User login

Who's online

There are currently 12 users and 48 guests online.

Online users

  • Toni Holm
  • Bert
  • The Original Yoda
  • talltrees
  • Rick
  • einmaleins
  • Dylan Carlson
  • Just another voice
  • Judith
  • tctvjohn

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

  • talltrees
  • Toni Holm
  • wehrland
  • reggie.ventura
  • FREDDYF

    Creative Commons License
 
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 12/13/2007 - 7:43pm.

I've asked myself this question on many occasions. Anyone who ever chooses, even once, to carry a firearm (possibly even own a firearm) should ask this. Every once in awhile I am reminded of why I choose to put myself in this position. This story reminded me of that.

Sheep, Wolf or Sheepdog? I've made my decision. I hope everyone else is as sure of their's.

»

Why does that story remind you of why you carry a gun?

So you can kill yourself before the police do?

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

»

errr, no

I'm thinking more of the volunteer security guard that took him down with a few rounds before he decided to shoot himself. She was in the right place, at the right time, and chose to not let anyone else be the victim of this man. She is a hero in my mind, and no doubt saved some lives that day.
»

Thanks for explaining.

There were a lot of elements to that story.

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo

»

And I thought that was just a banana in your pocket

or that you would glad to see me.

Maybe you can help me, Norm.  Do you know the percentage of chance that you would have to engage in that kind of exchange?  I'm not sure if such statistics exist.  Then I wonder about the percentage of chance that a firearm can accidently go off and an innocent person gets shot.

One time, during this discussion on The Olympian comments, I think I googled something about less than 3/1000ths of a chance that a person would encounter a life and death situation where a gun would serve them.  Conversely, it would be difficult to determine the percentage of change of an accidental death by firearm, because of the number of reasons for engaging.  Either way, it seems like the "need for protection" investment in a firearm doesn't seem to equate to a good "investment".  On the other hand, if your passion is guns, then it makes no difference whatsoever why you carry one.

Gug....what can you contribute about the numbers on this subject?

»

I wonder

what the V-tech students would think about your analysis, Larry (or the people at the church that Norm mentions)?

If you have the gun you can chose to use it and have a more equal playing field. If you don't, you have no options.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

If they are rational about it, which would be hard,

I think the V-techers and church survivors, et al, would shake their heads and think, wow, that's terrible luck in terms of wrong place, wrong time.

And by the way, there are always options.  Victor Frankl, survivor of the holocaust said:

“The one thing you can’t take away from me is the way I choose to respond to what you do to me. The last of one’s freedoms is to choose one's attitude in any given circumstance.”

That is the last freedom that I cherish and will not surrender. Having the freedom and option to pull out a weapon and firing when a threat is perceived does not rise to the dignity of Victor Frankl's vision, even if it means your survivors now collect on your life insurance policy. 

One of the choices and attitudes that I hope to continually choose is not resort to killing another person.  I don't give it a lot of thought, it just is an attitude to cultivate imho.

 

»

Some of the survivors

and other fellow students staged a small protest and carried around empty gun holsters to show how they disagree with V'techs no firearm policy. In case you are curious.
»

Wasn't curious, but I understand their desire to be armed

and I respect their decision to carry the empty holsters as a matter of free speech.  I would understand if some chose to flaunt the rule that they could not carry.  This is a basic second amendment bill of rights issue.  And as I have said over and over, all of the civil rights that we may have are precious and should be respected.
»

On Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs

Hope you don't mind me clarifying the sheep, wolf or sheepdog statement you made Norm. I think this article is a good read for anyone.

By LTC(RET) Dave Grossman, RANGER, Ph.D.,author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so
because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy
things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that
may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,
even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth
dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the
United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive
creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the
murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate
is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans
are not inclined to hurt one another.

Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent
crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which
means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one
in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are
committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably
less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation:
We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people
who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme
provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the
pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow
into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue
shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and
someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For
now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves
feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there
who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil
men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget
that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in
denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to
protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy
for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But
what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow
citizens?
What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking
the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the
universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep,
wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes
them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the
world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire
extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids'
schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police
officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely
to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the
sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone
coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the
path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep
dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished
and removed.
The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative
democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them
where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our
airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much
rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to
hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough
high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not
have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had
nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT
teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel
those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs
feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded
hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt
differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how
many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a
sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a
funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the
breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a
righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous
battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move
to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep
pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After
the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America
said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said,
"Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I
could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a
warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there.
You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but
he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able
to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the
population.
There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals
convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious,
predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast
majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped
walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like
big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able
to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be
genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most
people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans
are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was
honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the
man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an
operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other
three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone
and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to
the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a
transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business
people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves,
ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible
evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of
police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real
sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves.
They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be
whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay,
but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If
you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt
you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want
to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious
and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive
in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are
well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt
holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of
religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer
in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your
place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the
break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other
cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at
a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally
deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen
people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day
if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do
was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the
eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself
after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer
was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and
would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for
"heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective,
or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'
school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can
happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often
their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog
quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with
yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there
helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically
destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is
counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and
horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth
when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't
train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy.
Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you
are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at
your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11
book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to
terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an
insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it
isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more
unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in
small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some
level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of
his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes.

If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you
step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that
the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime.
Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you
walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to
yourself...
"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no
dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees,
a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on
the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the
other.
Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America
took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps
toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started
taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that
continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved
ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

»

The last person I knew who talked about the sheep-wolf analogy

stuck a rifle in his mouth and kissed the world good bye. Just sayin'.
»

That's really sad.

That's really sad.
»

Well then, authors and

Well then, authors and singers are likely to have their minds blown away...with a shotgun. Just sayin'

What's the chance that someone will cut their finger off with a kitchen knife? What's the chance that someone's going to be in a car wreck (or even a bicycle wreck) What's the chance that someone's going to contract an airborne disease? What's the chance that someone's going to slip and fall down the stairs?

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

»

On Killing is a great book

and I recommend reading On Combat as well.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

You may never convince

You may never convince people why you choose to defend yourself or give yourself peace of mind no matter the sutuation you find yourself in. I for one am no more afraid of a firearm than I am of a screwdriver or car. After all, it is part of the bill of rights, the only part that many think is just a suggestion. We choose to broadly define the others to areas that are fuzzy at best. If we did it with the 2nd am. we all could own a hydrogen bomb, people don't want that, they just want to be able to defend themselves.
»

I'm afraid of tools used improperly

I'm afraid of a gun in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable. Many mentally unstable people possess, and unfortunately, use, firearms. They may think they're sheepdogs, but they can turn into wolves very quickly.

I'm at work, so I can't look into this right now, but I'm wondering if someone knows what proportion of weapons held by citizens are used for various purposes -- how many are used to protect "sheep'? How many are used in violent economic crimes (muggings, robberies, drug turf wars, etc.)? And how many are used by people who "snap" and shoot their family members? Or themselves. Anyone know?

»

Krull

I think you hit my point exactly.

Virginia Tech students would have a different take on the issue, but it wouldn't change the numerical possibilities.  Conversely, you could take any college of choice that has never had an issue of that kind of violence and say that they would probably not even consider the need.

There was once published in a newspaper in the midwest (I found this on the internet, but it has since disappeared as it was a local story) a story about a young girl that was killed or severely wounded (I can't remember which) by her father while he was defending their home from a burglar.  A rather small chance of this happening, but I'll bet we can't convince her father of that, now.

I worry about being the innocent victim caught in the crossfire of two people, regardless of their well meaning.

There are lots of takes on this.

»

Larry

Larry says "Virginia Tech students would have a different take on the issue, but it wouldn't change the numerical possibilities. Conversely, you could take any college of choice that has never had an issue of that kind of violence and say that they would probably not even consider the need."

I think you over simplify, and are mistaken as well. Like Norm mentions elsewhere, college kids wore empty holsters in protest of not being able to wear guns on campus. College kids are thinking about this, and in V-tech's situation, a gun on a student likely would have made things much better.

The guy who tried to take out the shooter at the Tacoma Mall a couple years ago made a big mistake, but had he not made that mistake the outcome would have been much different.(the guy announced to the shooter commands of some sort, giving an edge to the shooter. Also, I question whether the citizen that got shot was committed to shooting another human being, and he hesitated.)(He should have shot the shooter with no anouncement.)

In the monthly pubs from the NRA they have articles from newpapers all over the country where a gun made a big "positive" difference. I can't seem to find an online version, but if I do I will do a link to here.

Since we are doing battling Youtube vids here is one for you.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jMyM-9uvZug

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Krull

The NRA?  You mean the same one that holds rallies in towns right after kids are killed by guns?  If you want some credibility in the conversation, I'd suggest you find some resources that are a bit less self serving on the subject.

Just so that you don't get off track here, I'm not opposed to people owning guns.  I've even asked Norm to take me shooting.

As to my "youtube" video, the subject came up on Ed Schultz show two days ago and I thought it a worthwhile contribution to such a conversation as Norm started here.  By the way, Schultz is on Air America, and is an avid gun enthusiast and hunter.

»

The Armed Citizen

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
»

Once the armed citizen shot the "shooter" at the Tacoma Mall

Would another armed citizen in the area have been justified to drop the first armed citizen?  After all, maybe it's a suicide pact of some sort and the armed citizen is really an accomplice?  

Is the safe thing as an armed citizen dropping a shooter to quickly put your weapon on the ground and lay down and wait for law enforcement so that another armed citizen doesn't drop you just to be on the safe side?  

All of this strikes me as some kind of hero fantasy.  Maybe a visualization of some video game fantasy where a "good guy" or "armed citizen" gets the bead on the "bad guy" or "shooter" and is a hero.  

I catch a whiff of immaturity and unreality to the whole thing.   

 

»

N/M

Not worth the effort

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

I second that

Probably not even worth this much effort
»

There are procedures in place

In a perfect world it will be very easy to determine who is the bad guy, and who is the good guy. In the Tacoma mall scenario the bad guy started firing before the good guy ever drew his gun. If the bad guy, clearly defined in this scenario, is shot by someone, as a bystander, I would assume the second shooter is a good guy, therefore I would not shoot him.

»

I understand all that.

But if you were in a store in the mall, armed and ready to intervene and be a hero, and you heard the commotion and came out just in time only see the last shooting, that of the "good guy" shooting the "bad guy" you might not be in good position to be certain who the good guy really is and you drop him, don't hesitate, because hesitation can be fatal. 

I think it's just a badly flawed and statistically very unlikely scenario where you get to be a hero.  The numbers indicate that a weapon in a household makes the household occupants less safe, not more safe.  I try to be a realist about risk (notwithstanding, that I have some money in the stock market) and the risks are clearly lowered for my family if we choose not to own weapons.  There are risks to not having weapons, but the numbers are clear about the lower risk of no weapons.

Film recommendation:  Alan Pakula's Parallax View - about a journalist trying to understand an assassination and doesn't see the folks behind him who have a more complete view and better tactical control of the battlefield.  

»

Mike, do you live your life

based on the results of studies done by others? If so, you must be a very exciting guy to be around. Yawn!

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Yes

I do a lot of risk analysis and planning.  And reliable stats are important in the risk analysis.  Mr. Excitement?  Probably not. 

But in the context of Norm's question:  why he carries a firearm, he suggests that he thinks he is going to run into an opportunity to intervene in a shooting like the ones that happened at V Tech of the churches.  I think the stats say that is very unlikely.  

But as long as Norm wants to carry the equipment that will enable him to be hero, I would suggest also keeping a fire extinguisher with you at all times.  At the right time and place, when no one else is stepping up and being a dalmation, you can whip out the old fire extinguisher and save lives.  That's why I always pack a 5 pounder and know in my heart of hearts, that I am a dalmation.

Dalmatians are completey overlooked in the sheep, wolves, and sheepdog story.  Don't even get me started on the dolphins, sharks and jellyfish.  

»

LOL

Dalmatians are completey overlooked in the sheep, wolves, and sheepdog story. Don't even get me started on the dolphins, sharks and jellyfish.

Funny

I don't think Norm is looking for "the opportunity", I think he wants to protect himself first, his friends and loved ones next. If he choses to help out in a Tacoma Mall scenario, he will be able to do that as he will be prepared. I guess I should let Norm speak for himself, but that is why most people carry guns when they are out and about.

Me personally, it would have to be a real shit storm of a conflict, i.e. as bad or worse than the Tacoma Mall incident before I would consider getting involved. The reason is for some of the reasons you mentioned as well as any civil litigation that would come out of it, etc. I'm all about protecting myself and the ones I love, but for those who end up in harms way and are unprepared, well it sucks to be you.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

We are of the same mind about

stepping in and getting involved. The Africans have a saying that when the elephants fight, the grass is trampled. Meaning, as it pertains to this thread, the sheep are going to be in the middle of the crossfire between the sheepdogs and the wolves, and I am sure that in the elephant scenario, at least one of the elephants think it is a sheepdog.

I very much like Eastwood's movie Unforgiven for it's ability to capture how little difference exists between some sheepdogs and some wolves. The myopic kid says after he shoots the poor dumb cowboy in the outhouse, "he had it coming" and William Munny's character (eastwood) says, "we all got it coming, kid."

Then for me, recognizing that we all have it coming in an existential sense, what matters is dignity, grace, and walking a path with heart.

And of course, my hero, Jesus, ended up in harm's way and I guess it sucked to be him, but he said follow me. And I hear that. Guess that makes me a sheep.

 

»

I think this is one of the

I think this is one of the best comments I've seen from you, Mike.  Thank you. 

 

The Canaanite's Call

»

I won't blow smoke here Mike

I'm not Jesus. I don't want to be like Jesus. If you are in a situation and choose to look the killer straight in the eye and say, "I am ready to die, and I am not afraid." more power to you.
»

Yes, the folks who can do

Yes, the folks who can do this are truly amazing.  More impressive than sheepdogs, real heroes who live their ideals.  Few and far between.  I think like the sheepdog thing, you can aspire to be who you want to be, Jesus, Bozo, Rambo...   there is no way of knowing how you will actually behave when a terrible event occurs.  

My aspiration would not be to say "I am ready to die, and I am not afraid."  it would be to say, "please put the weapon down, this is not the way.  Let the needless violence stop here."   I think that situation would be very frightening. Being fearless and being courageous are not necessarily the same thing.  

»

It's clear

that you and I are two clearly different people.
»

Let'snot start picking at each other here.

We should live more by the results of studies, in my opinion. What better measuring stick to make decisions by than previous events? Studies and statistics allow us to learn from our mistakes and prevent making future ones. Flying by the seat of our pants isn't a very safe way to live in my opinion.
»

I thought my comment was humor

Still feeling out the tolerance level here on the blog, no "picking on" was intended.

Rob, I find your comment about measuring sticks and previous events humorous. Frequently, us pro-gun guys point out exactly that. History has shown that people who were brought under subjugation of their government are usually first disarmed. The anti-gunners poo-poo that as an argument.

The thing I have found about studies, if you wait long enough, there will be a study that reverses the findings of the previous study. So I don't hang my hat on them too much unless they have been field tested quite a bit. I find that career academics hang their hats on studies, but have no real world experience to draw from. For me that is as bad or worse than the flying by the seat of the pants you talk of.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Are you joking? Seriously

Are you joking? Seriously I'm gonna keep on eating french fries even though heart-disease is a huge killer. I'm hoping that you are joking with this comment.
»

I guess the are you kidding is for me

Not kidding. Many studies are later reversed or conflicted with previous studies. The medical field is one of the worst. In the late 80's early 90's we were lead to believe a high carb diet was a good thing. We were even told that complex carbs were different and better than simple carbs. Now the health professionals say, well a higher protein diet is better for you. And we now know that the body sees both simple and complex carbs as sugar. They say this after a decade of high carb diets, more obese people than ever and diabetes at an all time high. That's just one example. We see results of studies all the time that get reversed. Are all studies reversed? NO! Do I not take some studies to heart, pun intended, certainly I do. But again if there was a new study to come out that hadn't been time tested, i.e. greasy french fries lower your risk of stroke, I wouldn't run out right away and eat tons of fries.

Do you Norm buy off on every study? If so I can show you lots of studies that say you need to get rid of that evil gun right away. Or as the guy that wants to be a cop, cops have a younger death rate than many professions. Perhaps you can eat those fries, or doughnuts.

:-)

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Nope, you are wrong

my post was meant for Rob

»

LOL

*wipe* *wipe* boy I hate it when I get egg on my face.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

It would be foolish to let a single

study guide an important decision. However, it is a mistake to ignore an entire body of literature simply because there are some studies with contradictory findings. This is not unusual in the social sciences. It is a simple matter (using established protocols) to combine the results of many studies, including the contradictory ones, to arive at an "average" finding. It's called meta-analysis, and it is a valuable way to increase the explanitory power of multiple studies. It's been used on this particular topic as well. In the end, all it means is that we are better informed, not that guns are bad.
»

It's all about judgement calls

nobody can be right %100 of the time. I'm not one to say not to hesitate. If you don't feel you have a complete grasp of the situation, keep your pistol in it's holster. "shoot/no-shoot" classes are good for this, but again not perfect. What it boils down to, at least for me, is that I would rather have the firearm, and never have to use it, than have a situation where one could prevent tragedy, and not have a firearm available.
»

Add this to the discussion points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5PDl7gqiHQ&feature=related

this man claims he was "defending himself" when in reality he was observing a burglary at a house next door.

»

Good God.  That was really

Good God.  That was really hard to watch.  I hope it inspires a change in the law in Texas.  What that man did was absolutely indefensible. 

 

The Canaanite's Call

»

Both were shot

in the back! Indefensible indeed.
»

Where did you hear they got shot in the back?

The vid said one was shot in the chest, and one was shot in the side.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Here's one source

One of the killed was definately running away. Horn might have feared one was running towards him...but he still managed to shoot him in the back and side.
»

Sounds like at least one closed

closed on Horn, prior to him shooting.

Let's see, two previous crooks committing another felony, I'm not losing too much sleep over what Horn did.

Cops in that state may be able to shoot fleeing felons, perhaps citizens can too. Heck if Oly war protestors can make citizen arrests, why not.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

you are welcome to a good night's sleep

regardless of the facts. As long as we're straight on the facts, sleep away.
»

I'm not sure WE are

but it seems that Horn may have an argument for self defense. Maybe not. We are relying on the media to get the info to us. Until we get specifics from the investigation we are merely have fun.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Doesn't help that he told the

911 operator "I'm gonna kill'em." Sounds like the act was a little...premeditated. But he'll probably get off or get pardoned regardless.
»

Yeah, but

Horn didn't know a thing about them before he fired on them. I'm not sure of all of the details of the story, was it night time? Dark out? What if he had shot his neighbor on accident? This is just not a very good example to pick if you're trying to make an argument for guns in my opinion. This guy was a crazy old coot who wanted to shoot somebody, it's pretty clear from the 911 call that he was chomping at the bit from the get-go to go over and shoot them.
»

Not my argument

I think it was Larry's argument, and the only reason I played at all is because Gug was only telling half the info that was available on the links.

Horn clearly was seeing a felony in progress. Most states allow for shooting a fleeing felon. Each state has specific criteria for that, but most allow for it generally.

I think Horn is a cowboy, and shouldn't have done what he did. But it sounds like he did society a favor.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

You're certainly entitled to that opinion

one I vigorously disagree with. Half the info?
»

A sick puppy.

I'm pretty sure I heard him say, "Boom, you're dead", before he fired the shots.  Sounded to me like he revelled in the opportunity to kill another human being.  It's instances like this that seriously make me question the second amendment.  He's a sick bastard. 

 

The Canaanite's Call

»

I had a friend call me about this yesterday.

She doesn't even own a gun and said, "Good for him.". Break into a house, get shot. Texas apparently put in a law (not unlike this state) saying that if you break into someone's home, their is an assumption that the criminal will do bodily harm, and therefore someone living in that house can use a firearm to protect themselves. I don't think it covers neighbors though. Those two folks met a little bit of Texan vigilante justice, it may not have been the right thing to do, but I sure as hell don't feel sorry for them.
»

I guess the sheepdogs get a

I guess the sheepdogs get a little bloodthirsty sometimes. It was quite disturbing how he kept insisting on shooting the burglars despite the dispatcher telling him not to. An interesting insight into how armed bullies sublimate their murderous impulses.
»

Who said he was a sheepdog?

Just because he was armed and willing to make a stand, does that necessarily make him a sheepdog? Within the confines of the law I would say he is wrong. I now know close to a dozen folks (friends, family, and coworkers) who have said that the guy did the right thing. They were breaking into a neighbors house, they certainly won't be doing so again. Regardless of the legality, the problem is solved, right? What would you have done? What would you have told your neighbor when they returned home?
»

"Hey neighbor,

Your house was broken into while you were gone. I could've shot them but figured two dead people on your lawn weren't worth it. Do you need anything? Are you going to be all right?"
»

rofl

That's pretty funny coming from you. So what happend to not involving the cops and doing some community policing? Talk the talk but....? Why not go over and bust out the ol' kung fu? Glad I'm not your neighbor.
»

your kidding right?

Right, Norm?

I don't think I've ever said anything that would bring you anywhere near the conclusion that I would shoot someone for anything. And I don't know karate, I know karazy.

»

I never said to shoot them

I wouldn't have even shot them, but I sure as hell wouldn't have just sat there and watched them do that. I wouldn't have even called 911 until I confronted them and made sure they weren't friends/relatives. Now if I approached them and they pulled out a knife.....

»

You know,

I don't think a police officer would advise citizens to confront potential burglars. I think they would advocate calling 911.
»

Of course

but is that the officers personal opinion, or their "department" opinion?
»

Now...after viewing your video, Krull

I need to ask the question...should we all just carry assault weapons and whoever is left standing wins?  I caution you that doesn't mean that the good guys will always win.  The bad guys can be a better shot.

As life proceeds on today, let's do an accounting of how many incidents happen like the one that the lady described (interesting that it was in TEXAS....don't they have some of the most liberal local gun laws?).

Let's monitor the mainstream media (sorry, but I just can't begin to think that the NRA is accurate or fair in their reporting) for a year and see how many of these incidents take place.

Whereas these incidents are terribly wrong, they are also tremendously the minority.

»

Larry

NRA plucks the articles from the main stream media(they cite the date and publication the article was printed in). As for the incidents being in the minority. I have to disagree. The reason you believe they are in the minority is because you don't hear about them. And why don't you hear about them???? I think we both know why.

The NRA is very effective in protecting gun owners rights. Do I agree with 100% of everything they do, nope. But the things I disagree with them on are far, far out weighed by the things I agree with them on.

As for the NRA being fair in their reporting, do you mean balanced? I can assure you they are far from being balanced. Being balanced has nothing to do with what they are about. Just like any of the gun control groups, they are not balanced either.

The issue of assault weapons, why shouldn't any law abiding citizen be able to own them? They are fun to shoot. You can hunt with them. They are a very effective defensive weapon when the bad men come to rape and pilliage. And they are a good offensive weapon when the jack-booted-thugs come to visit and deprive citizens.(But of course our government will never do that, right?)

Glad to hear you want to go shooting. Perhaps the pro-gun guys here could hold an event where those on Olyblog that want to open their minds to guns could get together. I would be willing to participate in that. If done correctly, many disciplines and types of shooting could be experienced at one location. I think that would be a better way to expose people to guns than the OC issue, JMHO.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

I own, but I don't carry.

I would if the circumstances merited. Living in Olympia, possibly the safest town in America, I simply can't justify the extra weight, physically or psychologically. By "psychologically," I mean the business of "sheep and wolves" is a bit dehumanizing and alienating. Not healthy. It makes complete sense in Mosul or maybe even East St. Luis, but not here. Sure, there is always an extremely miniscule chance that some crazy person will shoot up a church. But I'd rather go without the "insurance" than pay homage to paranoia and fear. That is the victory of the wolf and that's why I don't carry. I also don't buy the solipsistic notion that most people are "sheep."
»

Baaaa

I gotta agree with Guglielmo's objection to the "sheep" nomenclature. To call people who aren't criminals or cops (or wannabe cops -- I guess some sheepdogs are untrained, self-appointed protectors of the innocent?)sheep is a little dismissive, given that the term "sheep" carries with it connotations of docility and conformity. There are plenty of people who are neither criminal nor cop who are not a bit "sheep"-like. As someone who would be designated a "sheep" by a "sheep-dog," I gotta say, don't invoke me as a justification for carrying your gun. I kinda think maybe you just like playing with it and touching it. And maybe when people look at you funny when your carrying it, you mistake that for respect.
»

Work with the public

or see how most people react in a crisis, and you will begin to think the title of sheep as generous.

I believe Lt. Col Grossman was talking about a mindset more than a profession. I'm guessing S6 is not a cop, but I would figure he would be a sheepdog.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

The title of "sheepdog" can be a little generous, too

I've seen how "sheepdogs," even the alpha sheepdog, react in a crisis, and I'm beginning to think the term is a little misleading.
»

You can't really tell if someone is a sheepdog

until they are tested. I've seen a few tuck their tails and run when the time comes, while the person you least expect rises to the occasion.
»

Agreed

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

the dolphins are here to save your stringy tentacles.

olydowntowner wrote: As someone who would be designated a "sheep" by a "sheep-dog," I gotta say, don't invoke me as a justification for carrying your gun.

Are you going to object to my dolphin, shark and jellyfish parable where you might qualify as jellyfish? The jellyfish never appreciate the sacrifices we dalmations make.  

Strike that, I mean penguins...   or spotted owls or something...  dolphins, that's it, dolphins - we swim and protect, while the jellyfish float and the sharks circle. 

»

Oh, come on. Sheep dogs are way tougher...

»

For Larry

All from the NRA-ILA site,

One example. Each month they have 5-10 stories like this that are usually only a 1-2 months old.

"When a family returned to the Lawton, Okla., home they lived in, they discovered a burglar had broken in. The homeowner retrieved a gun and was holding the intruder at gunpoint when the suspect made a move. The homeowner then fired a shot that killed the suspect. (KSWO.com, Lawton, Okla., 10/23/07)"

"During the decades the American Rifleman has published “The Armed Citizen” column, thousands of incidents of law-abiding Americans using firearms to halt or prevent crime have appeared in the magazine. Editorial space allowing, the total could have been far greater of course, as award-winning survey research shows that each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times."

You can go to the link below and search articles back to 1958. You wanted examples, have at it.

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Anecdotes may make you feel safer

But are you actually safer if you have a gun in your home? Not according to this peer-reviewed article published in the New England Journal of Medicine. In fact, this study concludes that keeping a firearm in your home increases the risk of a homicide occuring there. Maybe the lines of distinction between the good guys/bad guys, sheep/wolves/sheepdogs are not as clear as people like to think.
»

Cmon, you're kidding right?

This statement is as telling as the gun piece.

"Conclusions: The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home."

Do you think the amount of homicides would be that much less if there was no gun but some asshole was jacked up on dope, or just in a rage wouldn't attack the significant other (probably a woman) with a knife, baseball bat, etc. Perhaps if the victim could get to the gun first she could send her attacker to the graveyard. The we could all read about it in the Armed Citizen. :)

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

C'mon, read the WHOLE abstract

It's just a summary; it shouldn't be overtaxing. If you'd read the whole three paragraph summary, you would have noted that "Case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4).

Did you catch that part where it says "after controlling for these characteristics"? Did they mean anything to you? Or maybe you slept through your science classes?

I'm sure the words "strong" and "independent" have a lot of Marlboro-man like associations for you, Krull, but in a scientific study such as this one, they mean that it's the guns that increase the likelihood of a murder, not just mom's skeevy boyfriend and his stash of meth.

»

Olyoldtimer,

I guess you chose not to read the study I posted, so I will sum up your posted study, FOS, imho.

As for the personal comments, I will let the docents decide if that they are appropriate.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

It's okay to be nice

it sets an example.
»

I had to take a breather

on this subject.  OK....I've digested a bit more and I'll try again.

Let's start with Krull's example from the NRA reports.  Holding a burglar at gunpoint and he "made a move".  I'm going to stop right there and inquire what kind of "move" was made.  Did the burglar attempt to flee?  Did he attempt to disarm the homeowner?  Did he attempt to draw his own weapon?  There are three different and reasonable questions about the action and, in my personal opinion, only one of them would require killing the burglar - drawing his own weapon.  Attempting to disarm the homeowner would be rather ridiculous (unless the gun went off during a struggle) and drawing his own weapon would seem as ridiculous, as he would have probably already had it drawn.  Thus, I'm thinking "made a move" was in reference to "trying to flee". 

So...here we are, back at the youtube video scenario.  A man threatening to kill someone for stealing.  You'll note in the video that the dispatcher, several times, told him to not shoot - that killing someone was not appropriate for theft.  Granted, dispatchers are often not law enforcement officers, but in this case they are acting in lieu of said officer.  I'd have to equate "making a move to flee" along these same lines and if we are to respond appropriately to law authorities (see volumes of copy on recent protest discussions), I cannot rationalize the killing of someone for theft - ESPECIALLY if a law enforcement authority or representative says it's not appropriate.

I'll admit that I haven't looked up the case in point, but I find it facinating that such vague language is used when reporting the taking of someone's life.

EDIT:  I have tried several different ways to google the Lawton, OK incident and the only "accounting" I can find is from the NRA.  I can't even get anything from the Lawton newspaper.

Now, lets examine the statement that "each year in the U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times."

The first thing I have a problem with is "as frequently as".  Again, very vague. 

If you do the math, it would say that this happens over 6800 times a day!!!  Our newspapers, radios and TV media should be reporting nothing else, especially when you consider that almost 137 times a day, everyday of the year in Washington State alone this activity allegedly takes place!!!!

Does anyone see anything here yet?  Possibly we have just a little bit of a reporting credibility going on.

This type of report is like the Steve King (R) Iowa report on how many people were killed each day or annually by illegal aliens.  First of all, there are no such records kept, which totally debunked King's statement, but that didn't change the number of people that were opposed to illegal aliens.  They jumped on this and before you knew it, it was all over the internet and people were up in arms. Dispite it being false, it made for great fodder.

I will again state for the record, I am not opposed to firearms.  I support control and responsibility.  Isn't it strange though, that the very people that you'd think would want the same as me (control and responsibility) for the protection of their right to own firearms, are so irresponsible about information distribution?  Why use senseless, inaccurate information to support your right to own a firearm, when responsbilitiy and accuracy would draw more people to your side

»

Perhaps you should read this

http://www.guncite.com/kleckjama01.html

Their conclusion, "CONCLUSIONS: Probably less than 5% of US homicides are committed in the victim's home by killers using guns kept in that home.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Yeah, I've seen that one. Relatively few are killed at home.

But that doesn't change the fact that the odds ratio of being murdered in your home increases by 2.7 if you have a gun in the home (even after controlling for other factors that contribute to violence).
»

So I guess one needs to decide which is more important

partner selection or gun availability.

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

I'm guessing a little of both, but

either way it's good to be informed. If you commit to living in a violence-prone household, your likelihood of getting murdered will be less if there isn't a gun in the house.
»

"Sheep," "Sheepdog," and

"Sheep," "Sheepdog," and "Wolf" aren't supposed to represent a position of employment. There are many in law enforcement who are "sheep," unprepared to kill another person and - unfortunately - some who are "wolves."

Meanwhile, the person working the register at Macy's might very well be a "sheepdog."

Each is supposed to represent a state of mind and attitude.

»

Is there an

echo in here? :-)

"We Israelis sacrifice ourselves for our continued existence, our enemies sacrifice themselves for our destruction."--Unknown--

»

Someone referred to the

Someone referred to the former Tacoma police chief as the "alpha Sheepdog" and I wanted to emphasize that he most certainly was not.

»

A few questions. Please answer, TFI.

TFI wrote: 

Someone referred to the former Tacoma police chief as the "alpha Sheepdog" and I wanted to emphasize that he most certainly was not.

In the context of this thread and why Norm likes firearms, do you really think that former Tacoma Police Chief David Brame thought of himself as anything other than a sheepdog?  

You say that you want to emphasize that he most certainly was not a sheepdog, but as a uniformed officer and the chief of a relatively large city police department isn't it clear that to the extent that anyone thinks of human beings as wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs (which I think is a pretty silly exercise) that the consensus view right up until the day that Brame shot and killed his wife and then killed himself, all this in front of his children, wasn't the consensue view that the Tacoma Police Chief was a sheepdog? 

And finally, if you are emphasizing that he was not a sheepdog (I will stipulate to that as I think he was a human being with an authoritarian personality type, a personality type drawn to police work and with significant potential for domestic violence), but if you are emphasizing after the fact, that he was most certainly not a sheepdog because of his actions, then how are any of us to be able to tell who are the wolves and who are the sheepdogs?  We make the call after the fact?   

 

 

»

I'm not sure we can determine that of others

After the fact I suppose we can call someone one of those 3 categories, I think considering yourself one of them is probably the only sure bet you have though. I saw a video of a cop, gun drawn, that let a man load his rifle and fatally shoot him. I'm sure he was a great guy, but probably not a "sheepdog" as Grossman considers them. I've personally seen the opposite as well. Humans are human, hopefully when it comes down to the wire we perform at our best and do the right thing....that doesn't always work though. Brame is a good example of this, so is the cop I mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
»

After going to Cabelas

for my virgin tour and looking at the prices of firearms - I'll stick to golf.

»

lol

so how much do you spend on clubs? Green fee's? etc?
»

double post

double post

»

D'oh

Rob, the other thread was a great idea. When I clicked on this thread to try and figure out what your post was talking about though, all of the comments had disappeared. That's all I was talking about.
»

How about

we just let this one go and then if you want to refresh it, you can start the new thread? It's your thread, after all.
»