I’ve never locked my house. I don’t even know where my house key is. I’m not sure if I ever had a house key.

Guardian on August 11, 2007 at 3:30 PM

No, I don’t carry them with me.

Guardian on August 11, 2007 at 9:49 PM

So you trust your own safety with firearms in an unlocked house? Dude, get a lock.

Big S on August 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM

I have a couple of .22 rifles. One I inherited. I only have them because of the odd snake or something. No, I don’t carry them with me.

I believe that I have taken reasonable steps to promote my own and my family’s safety. I don’t think keeping a firearm in the apartment would be much more beneficial, for a number of reasons, including worries about my kid finding one and playing with it. Contrary to what some of the yahoos that populate this thread seem to think, owning a gun should require more defensive personal security (locked doors, locked gun cases, trigger locks) than not owning one. It should be the last line of defense, if you choose to own or carry one, not the first.

Do you keep a gun in the house? If so, do you take it with you every time you leave?

(too much responsibility on a daily basis; I have other things that demand my attention).

Big S on August 11, 2007 at 1:13 AM

If I might ask … what is more important than your personal safety and that of your family?

The authors of our constitution disagree with you.

Slublog on August 10, 2007 at 2:09 PM

Your reference is in regard to state sponsored religious tests. That article of the Constitution does not imply that the framers did not personally apply such tests.

I’m not interested in what they may have written apart from the Constitution – it’s interesting, but it’s not the law of this country.

Slublog on August 10, 2007 at 2:44 PM

Understanding why they were against such tests is gained from reading peripheral documentation and history. (see Church of England, Roman Catholic church, Puritan flight to Holland, …). Understanding context is important and relevant.

From the Declaration of Independence

…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

…

If you believe your rights are established by the state, you are incorrect. The state grants privileges which may be revoked. Inalienable rights are rights that are not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated. These rights come from someone above the mere state.

In my experience, my security is pretty much par for the course in the City. The goal is to keep criminals off the streets and out of our homes. The police provide the first service, the locks and bars provide the second. With precautions, it is extremely safe to live here.

Hopefully, the three deadbolts on the door and bars on the windows, not to mention the security cameras in my building, will prevent any B&E, but who knows?

Damn! Now I know what motivates people to move to Charlotte NC in droves. I’ve lived here since 1963. I’ve never locked my house. I don’t even know where my house key is. I’m not sure if I ever had a house key. The only deadbolt on my house is on the back door and that’s only because I replaced the door and the deadbolt was already installed. There is no receiver for the deadbolt on the door jam. I can’t even imagine wanting to live somewhere where you have to live in constant fear like that. I don’t worry that much about security and I work in Iraq a lot of the time. Of course I stay on the bases but still. Damn!

Do you see the irony here? You have to imprison yourself in your own home to feel safe.

Kowboy on August 11, 2007 at 6:32 AM

It’s not a prison. They would be there whether or not I owned a gun. To assume that a firearm would effectively substitute door locks is warped thinking.

Who knows? Who cares? Join us next time for another episode of…

RUDY! American Superhero. America’s Mayor. The last great hope for the republican party!

The police provide the first service, the locks and bars provide the second. With precautions, it is extremely safe to live here.

Big S on August 11, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Do you see the irony here? You have to imprison yourself in your own home to feel safe.

Criminals will always get guns…never forget that.

Oh, and agnostics are people who don’t know about God or don’t care to think about it, athiests believe God doesn’t exist, huge difference. Christians who do not attend church are not athiests. You don’t need to go to Church or pray every day to be considered a Christian and believe in God. Besides, who are we to judge his heart? We have no idea exactly what he’s said to God and when. It’s not like he’s an evil person, I don’t mind judging evil!

Thanks to Hollywood and a largely hostile/ignorant press, there are many misconceptions about the ballistic power of handguns and the risks to bystanders. Let’s take step-by-step approach to this issue of harming bystanders.

If you read the following, please keeping in mind that most handguns are underpowered, and in most cases over penetration through a human body – while certainly possible – is not a huge risk factor. Missing the bad guy is by far the bigger factor.

1. All our innate rights are equally important but …
2. The right to defend yourself, and others, is first among equals. Without that right, all the other rights become pointless – a dead person enjoys no rights.
3. Implicit in the right to self-defense is the means to exercise that right. This is one of the reasons we have the 2nd Amendment.
4.It is therefore wrong – and unconstitutional – to put restrictions on that right.
5. It is also true that this right must be exercised responsibly (as must all rights). The danger to innocent bystanders during a self-defense gunfight is a real concern.
6. What does it mean to exercise this right responsibly, especially in a metropolitan area?
7. There are two ways an innocent bystander can be injured. The shooter misses or the bullet over penetrates (it goes through the bad guy, a wall, or something else.)
8. First, you should use a handgun with the greatest ballistic power that you can control under stress – remember that an adrenaline surge means loss of fine motor control. For a large person this might be a .44 magnum, for a petit person this might be a .32 or even a .22 rimfire. You need power so you can disable the bad buy quickly and reliably. But you also need control so you can place your subsequent shot(s) on target if the first one doesn’t work. These two needs pull in opposite directions. Each individual needs to find the best balance.
9. So to be responsible in your self-defense, you do at least the following things (yes, some people will not be responsible; the answer is to hold them accountable, it is not to ban a fundamental right):
· Practice the color code of awareness (a system of recognizing and avoiding deadly situations). If possible, don’t put yourself in a situation where you need to use deadly force to defend yourself.
· Train often and train well with the gun(s) you plan to use. Training improves your odds of hitting the target when under stress. Fewer shots = less risk to others.
· For heavier calibers, use a load that minimizes the danger of over penetration. For example Federal makes a load called EFMJ (Expanding Full Metal Jacket). It looks sort of like ball ammo but has a blunt tip. This bullet is designed to expand on penetration – causing maximum damage so you don’t have to shoot repeatedly – and helping ensure it won’t go through a person or a wall. (Hollow points are supposed to do the same thing, but tend to get clogged with bits of garment, and therefore don’t always expand properly. The EFMJ is more reliable in this regard).

If you are forced to defend yourself with a firearm, and an innocent bystander gets hurt, let’s keep a clear eye on where the blame lies. You are not morally required to let yourself be killed because some bystander might be hurt (if you were than we would not be talking about a right). Your moral obligation is to take every reasonable step to minimize the risk to others, short of dying yourself.

The bad guy put you in the position of having to shoot. He, and he alone, created the situation that put everybody else at risk. I will say it again, the moral responsibility for the situation and its consequences rests squarely and solely on the shoulders of the thug that attacked you.

Furthermore, how can you know that after he has killed you he doesn’t spray the street/apartment with bullets anyway – and kill several bystanders? Perhaps shooting the bad-guy ends up making everybody in the vicinity safer.

Nothing is certain in life – outcomes cannot be guaranteed and risks must be balanced, but the responsible exercise of your right to defend yourself is a moral course of behavior and a fundamental right no matter where you live.

In balancing the risk, we should note that the risk of bystanders being harmed when firearms are justifiably used for self-defense is vastly exaggerated. If you run some CDC WISQUARS reports you will find that during the 6 year period from 1999 to 2004, there were 4,543 accidental firearms deaths nationwide for all ages. For the state of New York the number is 127.

WISQARS doesn’t go down to the city level, so for the sake of argument, let’s assume most of these were in NYC – say 100. That amounts to 100/6 = 16.6 per year in NYC. Call it 17. (In reality the number in NYC is probably far less than this due to the gun restrictions, but I want to stack the numbers against me in a reasonable way.)

This number is for all accidental firearm deaths, not just those of an innocent bystander falling victim to a self-defense gunfight. So this value represents an upper bound, but we can use it anyway.

During the same period, the murder rate nation-wide (all violent causes) was 106,689 (to get this number, you need to run both a firearm and a non-firearm report).

For New York this value is 7530. As the population seat of the state, let’s guesstimate that NYC accounts for 6000 of these. So on an average annual basis there were 1000 people killed by bad guys vs. about 17 killed by all firearm accidents. So, for every 1 person accidentally killed by gunfire, about 59 were murdered in NYC.

If these odds are not acceptable to you, then by all means don’t arm yourself. But that doesn’t mean everybody else should be deprived of that right. For those who are tempted to rely on the police to protect you or your family, this is some interesting reading.

Right. Besides law enforcement, only the bad guys having guns make it a lot safer. Ever heard of Kennisaw(sp?) Georgia? Every homeowner with a clean record is required to own a firearm. There’s almost no crime there. Think there might be a correlation?

Kowboy on August 10, 2007 at 11:22 PM

BTW, I grew up in a town nearly demographically identical to Kennesaw, GA, just outside NYC. The crime rate there is extremely low, as well, and most people I know from home did not own guns. All of this is really just anecdotal evidence, but arming each citizen is not necessary to keep violent crime low. For the record, I have never owned or operated a firearm, and would prefer not to (too much responsibility on a daily basis; I have other things that demand my attention). Also, I prefer NYC not be armed to the teeth. I take the number 1 Subway to work each day, and from 7am to 9am, you are pressed against the bodies of other people, standing room only, whether you like it or not. It’s nasty, sweaty, and downright irritating. I’m glad I’m not pressed up aganst loaded, concealed weapons (at least not many of them.)

In my experience, my security is pretty much par for the course in the City. The goal is to keep criminals off the streets and out of our homes. The police provide the first service, the locks and bars provide the second. With precautions, it is extremely safe to live here.

Perhaps my previous comment made it seem like I think it’s dangerous to live in NYC

Big S on August 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM

You mean this one?

Hopefully, the three deadbolts on the door and bars on the windows, not to mention the security cameras in my building, will prevent any B&E, but who knows?

You got more security than most banks. If I had to put that many dead bolts on my door I’d damn sure own a gun. If you don’t feel safe enough with one dead bolt, there’s big problems in your neighborhood.

My sense is that widespread gun ownership, while a benefit in many places, would not make this city safer.

Right. Besides law enforcement, only the bad guys having guns make it a lot safer. Ever heard of Kennisaw(sp?) Georgia? Every homeowner with a clean record is required to own a firearm. There’s almost no crime there. Think there might be a correlation?

Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM

All macho daydreams aside, anyone who would bust down my apartment door, while I am home, is likely to have more control of the situation than I, whether I were armed or not. Hopefully, the three deadbolts on the door and bars on the windows, not to mention the security cameras in my building, will prevent any B&E, but who knows? Personally, I’d rather trust professional law enforcement officials to keep violent crime down by agressive enforcement of laws, including the relatively strict gun laws, allowing them to lock up many of the criminals. Perhaps my previous comment made it seem like I think it’s dangerous to live in NYC; I don’t and have not felt threatened in the seven years I’ve been here. My sense is that widespread gun ownership, while a benefit in many places, would not make this city safer.

Is that not what you are really driving at?

Who really cares if the ten commandments are on some courthouse?

Isn’t it all really about getting federal money to churches?

tommylotto on August 10, 2007 at 7:14 PM

And you’re coming off as an idiot who can’t read or understand what people wrote. So what’s your point?

jp on August 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM
TheBigOldDog on August 10, 2007 at 6:47 PM

I don’t want to sound like I’m unnecessarily disparaging you two, but you are coming across like religious propagandists.

Many of the founding father were religious, some very prominent ones were not (Franklin and Jefferson). However, all of them agreed that there should not be laws establishing a church, nor any religious affiliation required for any political position. It is clear to anyone who has studied history that the founding fathers were attempting to set up a society that did not judge others based on their religious beliefs.

Does that mean reference to God or gods must be banned from public life — no. But if your alterior motive is that you want your favorite religious organization to be able to suckel on the federal $$$ teat through faith based non-sense, just admit you want your favorite church to get its share of the big government pie, but that doesn’t sound like conservative values to me.

amerpundit on August 10, 2007 at 5:12 PM

First, you never took the time to see who and what I was replying to before you jumped in, if you had, you wouldn’t be asking why I quoted Washington.

Second, the idea that because there is no religious requirement that the founding fathers didn’t think religion was necessary or important is really a stretch that Washington’s own address refutes. They were more concerned with official state religions and churches than religion in general.

Again, we can turn to Washington to see how similar they all were:

Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

One last point, leave disparaging people personally (like you did with Washington) until after you’ve dealt with the arguments, otherwise you come off sounding like the Left so often does a recent example of which are their response to Matt Drudge and Matt Sanchez.

Hollowpoint on August 10, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Guess we have to agree to disagree. Look at what a scarlet letter claiming that one is moderate gets a Republican supporter. While the core positions may be the draw there are differences in how those should be accomplished. Abortion needs to go back to the states for resolution — if an amendment banning it emerges, the process has worked. If like pre-Roe you have a variety of laws from state to state the voters have had more chance to participate in the discussion. Ditto gun control – in my opinion there is nothing wrong with registration and background checks, to some that is anathema.

Hillary is very much beatable but if the Repubs are fractured over singular issues, refuse to vote because a specific person didn’t gain the nomination, and generally refuse to be a team player… well she could very well win.

Exit question: First atheist president? He may just get me back into the voting booth after all.

Judging from your criteria Thomas Jefferson was the first athiest president.

I suspect most people on the right would agree with you. One of the reasons I probably won’t vote.

I doubt it. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out once on the Hugh Hewitt show a lot of the intellectual muscle behind the Republican party is supplied by athiests. He mentioned Ayn Rand and Karl Rove and some others. My point is that athiests are not shunned by the Republican party, they contribute at the highest levels.

So very true about the current state of the Republican party at this juncture. While this was referring to those who could handle an atheist president I think it is a little representative of how one-issue some are in the party. Abortion might be my single issue and guns might be the next guys. In the meantime no candidate is being viewed as acceptable.

see everyone in 2016 ;)

Bradky on August 10, 2007 at 5:57 PM

I don’t believe that. True there are issues that are very important to some- including religion- but I think the current kerfuffle has to do with the candidates we currently have.

I don’t think it’s too terribly much to ask that the Republican party nominate someone who reliably maintains a small government, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-illegal immigration platform. In other words, a Republican with Republican views. Unfortunately, most of the frontrunners don’t fit the bill.

Until an athiest decides to run and is shunned not for his views or record but for his religion, this entire sub-topic is a bit irrelevant.

Republicans are vulnerable, but just as in the past four presidential elections the Democrats appear to be following their usual modus operandi of nominating a loser. Clinton is very beatable.