Thanks for posting.

The problem w/allowing communities/State/Federal entities to determine what training is required to 'own'/carry a gun is that THEY are not required to do so properly. If you fear voter ID laws then you understand the logic.

Can not find it now (time) but there is a least one locality that requires 'training' at a gun range in their area but does not allow gun ranges to be located in their area. Easy isn't it to control something when you can write/re-write the rules at will.

Bob, I believe that would be the People's Democratic Republic of Chicago that does not allow gun ranges within the city limits.

When are we going to call the disenfranchisement of swaths of minorities racism? oh, right, it's not when progressives do it to them.

Can not find it now (time) but there is a least one locality that requires 'training' at a gun range in their area but does not allow gun ranges to be located in their area. Easy isn't it to control something when you can write/re-write the rules at will. -- Bob in Texas at February 13, 2014 7:48 AM

Also look at Mordor on the Potomac.

It took Emily Miller forever to get a DC CCW.

While I support gun rights, I think this video actually makes a strong case for not having guns.

This guy (who is certainly a shit load tougher than I):

Was shot and almost killed several times
It has made an old man out of him
It has made him paranoid, and he lives a life of seclusion
It doesn't necessarily make him feel safer
He spent thousands of dollars on guns and training

And if he had been more severely injured or killed in any of those shootouts, there is a good chance in at least one of those shootouts a customer would have been next.

And eventually, he had to close his business out of fear

I can't say I would be eager to visit his shop knowing the dozens of guns that were around and that it had been the site of so many shootings.

All in all, while I support gun rights, this video makes this guy's choice very iffy for me.

Jerry, by your logic, maybe he should have never opened shop to begin. Because you know, bad guys with guns might come in. Of course, he probably would have been dead after the first incident if it weren't for the fact that he had a gun to protect himself and his business.

I worked at a small jewelry/watch repair store several years ago, and there were guns hidden all over the store: over the doorways, under the jewelry cabinets, in the safe. Plus, you had to be buzzed both in and out. My understanding is that this is pretty common for the smaller stores in TX. It probably isn't the case for the larger chains. The smaller liquor stores tend to be well armed, too, since there's a pretty good likihood that they'll get robbed eventually. (And I doubt that it's actually legal to have a gun in a liquor store, though there may be an exception if you're the owner or manager.)

It's really simple Jerry, either you bend over and kiss your ass goodbye or you bend over and pull the ankle gun.

Either way you life changes in the next few seconds.

"Jerry, by your logic, maybe he should have never opened shop to begin. Because you know, bad guys with guns might come in. Of course, he probably would have been dead after the first incident if it weren't for the fact that he had a gun to protect himself and his business."

We don't know, but I suspect that's probably not true.

I don't believe the majority of armed robberies end with anyone getting shot. I believe that's why insurance companies and often store owners suggest everyone cooperate.

And depending on the neighborhood crime rates, perhaps he should never have opened the shop there in the first place.

Oh, is that blaming the victim? Yes, it is. And it's something that is rational and we do all of the time.

Why did the restaurant fail? Location, location, location.

"It's really simple Jerry, either you bend over and kiss your ass goodbye or you bend over and pull the ankle gun.

Either way you life changes in the next few seconds."

The first time, wow, that's cool revenge porn. When it you've been in a life or death shootout four times and you've killed five people, maybe the Universe is suggesting you change your lifestyle choices.

"What I think this piece makes a strong argument for is that you can't just buy a guy; you need to be highly trained and practiced using it."

I agree. You can certainly buy me, but I appreciate being used.

(I agree with the intended statement too.)

What I think this piece makes a strong argument for is that you can't just buy a gun, you need to be highly trained and practiced using it.

A friend in the LAPD has talked to me about this. She's said that even trained officers miss their shots under stress.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 13, 2014 1:01 PM

Yes, unfortunately, most police officers are not very good shots to begin with, and they don't train nearly enough.

I have a gun in my hand a couple of hours a day, and still would be shaky under the stress of actually shooting a person.

However, the average home owner or business owner has an advantage, because if you are smart you will create a defensible position, or find one and defend from cover.

In short you are an idiot if you run down the street chasing bad guys, armed or unarmed.

If in your home, I suggest crouching or lying on the floor, and shooting up at an intruder. Most of them don't look down, and if you do miss, chances are, your shots are going through the ceiling.

While I support gun rights, I think this video actually makes a strong case for not having guns.

I don't follow your reasoning.

This guy ...Was shot and almost killed several times

So what's the problem? That he didn't fully cooperate with them?

It has made an old man out of him

Being shot is also hard on one.

It has made him paranoid,

The guns didn't do that, the locals did.

and he lives a life of seclusion

He has methodically stepped up his response to the local threat level over time. Seclusion is just part of it. He's tired of being robbed and doesn't actually want to have daily gunfights.

He spent thousands of dollars on guns and training

How does that compare to the value of his life?

And if he had been... injured or killed in any of those shootouts, there is a good chance... a customer would have been next.

Err, why? After shots are fired you get all pumped up and tend to want to leave, to leave right now, before the five-oh comes.

And eventually, he had to close his business out of fear

He is afraid of some local gang, not passing guns.

I can't say I would be eager to visit his shop knowing the dozens of guns that were around

So you would be afraid to visit a police station or an Army base? They're just tools, they don't jump up and start killing by themselves.

and that it had been the site of so many shootings.

The neighborhood appears to have changed on him. Not the guns fault.

All in all, while I support gun rights, this video makes this guy's choice very iffy for me.

You did hear the part in the video, just past 25 seconds, where Don K. states that a number of shopkeepers in the area have been brutally murdered during armed robberies?

You do notice that he's not one of them? Any ideas why?

You do notice that he's not one of them? Any ideas why?

Posted by: kenmce at February 13, 2014 3:35 PM

Nah, Jerry just thinks that if guns just disappeared, the criminals would all just magically go away as opposed to unsing a knife or a baseball bat to get what they want.

He has bought the socialist argument that guns are more dangerous to the individual who owns one, than they are useful for self defense.

This, of course, is idiocy on stilts.

"Nah, Jerry just thinks that if guns just disappeared, the criminals would all just magically go away as opposed to unsing a knife or a baseball bat to get what they want.

He has bought the socialist argument that guns are more dangerous to the individual who owns one, than they are useful for self defense."

Since I've never said anything like that ever (go find it), I would appreciate your attempt at some intellectual honesty and taking my arguments as they are not, not dishonestly projecting your straw arguments on to me.

Thanks for the demonstration that it's not just liberals who are dishonest in their arguments, and love to hate on other people.

Jerry, what exactly do you think happens to businesses who cant protect their inventory?

How long do you think insurance companies are willing to cover their losses?

What do you think happens to neighborhoods, that are so unsafe, that business cant protect their inventory?

If you cant guess, take a look at Detroit.

Businesses don't magically continue in the absence of profit.

Unlike the government, small business owners, and the companies that insure them, cant just raise prices indefinitely, or print more money to cover the cost of being in a high crime area.

When you reward armed robbers, by not defending your property, pretty soon, they kill the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg.

When government regulations prevent you from becoming a hard target, you either close down and leave, or never open a business in the first place.

I dont hate you. I just think you are horrbly naive, or extemely ill educated.

But I get where your coming from. To liberals, making fun of someone is now a form of "hate".

.

There's a difference between making fun of someone, which isn't even a valid form of argument, and then distorting what they have to say to make fun of that person.

That difference is known as the strawman.

One thing I like about Amy's blogs is most of the discussion here is on topic and stays awayfrom the free republic, kos, free thought blogs forms of argument.

Oh I know, all is fair to you when it comes to the right cause. But basically I think it's cheap, reflects poorly on you, and like a bad penny drives out the good.

As I said, find any statement of mine that backs up your claims.

Instead of changing the subject, rationalizing your bullshit, playing your own victim card, why don't you first back up your initial claims?

Until you can back up your claims about me, fuck off.

Until you can back up your claims about me, fuck off.

Posted by: jerry at February 13, 2014 6:01 PM

Your writing and your arguments expose you. You are a Hoplophobe, With no background in economics.

I can take your insults Barack. I'm a real grownup, and I've been around the block a few times.

Oh, is that blaming the victim? Yes, it is. And it's something that is rational and we do all of the time.

Why did the restaurant fail? Location, location, location. -- jerry at February 13, 2014 12:18 PM

This is the mob mentality. I either pay the mob off or I'm burned out. I either submit to the robberies or die, But I don't have a right to defend myself.

What if this guy didn't own the shop but had killed five people attempting to mug him on his walk home from work to his place five blocks away. Is it different? Why?

Should he have to leave his job or move from his home so he is not mugged again?

The guy prepared, and hopefully his staff did as well. But conceding to the bad guys is not the answer.

This is the same line of "lets restrict gun ownership". The gun IS NOT the issue. The good guy with a gun is not the issue. It is the bad guy with whatever weapon approaching you and taking your property because he has a weapon and you don't. Why is it unfair to the bad guy if there are equal odds? Does the bad guy have more rights to you property?

Jerry: "I don't believe the majority of armed robberies end with anyone getting shot."

Leaving aside the inherent fallibility of your beliefs, this is a good observation.

Because here in CT, armed robberies end with a man bludgeoned by a baseball bat, 2 girls raped, and those girls and their mother burned to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Jerry, do yourself a favor and see a doctor. Your low-T is turning you into a eunuch.

Hey - just take this quiz.

So many have no idea whatsoever of the limitations and responsibilities of firearms ownership. Another thing they do not apparently know is that giving in to a felon is not a method of self-defense.