a loved one or another innocent person.

If you are that suggests we would be very unwise to seek any form of guidance on morality from you.

First, other than my children, I wouldn't presume to offer moral guidance to anyone -- especially anyone who reads this blog regularly. What I am doing is challenging the morals-based arguments against choosing to protect oneself with a firearm.

dharmasatya said:

I think it's unwise to seek moral guidance from anyone who thinks that much about getting violent FOR ANY REASON.

There is a difference between "thinking of getting violent" and planning for a worst-case scenario. 'Tis has suggested a number of times that no one knows how they will react in a violent situation until it presents itself, and he's correct. That, of course, can be applied to ANY situation, violent or not. Many years of handling new and different experiences has taught me that thought, preparation and properly equipping myself ahead of time, if possible, vastly improves my chances of success.

As I've said, I abhor violence; but that doesn't mean I ignore its existence. I acknowledge that the best way to survive a violent situation is to avoid it. As such, I avoid certain parts of town; I avoid going to other parts of town at certain times; I try to remain aware of my surroundings and take precautions to ensure I don't present an easy target. But ultimately, I realize that avoidance and precaution cannot completely eliminate the possibility of encountering a violent situation, so I've prepared for one to the best of my ability, including arming myself.

Arming myself doesn't mean I automatically fail-safe to shooting someone who is trying to rob me. There are degrees of response, and a thoughtful person can choose an appropriate response to a given situation. I realize a human life is worth far more than the few dollars in my wallet. But on the other hand, anyone who would threaten violence for the few dollars likely to be in my wallet certainly cannot be trusted to have the same level of concern for my life.

If my realization that violence is possible and not always avoidable, and that I can improve my chances of surviving an unavoidable violent situation by preparing for one makes me a "bad" person in your eyes, dharmasatya, so be it.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | November 28, 2010 10:30 AM

Nope, you're wrong. If you don't like the word "murder" use "homicide" instead. My point is I have no problem injuring or killing someone attempting to do the same to me, a loved one or another innocent person.

Murder by definition is unlawful killing, and you did say you had no problem with murder is certain circumstances.

If you did not mean murder why use the word ?

First, other than my children, I wouldn't presume to offer moral guidance to anyone -- especially anyone who reads this blog regularly. What I am doing is challenging the morals-based arguments against choosing to protect oneself with a firearm.

No, what you did was attempt to claim their are times when murder should be allowed. If you cannot see why people have a problem with that then you have a serious moral failing. Actually I knew that already since you have commented here before and have shown you are a right-wing authoritarian bully.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 28, 2010 11:51 AM

Lyr,

You get a point for the Buffalo Springfield citation.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | November 28, 2010 12:13 PM

Hi, Rutee.

Are you illiterate? I called you a monster because you compared an involuntary status to a voluntary, unnecessary act, not because you carry a gun.

Please read me again, especially my reply after you freaked out the first time. Yes, I compared them; I did not equate them. I suggested that many here were basing their morality on what disgusts or dismays them, and not what they reasoned was right or wrong.

Let me give an example that may not trigger your strong emotions. When I was training as a medic (91C) in the Army, we had a medical ethics class. One day the subject was "If we cannot afford to pay for all useful medical procedures, how do we decide who gets what?"

The students were smarter and better educated than the average enlisted soldier, but to the instructor's surprise (and mine), about one third refused to admit this situation might arise. They all gave reasons that were a variation of "life is precious; we can't put a price on it".

We spent the entire class on this denialism - we never did get those folks to agree that we might run out of resources some day, or on a particular day and situation. Refusing to admit this could cost lives, because these medics will not make the decisions necessary to maximize the lives saved. Triage for example is common in military situations in war time: treating some folks (who will certainly die from their injuries) and other folks (who will live, whether treated or not) must be postponed, in order to treat a third class of folks (who can probably be saved, but only with immediate treatment, such as bleeders). This third of the class, who were smart and good-hearted people, may cost lives because their morality is based on squeamishness.

Squeamishness can kill.

Kermit

Posted by: mwsletten | November 28, 2010 12:46 PM

If you did not mean murder why use the word?

Dude, your search for hidden meaning and continued use of insinuation and innuendo must be exhausting!

Some people refer to the death penalty as "state-sanctioned murder." Clearly, an execution ordered by a court and carried out by government personnel does not fall under the strict definition of murder as you've defined it, but it is a premeditated killing of a human who poses no immediate threat to others.

At any rate, and despite the fact than no one else here seems to be confused by what I posted, I offered an alternative word to make you more comfortable. Further, I provided a very clear explanation about how I feel about violence, which you've chosen to ignore, or more likely, discount as a lie.

Conveniently, this allows you to avoid responding to the substance of my posts. Unless you do it would seem constructive dialog with you is impossible.

Posted by: llewelly | November 28, 2010 12:57 PM

Is the death rate for households with legally owned firearms actually higher than the death rate for households without?

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | November 28, 2010 1:05 PM

Does have a firearm in the house increase the likelihood that someone in the household will die?
There are probably better researches available, but I found this with a quick search:
Association Between Firearm Deathrate and Percent of Households with a Gun (by State)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 28, 2010 1:31 PM

Really, what is it with Americans and their guns?

It's part of the frontier mythos, where guns (1) put food on the table and (2) kept the Indians at bay. Nowadays food is got from the grocery store and the Indians are running casinos. But the mythos changed to (3) we gots ta pertect ourselves from The Bad Guys™ who'll rape the cat and steal our weedwacker if we don't have guns to pertect ourselves. Also (4) we need guns to prove our manhood 'cause only real men have guns.

Posted by: ffrancis | November 28, 2010 1:48 PM

All very interesting, but what happens if you discover that the moose you left in the parking lot way back up in #45 is about to bite your sister? And you left your Glock at home today. Too bad.

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | November 28, 2010 1:56 PM

In the second one, you missed this part:

More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found.

Posted by: rystefn | November 28, 2010 2:09 PM

I missed nothing of the sort, and, in fact, emphasized where they said that the correlation in question could be attributed to the impact of homicide levels on gun ownership rates, rather than the other way around.

Posted by: rystefn | November 28, 2010 2:50 PM

Good for you, beatrice(#219). Now we're actually talking about the real question.That study shows a correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates, that cannot be explained by lifelong depression and is controlled for income levels, urbanization, education, and alcoholism. Good find. However, I see problem with it: the averaged the gun ownership rates over the span of a decade to do the comparison. While suicide rates, as stated in the study, tend to be pretty stable, gun ownership rates can fluctuate quite a bit. The study more or less handwaves these variations as "measurement error."

I would like to draw attention to some of the self-reported limitations of this study

Second, there is uncertainty associated with our measures—particularly our explanatory variables that come from self report surveys—that may bias the estimated relationships. Third, regional groupings undoubtedly mask considerable variation in the prevalence of both handgun ownership levels and mental health problems. Because we have representative mental health data only at the regional level, we have only nine observations. Fourth, we use only two measures of mental health—lifetime prevalence of major depression and of serious suicidal thoughts. Other mental health and socioeconomic factors undoubtedly influence the suicide rate.

So, while I'll concede that owning a firearm may very well make your family members more likely to commit suicide, without a study that shows an increase in firearms ownership leading to an increase in suicide rates, I'll continue to withhold judgement.

After all, the point of contention here is whether or not MY gun will cause the death of one of MY family members, right?

Posted by: rystefn | November 28, 2010 3:10 PM

I doubt I can change your mind, or that you can change mine anyway.

You might be surprised.I've been persuaded before. However, since the null hypothesis here is "me owning/carrying a gun doesn't harm anyone," the onus is on the other side to prove that it does. If the argument is that a firearm shouldn't be kept in the home of a mentally ill person, well, on that I'm already convinced. It is, however, a difficult step to go from "mentally ill persons shouldn't be around guns" to "guns should be outlawed."

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | November 28, 2010 6:37 PM

Please read me again, especially my reply after you freaked out the first time. Yes, I compared them; I did not equate them. I suggested that many here were basing their morality on what disgusts or dismays them, and not what they reasoned was right or wrong.

Not being an idiot, that doesn't apply to me. If you want to ban unqualified people from firearm ownership, I support it.

Since you've got claims that firearms actually help protect people, why aren't you providing the level of data you're demanding? It's not like you don't have truth claims of your own that need supporting.

However, since the null hypothesis here is "me owning/carrying a gun doesn't harm anyone,

Squeamishness can kill.

Kermit

Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD | November 28, 2010 9:37 PM

Returning to the thread...

To mwsletten, #157:

You empathize with me. Bullshit.

In the 15 years that my incident happened, of all the people that I've talked to about this (EMTs, emergency room doctors, police, friends (including some self-professed gun nuts), etc.), you're the first person ever to suggest that I didn't behave exactly right.

Go to hell, asshole. You've proved that you don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: mwsletten | November 29, 2010 9:25 AM

'Tis@160 said:

It's well known that in combat most infantry soldiers either freeze or shoot aimlessly.

Wow. I guess those long months of basic military training, followed by basic and advanced infantry training to learn fire and maneuver skills which are then maintained with years of field training exercises are wasted on "most" soldiers?

Also (4) we need guns to prove our manhood 'cause only real men have guns.

Except for the rape victim who now carries a gun so she actually has a chance to protect herself should another scumbag try to rape her.

Rutee said:

Yeah, cars are more likely to kill you. But a car will do something useful when it's not killing people.

A gun does not have to kill someone to be useful. Police officers wear sidearms and carry shotguns in their vehicles not only to shoot people, but as a deterrent. A homeowner who cycles the action on a pump shotgun during a home invasion will likely send the invaders fleeing from the sound alone -- it a very distinctive sound -- without ever having to fire a shot and harm anyone, or allow anyone in their home to be harmed. That seems pretty useful to me...

But all that aside, you would likely consider a tool made for "killing people" to very useful if your choice was to kill someone before they kill you.

Posted by: GvlGeologist, FCD | November 29, 2010 11:15 AM

@231:

Fuck you dickhead. I'm not going to take 1000 words to explain to a patronizing, macho, know-nothing asshole like you exactly what happened - I've done that plenty of times to among others, cops, as I said. All agreed with me. You explicitly tried to second guess me, without knowing what happened.

I can tell you this - if I had run, or if I had tried to pull a gun, they definitely would have shot at me. Can you outrun a bullet, from 15 feet away? Can you outdraw 3 people who are already pointing guns at you?

If you ever try any of the macho bullshit you so confidently suggested, you'll either be dead or shot multiple times, and your gun will be in the hands of the criminals.

Cram your opinions up your ass, sideways.