Gun control disconnect

Come on [Brian], you know better than that, how many times did merely brandishing a concealed weapon scare someone off? We don?t know because those records probably aren?t kept.

You are right – we don’t know. It is my opinion that concealed-carry doesn’t work because it doesn’t deter conflict, it only escalates after the conflict has started. Brandishing is a clear threat, and if the perp runs… yeah, it’s ended well. But what if he doesn’t? What if he’s packing, and draws? What if he’s not, and grapples for the gun?

For a weapon to act as a deterrent, the perp has to know you have it before any conflict begins. If you wear a gun openly, crooks will give you a wide berth. So will most everyone else.

and of OCGW had it?s way Buford would still have that .38 because criminals don?t obey gun laws.

C’mon. You’d really prefer to make it trivial for criminals to acquire weapons? Background checks combined with purchase rate limits would dramatically limit the flow of weapons to the criminal element – especially non-organized crime.

You might as well make DUI legal because drunk drivers don’t obey DUI laws. (Responsible drunks call a cab.)

Of course, we are assuming Buford got his gun illicitly – he might well have “borrowed” it from a family member who did not properly secure the weapon. That person ought to be held responsible.

I’m pro-gun. But that doesn’t mean I’m against reasonable controls on acquisition. Controls that might have saved Buford’s life, and given the rest of us a chance to rehabilitate him.

BTW, owning a gun does not mean you are trained or prepared for home or self defense. I suspect I’ll never take advantage of the concealed-carry law not just for the above reasons, but also because without a tremendous amount of training (well beyond the license requirements) I would not feel prepared to use the weapon safely and decisively if needed. (There are lots of studies showing how trained soldiers were often not prepared to actually kill during WWII.) Similarly, after watching many episodes of It Takes a Thief I’m mostly convinced that a gun for home protection will much more often be a liability than an asset. Secure all weapons in gun safes, and properly secure your home so that your family – and guns – are safe from criminals.

There is really no legitimate reason to oppose the instant background checks or purchase rate limitations. Neither are undue burdens to legal firearm owners.

Aside – the modern view of the Wild West as a rough-and-tumble armed free-for-all is wildly inaccurate. Most places out west had requirements that weapons be “checked at the door”. In fact, the Shootout at the OK Corral was because the “perps” refused to follow the Tombstone ordinance preventing firearms.

First of all, I have to disagree with your characterization of the kid as a ?would be? criminal. Attempted armed robbery with a handgun is a crime, and that?s what this kid did.

Assuming the facts as reported by the paper are correct, you are right. I could weasel around on this one if I wanted to, but I don’t really care. Consider that phrase retracted.

Second, why is this even a concealed weapon issue? If this guy was on his porch on his home, I?m pretty sure that you don?t need a concealed carry permit to have a gun on your person on your own property.

Again, correct. I was neglegent and failed to link the original post, which framed this in a concealed-carry discussion, so here it is.

Third, why are we blaming the homeowner?

Who blamed the homeowner? Not Eric, not I, not Matty Boy, and not even Hoover, who flatly admitted that the gun was used legally to stop a violent crime.

I’m simply saying it’s a tragic outcome when a 15-year-old kid is dead. That kid still could have had a positive future.

If we?re going to respect the rule of law, then we must respect that under the law what this homeowner did was LEGAL and what this kid did was not. The kid was not justified in using a gun to threaten someone?s life, nor to take their property, but well-established law holds that the property owner was justified in using lethal force to respond to that threat.

I do not disagree, nor have I.

If the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence isn?t against the Second Amendment and lawful ownership of handguns, then exactly why are they criticizing Buford again?!?

Huh? I think you mean Wells, and I’m not sure how pointing out that there’s a dead kid is criticizing Wells. The only people criticizing Wells are Buford’s family, and you can’t really blame them for feeling that way.

What we are trying to point out is that if Buford didn’t have a gun, this whole mess would likely have been avoided. He probably wouldn’t have been bold enough to walk up to a guy on his own porch to attempt to rob him. Gun control is about trying to take steps to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or would-be criminals (eg, the mentally-unstable VT shooter), not about keeping guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. Look at OCAGV’s website – they explicitly talk about closing loopholes that allow guns “into the wild”, and about strengthening training and safety requirements for legal owners. They give away gun locks! That doesn’t sound at all like trying to make firearms illegal to me.