Its happening again!!! A shooting at Virginia Tech

[wickahead]

My first post btw.

The day I moved in to my new house, Sunday, August 6th, 2006 at 9:25 pm, my wife & I pulled into the driveway after moving boxes in all day. We'd ran out quickly to get a much needed bottle of wine. When I went to open my car door someone opened it the rest of the way and stuck a gun in the car and asked for all our money.

(btw, no, this was not a bad neighborhood. 2 yr old house, front porches & good neighbors. I am a "tie-wearing" professional & have never owned a piece of camo clothing.)

Short story, we were robbed, I was shot, put my hand up (which took the round) and drew my gun and fired while we were literally toe-to-toe outside the car, my back to the cardoor. He ran away (apparently injured) and I am here alive....Because I carry a gun.

I've never hunted nor hand guns in my house growing up. But with a now 3 yr old little boy, I realized I did not want to find my self helpless should, God forbid, anything like this ever happen.

It was sudden, unexpected and everybody feels safe until something happens. I am glad that I had and have the sense to go about my world not fearful, but aware and with the ability to protect myself, my loved ones, & anyone around me.

Just curious (i.e.: don't read any tone or motivation into the following questions) Where was your gun? Was it concealed on your person? Did you need a concealed permit to carry it? Was it under your seat of the car? What state are you in?

[doug]

At this point I'll be glad if I can get out of the US alive.

You may want to avoid Oklahoma.

[keitaj]

NBC Today Morning Show has finally gotten around to profiling the kids of VT that didn't make it ..

First story was detailing the life of the RA ("Stack") who was one of the first killed when he confronted the gunman.. from all accounts this was a guy that was on his way to doing great things for society..

Hopefully they'll continue in this vein and profile all of those lives that were lost way too soon...

My thoughts and prayers go out to all of those families who lost someone special on Monday.

[cpannarbor]

Wickahead, don't remember if if replied to you re:

ust curious (i.e.: don't read any tone or motivation into the following questions) Where was your gun? Was it concealed on your person? Did you need a concealed permit to carry it? Was it under your seat of the car? What state are you in?
_________________

Gun, as always, was in a holster, under my shirt. I have a permit, absolutely, as one is needed to carry concealed in Alabama. Under your seat or in the glove box is useless. You will have no warning of a threat like I encountered. When he asked for my wallet I was still seated but told him I needed to stand up to get it out of my pocket. That put us on even ground rather than me helpless and seated. That is how I was able to draw. Otherwise he would have just shot me where I was sitting in the car.

[Shawn D.]

Wickahead, don't remember if if replied to you...

Yes, you did reply to him, but in the wrong thread that was started to be devoid of such discussions.

[C.R. Krieger]

cpannarbor wrote:

[Snipping the story of the foolhardy hero.]

One hell of a first post and a very well stated case for law abiding citizens arming themselves.

Apparently, it escapes some of you that there are law-abiding citizens around this country who cannot do our jobs with guns strapped to our hips or concealed under our jackets. If you think I'm wrong, maybe you'd like to try attending one of my typical Milwaukee hearings in the federal courthouse there. Just tell the nice guards that you don't mean any harm to me or to the judge and that you'd prefer to keep your gun with you ... Of course, these are the same guards who won't let a respected officer of the court (me) carry this:



Why is it that the largely unarmed citizenry in my home state can go about our daily business without all these encounters while so many south of the Mason-Dixon line cannot?

Personally I think they need to do psychological tests on people trying to obtain a gun. Just because you're a lawful citizen doesn't mean you're sane.

Gee; ya think? Wonder why the NRA isn't 100% behind this idea. Of course, it would be a bit of an embarrassment if half the National Rifle Association couldn't have one ...

[pdx 528e]

cpannarbor wrote:

[Snipping the story of the foolhardy hero.]

One hell of a first post and a very well stated case for law abiding citizens arming themselves.

Apparently, it escapes some of you that there are law-abiding citizens around this country who cannot do our jobs with guns strapped to our hips or concealed under our jackets. If you think I'm wrong, maybe you'd like to try attending one of my typical Milwaukee hearings in the federal courthouse there. Just tell the nice guards that you don't mean any harm to me or to the judge and that you'd prefer to keep your gun with you ... Of course, these are the same guards who won't let a respected officer of the court (me) carry this:



Why is it that the largely unarmed citizenry in my home state can go about our daily business without all these encounters while so many south of the Mason-Dixon line cannot?

I don't feel that it escapes them, C.R. Those who feel the necessity to protect themselves and their families with a firearm are living and working in situations which are not under the protective eye of a metal detector and or x-ray equipment, or such a strong concentration of skillfully trained law officers who can dispatch of those who would do us harm.

You can take the firearm away from a citizen, but not the criminal element. The case in which this is generally untrue is with expensive and focused anti-gun technology, administered absolutely. Yes, I'm playing the devils advocate, and no, I've not done any research on the subject. It's just what came to mind when pondering your comment.

[DMNaskale]

Apparently, it escapes some of you that there are law-abiding citizens around this country who cannot do our jobs with guns strapped to our hips or concealed under our jackets. If you think I'm wrong, maybe you'd like to try attending one of my typical Milwaukee hearings in the federal courthouse there. Just tell the nice guards that you don't mean any harm to me or to the judge and that you'd prefer to keep your gun with you ...

The point of this statement is the only thing that escapes me. A Federal Courthouse is just about the most permanently locked down place you will ever find in your typical city. And anyway, it is obvious that there are many places it is innapropriate for civilians to carry a weapon.

Why is it that the largely unarmed citizenry in my home state can go about our daily business without all these encounters while so many south of the Mason-Dixon line cannot?

Once again, whiskey tango foxtrot? Surely you are not suggesting that all the deranged gun nuts are in the South. Are you?

[stuartinmn]

Why is it that the largely unarmed citizenry in my home state can go about our daily business without all these encounters while so many south of the Mason-Dixon line cannot?

This stuff can happen anywhere. Don't forget Chai Vang, who murdered six people and injured three more in the woods of northern Wisconsin in 2004.

[PRDUBI]

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/ ... frame=true

this talks more about Switzerland and how they handle things.

Like it or not....the best answers I am getting from those at my workplace about gun bans is that it hasn't been tried hard enough in the states.

Yeah like the 18th amendment banning Alcohol worked REAL REAL well back then.

One could wonder if it work well today.

Now there is talk by Rep. McCarthy of New York to ban handguns completely.

Seriously....I wonder......and highly doubt it would work.

[robeyff]

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/ ... frame=true

this talks more about Switzerland and how they handle things

Some good points. Unfortunately, the human ego is such that it will ignore historical fact in order to reinforce it's own position.

Whether you are pro gun, anti gun, or neither - throughout recorded history when a practice or commodity is proclaimed illegal a certain segment of the population will find a way to profit by making the practice or commodity available at a price to the very individuals society was hoping to keep said practice or commodity from.

And a percentage of those same individuals - providers and consumers- will kill to keep consuming and/or providing.

The worst part of human nature (to me) is that we have to keep learning the same lessons over and over through pain and loss of life.

Greece. Carthage. England. Ireland. Gemany. History records they all saw it coming but refused to arm themselves against aggression until millions of innocents were dead.

Because we would like to ignore the beasts of the world and refuse they can exist in our intellectually advanced state of mind, it does not make it so.

In this century alone - 30 million innocent Russians, 10 million innocent Jews, 7 million innocent Cambodians, we're still counting the African Nations, no good count on the Irish Troubles, the Middle Eastern nations are determined to outdo history.

Throughout history intellectual, well meaning people could not bring themselves to believe the reports of death and brutality on their doorstep, they could not imagine or stomach a world in which that was possible - it must have been a political ruse, fearmongering (see the Jews of Europe, WWII or the Russians under Stalin).

And they died by the millions in their ignorance.

Who's next?

[C.R. Krieger]

Why is it that the largely unarmed citizenry in my home state can go about our daily business without all these encounters while so many south of the Mason-Dixon line cannot?

This stuff can happen anywhere. Don't forget Chai Vang, who murdered six people and injured three more in the woods of northern Wisconsin in 2004.

With the significant Hmong population of my city, I cannot forget that. ISTR, though, that everyone involved was a hunter and all were armed. I am thinking of all the anecdotal stories of an armed citizen in a situation where I most certainly would not be armed pulling out a handgun and killing/wounding/chasing off an assailant. In Chris' case, I would have handed the guy my wallet instead of taking the chance that I could get a gun out of my holster and fire faster and more accurately than he did. Then, I would have figured out how to help the police find him. The crap in my wallet is not worth my life - or anyone else's.

[C.R. Krieger]

Why is it that the largely unarmed citizenry in my home state can go about our daily business without all these encounters while so many south of the Mason-Dixon line cannot?

Once again, whiskey tango foxtrot? Surely you are not suggesting that all the deranged gun nuts are in the South. Are you?

No; only those who seem to feel the only reasonable way to address it is by carrying a gun themselves. Rich mentioned the case of Chai Vang, a Hmong hunter who killed 6 other hunters here in Wisconsin almost 3 years ago. I think the examples I mentioned before, as well as this one, indicate pretty strongly that even if you're armed or surrounded by armed professionals, someone who's faster, better, or (most importantly) more irrational than you are is likely to succeed in shooting you. After all, how can a single man kill six similarly armed hunters!? Only by being crazier than they could reasonably expect him to be. OTOH, if you'd (hypothetically - and to convince you that I can see alternatives that don't necessarily ban firearms) done as little as armed these madmen with single shot, no magazine weapons, they would have been near complete failures, except at pointblank range (Sirhan and Ruby couldn't have missed; I don't know which shot hit Reagan, but it wasn't the same as the one that hit Baker; Oswald wouldn't have gotten the fatal second shot off fast enough). The shooter at VT was able to crack off at least 15 shots in under 5 seconds with only the Glock. And he had a .22 as well. How many people do you think would be dead if he'd had to reload after firing only two rounds (one per gun)? How many if he'd had to go through a thorough background check including a psychological profile before buying the Glock?

[Lancelot]

How many people do you think would be dead if he'd had to reload after firing only two rounds (one per gun)?

Probably more than there would have been if the professor in the room on one of the students were able to defend themselves with a sidearm of their own. It doesn’t matter if that asshole’s gun held 2 bullets or 20, if no one was capable of putting up any legitimate resistance. The last report I heard said that he shot upwards of 80 rounds during this tragedy, which means that he would have had to reload each gun 2 or 3 times, which would have given someone who was armed enough time to get a clear shot at him.

Another issue about this incident that is unrelated to gun control is that of how potential threats are addressed by school officials. It seems like most of the time a weird kid is pointed out to the powers that be, those that point him out are told to be nicer to weird kid and the kid is ‘special’, or some such bs. Stuff like this needs to stop. You can’t put the feelings of one person above the lives of others.

[slash02]

Well, it was not an American that did this so you can all stick your gun control babble.

The shooter was a South Korean resident alien. Nice huh.

I did not know that a non US citizen could get a gun legally.

I didn't think they could either! But then again, VA has a CCW law, but not at VT..... CCW was banned at the school, thus keeping CCW holders from being able to defend themselves.. *sigh*

[slash02]

On a military installation this would never have happen. The body count would have been dramatically lower because we would have jumped his ass.

Damn right. But the average population are trained to be passive. For years when travelling on aircraft I wore my steel toed boots and usually kept a large glass bottle of booze in my backpack. Useful for a gift for those nice enough to come get me at the airport, but more importantly, a good blunt or sharp instrument.

Many times I had suggested such to people, who gasped in horror of the idea of using a bottle to defend yourself on a plane. Maye I missed something, or was brought up differently, but I'm not going to stand there and be some wackos victim.

[slash02]

My first post btw.

The day I moved in to my new house, Sunday, August 6th, 2006 at 9:25 pm, my wife & I pulled into the driveway after moving boxes in all day. We'd ran out quickly to get a much needed bottle of wine. When I went to open my car door someone opened it the rest of the way and stuck a gun in the car and asked for all our money.

(btw, no, this was not a bad neighborhood. 2 yr old house, front porches & good neighbors. I am a "tie-wearing" professional & have never owned a piece of camo clothing.)

Short story, we were robbed, I was shot, put my hand up (which took the round) and drew my gun and fired while we were literally toe-to-toe outside the car, my back to the cardoor. He ran away (apparently injured) and I am here alive....Because I carry a gun.

I've never hunted nor hand guns in my house growing up. But with a now 3 yr old little boy, I realized I did not want to find my self helpless should, God forbid, anything like this ever happen.

It was sudden, unexpected and everybody feels safe until something happens. I am glad that I had and have the sense to go about my world not fearful, but aware and with the ability to protect myself, my loved ones, & anyone around me.

Man, one hell of a first post. It is exactly that situation that makes me abhor our Gun laws in Canada. Yes you can own a pistol, but it has to be locked in a box, unloaded at home. You have to have "authorization to trasport" forms for wherever you go and it has to be in a locked box, unloaded, trigger locked, and in the trunk... *Sigh*

I have myself had 2 instances where an in-home firearm probably prevented a murder/rape, no shots were fired either, both times were just the hunting/target rifle that was available.

[keitaj]

What about more campus police?

Plain clothes officers spread throughout campus?

If noone can come to a conclusion about CCW on campus, then what about at least providing more trained officers to cut down on reaction time?

[cpannarbor]

PLEASE understand my situation.

Krieger, I handed him my $23 in cash, my wallet, my wife's purse, everything he asked for. When he got it all, he raised the gun, and before he got it to my head I put my hand up and he shot, in a fraction of a second (literally), I drew my gun, as I train and practice and fired on him. He dropped her purse, his hat fell off, dropped his blunt he had in his mouth and two houses down the police found the magazine he dropped out of his gun.

I am not an idiot. But when someone raises a gun to shoot you in the head, DO something.

[DMNaskale]

No; only those who seem to feel the only reasonable way to address it is by carrying a gun themselves. Rich mentioned the case of Chai Vang, a Hmong hunter who killed 6 other hunters here in Wisconsin almost 3 years ago. I think the examples I mentioned before, as well as this one, indicate pretty strongly that even if you're armed or surrounded by armed professionals, someone who's faster, better, or (most importantly) more irrational than you are is likely to succeed in shooting you. After all, how can a single man kill six similarly armed hunters!? Only by being crazier than they could reasonably expect him to be. OTOH, if you'd (hypothetically - and to convince you that I can see alternatives that don't necessarily ban firearms) done as little as armed these madmen with single shot, no magazine weapons, they would have been near complete failures, except at pointblank range (Sirhan and Ruby couldn't have missed; I don't know which shot hit Reagan, but it wasn't the same as the one that hit Baker; Oswald wouldn't have gotten the fatal second shot off fast enough). The shooter at VT was able to crack off at least 15 shots in under 5 seconds with only the Glock. And he had a .22 as well. How many people do you think would be dead if he'd had to reload after firing only two rounds (one per gun)? How many if he'd had to go through a thorough background check including a psychological profile before buying the Glock?

Within your narrow range of cherry picked examples, how could you be wrong? In a civilized free society it is very difficult to defend against a quick and ruthless ambush. It is pretty damn easy to get the drop on completely unsuspecting targets, or a single target, especially if you have no plan for escape. Crazy can be tough to defend against, but plenty of law abiding gun owners have successfully defended themselves against all forms of attackers. And this is not a phenomenon that only occurs in the South.

Do you really think there is a way to eliminate guns capable of more than a single shot per loading? I don’t argue that if the killer had a flintlock dueling pistol instead of a Glock 19 he would have done a whole lot less damage. But high capacity guns are already out there and they are not going away. There is no realistic scenario that we would want to live with that could have absolutely prevented him from acquiring a gun capable of mass murder. Should it have been more difficult for him to get a gun? In light of recent developments, I would say yes. With his record of psychological troubles, it may have stopped him if he had been flagged. If the only way for him to obtain a weapon were through illegal channels, that might have been enough to prevent this. I am sure this will be a blazing hot topic for some time to come. Maybe a better system will come about, more likely they will come up with something meaningless that hinders mainly the responsible gun enthusiasts. I don't expect a scenario that would convince me to give up my gun.

I am shocked at the amount of carnage that one deranged kid was capable of, there needs to be effective armed security present anywhere there are potential victims if a slaughter like this is to be stopped. One armed and trained person in the building could have ended the attack much sooner. But I am not happy with the thought of needing armed security in every building at every campus in America. Does a slaughter of unprecedented magnatude justify such a reaction? I have no answer for this.

[DRP535]

deleted

[Shawn D.]

With the significant Hmong population of my city

Hmong?

Google it, my friend.

In Chris' case, I would have handed the guy my wallet

Exactly what I was thinking too! What on earth could have possibly been in that wallet to make it worth a full on gun fight?!?!? Hell... someone could point a gun at me, demand my wallet, all my clothes, the keys to my car and my hairy arse and they'd get them all in a flash! I wouldn't be able to hand them over and bend over fast enough in fact!

I think the fact he ended up getting shot in the hand means that the robber won that little contest. I wouldn't mind betting that the medical costs associated with that injury were greater than the sum worth of everything that was in the wallet.

Did you not read this post? He had already given up his wallet and other items and then the robber was going to finish him off. The robber did not win that contest -- Chris did because he's alive.

As to your questions about the potential of lawsuits by the robber against the person defending himself, I suggest you read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

... and I especially want you to read this one about a carjacking that happened in the Atlanta area.

[DRP535]

For years when travelling on aircraft I wore my steel toed boots and usually kept a large glass bottle of booze in my backpack. Useful for a gift for those nice enough to come get me at the airport, but more importantly, a good blunt or sharp instrument.

The fact that you would even think of this and consider this a possible outcome suggests to me something very strange with your upbringing as you suggested. I don't know you so I hesitate to use the word paranoid, but really, I do hope this isn't representative of how the majority of North American's think. You're clearly always on the lookout for danger and assuming there is always someone in your vicinity who is capable and willing to do you harm. I would imagine that most psychologists would have a field day with you. Maybe you're the kind of person that psychological profiling before gun purchase in the US would prevent from owning a gun??

Many times I had suggested such to people, who gasped in horror of the idea of using a bottle to defend yourself on a plane.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. They probably just gasped because that was the most polite way they could come up with to say "are you completely batshit insane?"

Maye I missed something, or was brought up differently.

That would be my guess.

[DRP535]

Did you not read this post? He had already given up his wallet and other items and then the robber was going to finish him off.

No, sorry I had not got down to that response as yet. I was still working on the original description which was not clear either way.

[DRP535]

As to your questions about the potential of lawsuits by the robber against the person defending himself, I suggest you read these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

Wish we had those laws down here. If you attack an assailant down here no matter where it happens, you'll be hauled off with the attacker and prosecuted with the same offences he was and then you'll more than likely be presented with a personal injury claim from the attacker as well afterwards suing you for everything you own in compensation. Down here, we're taught to lay down and surrender everything you own at the first sign of trouble and then expect to fight for the rest of your life against insurance companies afterwards to get everything you already own back again afterwards! It's great!

[DRP535]

What about more campus police?

Plain clothes officers spread throughout campus?

If noone can come to a conclusion about CCW on campus, then what about at least providing more trained officers to cut down on reaction time?

That's the difference between the US and most of the rest of the world on this subject in a nutshell for me. The US laws are reactionary while in most other places they are preventative. The rest of the world wants to try to prevent the first person being killed whereas in the US it seems there's an assumption that at least one person has to be killed first and then it's hell for leather against the person that did that killing.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that that's the way it is. I doubt it can ever change either because as others have pointed out there are so many guns already in circulation in the US that a ban on them would be completely pointless and have no effect for at least a thousand years anyway.

It's interesting for me because in a way, the US government or constitution or whatever basically has an assumption that everyone is guilty or potentially guilty of crime and they're response to this is to give every citizen the means by which to fight that crime when (not if) it happens against them. This is curious because it happens in a country with a presumption of innocence.

The same thing is starting to happen in Australia too with the traffic police. We too are supposed to have a presumption of innocence, but that has been erroded away with a range of measures given to the traffic police that assume every driver is guilty of not wearing a seatbelt and being under the influence of alcohol and other drugs while driving. If you are unable to or unwilling to prove your innocence of these charges when asked to do so, you are arrested on the assumption that you're guilty. Sad but true. Unfortunately the masses appear to have failed to recognise this has happened and the change has gone through quiety and without protest.

I guess it's just what inevitably happens with increasing populations and overcrowding.

[DRP535]

There have been many references in here to "the responsible gun owners" by many different posters.

"Gun control laws only impact the responsible gun owners"

"We should give more guns to the responsible gun owners so they can prevent tragedys like this one"

etc. in that sort of vein.

I'm curious. Do you people really believe that there is such a thing as an identifiable group of "responsible gun owners" who can be trusted for the length of their life to not use their gun in an illegal manner?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that all gun owners are nutjobs. Not at all. What I'm saying is who determines who is responsible and who is not? That's an impossible question to answer. We all have a different ideas of responsible behaviour and there will never be a consensus opinion on that on something as vague as deciding if someone might sometime in the future become obsessed about something enough to shoot 33 people with his responsibly owned gun. I mean the laws of the State of Virginia obviously thought this Korean kid was responsible enough to own a gun. The gun shop owner who sold him the gun(s) seems by all accounts I've seen to have applied those laws as he was duty bound to do so when selling the gun(s) because he said he did the checks and there was no reason for him to not sell him the guns. Obviously they were wrong, so clearly it is an impossible task to accurately say who is responsible and who is not.

There's no such thing as a group of "responsible gun owners". Not because of the gun ownership but because no-one can comprehensively say what is and what is not responsible behaviour without someone else diagreeing with them.

[slash02]

The fact that you would even think of this and consider this a possible outcome suggests to me something very strange with your upbringing as you suggested. I don't know you so I hesitate to use the word paranoid, but really, I do hope this isn't representative of how the majority of North American's think. You're clearly always on the lookout for danger and assuming there is always someone in your vicinity who is capable and willing to do you harm. I would imagine that most psychologists would have a field day with you. Maybe you're the kind of person that psychological profiling before gun purchase in the US would prevent from owning a gun??

Being on the lookout for danger was a result of my moving to the US, where (at that time), the perception (and eventually my experience) showed that, compared to Canada, I was less safe then In the USA.

Yeah, I'm not surprised. They probably just gasped because that was the most polite way they could come up with to say "are you completely batshit insane?"

People wear a seatbelt, "in case of an accident" why would passengers on an aircraft not prepare for a highjacking, or someone in a home not be able to reasonably defend themselves. Why is there a problem with being able to fight back? Am I just to sit there and allow myself to be abused/killed/molested/whatever without any resistance?

Funny thing about the word.. Paranoid. I don't spend any real time worrying about someone coming to "get" me, however, when visiting a friend in a less desireable part of the a city in the states, I was attacked. 3 young men, 2 with knives. After tossing over the cash in my pocket, they still attacked.
I managed slight injury, but was able to fight back using the tools I had at my disposal (some martial arts training, and of course, a heavy set of boots) I saved my own hide. I just dont see the point of not being able to defend ones self. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect.

One thing I remember from travelling to Europe though, was "watch for the pickpockets" Not "watch for the violent crackheads and carjackers" but watch for pickpockets... So perhaps the north american atitude you describe is a direct result of the style of north american crime.

[DMNaskale]

There have been many references in here to "the responsible gun owners" by many different posters.

"Gun control laws only impact the responsible gun owners"

"We should give more guns to the responsible gun owners so they can prevent tragedys like this one"

etc. in that sort of vein.

I'm curious. Do you people really believe that there is such a thing as an identifiable group of "responsible gun owners" who can be trusted for the length of their life to not use their gun in an illegal manner?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that all gun owners are nutjobs. Not at all. What I'm saying is who determines who is responsible and who is not? That's an impossible question to answer. We all have a different ideas of responsible behaviour and there will never be a consensus opinion on that on something as vague as deciding if someone might sometime in the future become obsessed about something enough to shoot 33 people with his responsibly owned gun. I mean the laws of the State of Virginia obviously thought this Korean kid was responsible enough to own a gun. The gun shop owner who sold him the gun(s) seems by all accounts I've seen to have applied those laws as he was duty bound to do so when selling the gun(s) because he said he did the checks and there was no reason for him to not sell him the guns. Obviously they were wrong, so clearly it is an impossible task to accurately say who is responsible and who is not.

There's no such thing as a group of "responsible gun owners". Not because of the gun ownership but because no-one can comprehensively say what is and what is not responsible behaviour without someone else diagreeing with them.

I think the majority of gun owners are responsible, unfortunately the bad owners really stand out sometimes. It is no different than anything else, there will always be some idiots who fail to remove themselves from the gene pool before they screw up and hurt someone. Cars are responsible for far more deaths than guns, and if all drivers were skilled and responsible to the same extent that gun owners should be, traffic deaths would plummet. I know that cars and guns are apples and oranges, but both are absolutely safe if properly used, and are capable of great destruction if misused.

I don't really care how it is classified, behavior is the ultimate proof of who is responsible or not. Unfortunately we have no way of predicting who is going to prove to be irresponsible, that is the way of the world. To live a life overly restricted by fear and regulation is not a price I am willing to pay for what might be a safer existence. I know that I am responsible, to the standards that I hold necessary, and I know that I can do very little about everyone else.

[Tammer in Philly]

One thing I remember from travelling to Europe though, was "watch for the pickpockets" Not "watch for the violent crackheads and carjackers" but watch for pickpockets... So perhaps the north american atitude you describe is a direct result of the style of north american crime.

While this is changing, and for example gun crimes have seen massive spikes in the UK of late, that is the key difference. Crime happens everywhere, but the US gets far more than its share of violent crime. When I lived in Italy, as an average-sized male I never feared to walk anywhere, any time. I routinely walked the forty-five minutes home from my girlfriend's place at 4 a.m., on a course that took me past the shady Florence train station (Campo de Marte near the stadium, not SMN downtown) and along largely deserted roads past the stadium and into a poorer part of the periphery. I can't say the same for walking the 10 minutes from my lab to my car when I work late in West Philadelphia. Of course, after a rash of crimes against students here in the past year, the campus area and several blocks beyond are crawling with security officers and cops--usually at least one or two per block. IMO this is necessary here, but it shouldn't be.

If the worst I have to fear is a pickpocket or maybe a snatch-and-run type of robbery, then I feel pretty safe. Here, I feel fairly safe even without carrying a weapon, but my alertness level is far higher at all times and I do plan ahead enough to not be walking at 3 a.m. while carrying something too heavy to run with--those nights, I leave the computer and gym bag at the lab. A fast-moving target is much harder to hit.

-tammer