ORIGIN: this is the original email that started the following discussion. I have copied the whole discussion here to bring anyone new up-to-date. Future posts WILL NOT be this long. Enjoy, and chime in below in the comments section to share your “2 cents”.
From: Joshua Hershberger
Subject: CCW
Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 1:49 PM
I have been asked from time to time by certain people why I feel it is necessary to not only carry a weapon, but to carry it every day. I'll let LTC David A. Grossman answer that one.
"If you are a 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.' "- LTC David A. Grossman, "On Combat", 2004
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: CCW
Josh,
Grossman is the man. The sheep never understand why the sheep dog is there...until the wold shows up.
My favorite Grossman quote, "Carpe Noctem - Seize the night. any fool can seize the day."
Peace,
john
Date: Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: CCW
[JGH]Some more feedback...with a different point of view/perspective. In his own words, he too is a gun owner and favors the right to bear arms. He is just a little more conservative in his views on the subject. Thanks, Joe.[JGH]
Josh,
Not quite sure who has appointed and qualified these "sheep dogs" since most firearm injuries are inflicted by gun owners upon themselves and their own families. I just question whether as much training, education, and maintenance is devoted to the use of one's brain and one's decision making skills as is devoted to the care and maintenance of a unitasked piece of machinery with questionable, at best, efficiency.
It seems that perhaps those who would contemplate leaving the home without the false sense of security that a loaded weapon produces in an individual who is ten times more likely to self inflict a lethal injury on himself than he would be on the almost mythical assailant may have made themselves safer based simply on the fact that he has lessened the possibility that he may, of his own hand produce an additional opening in his own body or, even worse, in that of an innocent bystander.
I am all for the ownership of guns without interference, what I am not in favor of is the perception that society is made safer simply by moving a firearm from transport on the outermost garment of a individual to transport on the innermost garment. What makes society safer is not individualized meting out of violence but swiftly executed justice and that based on a wise response to the incident rather than an immediate reaction by an unqualified, quick-drawing, self-appointed "warrior" to a perceived threat. In order to be considered a warrior, two conditions must apply. First, a commission from an entity that ensures the continual, if not constant, mental as well as physical training of the individual. Second, there is clearly defined "battle zone" in which the individual operates and that within the confines of a command that utilizes brains before braun. The typical CCW operates under neither. He or she is more a kin to a vigilantly and not an effective one at that.
It is at this time that all the CCW people get their shorts in a bunch. I am not trying to be inflammatory, just trying to inject a little objectivity into the discussion surrounding the launching of projectiles toward those would-be assailants or, more likely, wives, sons, and daughters. While not necessarily a Hestonphile, I do support gun freedom. Just like with any freedom, however, it is necessarily limited by the freedoms of those who cohabitate the area in the immediate vicinity of a concealed weapon.
Joe,
I appreciate you taking some form of a different view for gun owners. I am just not sure I understand what that view is. My views will not be nearly as eloquent as yours because I like to keep it simple. It sounds like gun owners, particularly CCW holders, are our there shooting themselves and innocent by-standers. I have not read about that in the paper lately, yes I still get the news paper, but I have been wrong before. What I do know is that all states that have passed the CCW laws have a drop in the crime rate because, carrying a firearm or not, it seems not as many criminals want to take a chance of finding out. Also this definition of warrior sounds like something from days ago when they used to line up in front of each other and yell FIRE and hope for the best, that is just not the reality anymore. The battlefield is not a clearly defined place but anywhere someone with bad intentions wants it to be. I have had my permit since the law was passed and I have owned firearms for years prior to that, still no self inflicted wounds. You want freedom with restrictions, but if you think about it the only ones you are restricting are the ones who are already obeying the law. It is not me who is going to end up shooting some innocent person. It is the criminal who did not purchase his gun legally, did not get a permit, and just does not care. He will go wielding his firearm however he or she feels fit because they are criminals. Like I said this is not nearly as eloquent as your writing but it is my view. This is not a utopian world we live in. There are bad people who do bad things and don’t care what the law says. The ridiculous laws in place for firearms only infringe on the rights of those, like me and you, who are going to obey them.
Josh,
I don’t think I would want to be next to Joe is tough situation. It sounds like he’s been watching the liberal news too much. Besides he would probably trip over his thesaurus before he ever got to his gun.
Josh,
Not sure who Joe is, but he makes some valid points. Many who choose to carry concealed do not keep themselves trained physically or mentally to handle a highly stressful situation where a firearm is the only resort to safing either their own live or the lives of others. However, his statement "In order to be considered a warrior, two conditions must apply. First, a commission from an entity that ensures the continual, if not constant, mental as well as physical training of the individual" is most inaccurate as the majority of law enforcement running around with weapons on a daily basis only unholster their weapons once per year for qualification in which they get multiple chances to pass since most are bad shots and nervous with weapon in hand. That's my piece on the whole deal. In saying that, I will certainly be a CCW citizen before years end. You may send or forward this reply to whom ever you would like, especially Joe.
From: Joe
Date: Tue, Jul 5, 2011
Subject: RE: Joe and CCW
To: Joshua Hershberger
Josh,
I just wanted to respond to a couple of things for clarification purposes. Please pass this along.
For Brad,
It does make it a little easier for me when someone makes my point for me. Police officers who "run around with weapons on a daily basis" and who unholster those weapons only for qualification proves that those most likely to encounter situations in which deadly force is a viable option show that those situations and the need to use a firearm are rare indeed. The police officers strongest weapon is their brain, a show of force (multiple imposing individuals), and various other nonlethal instruments. Most CCW individuals possess none of these with regularity. I would be willing to wager that, given a tenuous situation involving a very real individual, the typical CCW individual would make poor if not pathetic attempts (read plural) to aim and then hit the target at which they are aiming. Those individuals trained and experienced with unruly individuals (real individuals) that choose not to draw on an bad guy are exercising a choice between subduing an individual through lethal force at great risk to themselves and others and subduing the same individual with far more effective methods. Those that a CCW owners do not generally have.
To Web,
The trick is not to put yourself in the tough situation to begin with. My life, for a career, has been about tough situations as I enter burning buildings and plug the holes that gun owners have the well documented tendency to place within their own bodies. I have done so for the better part of 23 years. Do not mistake the ability to use the language as the inability to use a firearm. In fact, one compliments the other. The only thing that I do not use is the liberal media. I subscribe to neither newspaper nor do I watch broadcast news. I watch no commentaries nor do I believe that information of the sort that I spoke of prior comes anywhere other than from actual research. The toughness of an individual comes not only from what he does but more often from what he doesn't. To discount facts in favor of perception is not tough but only self-willed. Please do not feel as though you need to protect me as I have endured more than a few near-death situations without the need to blaze a trail of lead out of them. One suggestion I may add is that if you stick to the objective discussion of the facts then you remove the temptation to launch ill-fated and misguided attacks of individuals. Many gun owners lose credibility for themselves and their cause by becoming personal in their responses. Especially when those responses do not include any facts whatsoever. Keep in mind that most CCW owners are suburbanites who stand more of chance of the necessity to draw down on Bigfoot as would be found in a "tough situation".
To Al,
Simply put, your error in the statement that you do not read about self-inflicted wounds is because you are looking in the wrong place. Self-inflicted wounds, be it firearm, knife, or #2 pencil are not news as far as the media is concerned. They do not sell newspapers nor do they keep anyone riveted to the tube during commercial breaks. The place you need to look is in the medical journals and reports for such things. The incidence of unintentional deaths and injuries prompted the American Medical Association to make declaration to the government, in particular the CDC that "inasmuch as (firearms) are one of the main causes of... intentional injuries and deaths" that they enlarge their efforts to reduce these injuries. Firearms rank second only to motor vehicle accidents as they relate to deaths from unintentional and self inflicted causes. The fact of the matter is that according to research, "A firearm in the home is more likely to result in a death during a household quarrel, a suicide attempt, or an unintentional shooting than in the protection of the household." And, "several careful studies show that the risk of harm in a home (that has a firearm) far outweighs the benefit of self-protection." This sentiment is echoed by virtually every medical organization on the planet.
I could continue to bore you with the facts of the very real danger of gun ownership but I will not. I will, however, address what has become the mantra for the CCW advocates in that "states that have enacted CCW laws have had a reduction in crime." This is just patently untrue. What is true is an anomaly that occurred during the time that many states enacted CCW laws. Simply put, the national data base for the reporting of violent crime was computerized. The system became paperless. Unfortunately, most, if not all to some extent, police departments were not paperless. The result was a false dip in the number of violent crimes (and other crimes for that matter). It wasn't that the crimes were not perpetrated, it was that the crimes were simply not reported by PD's who did not possess the technology to do so! check the facts now (since PD's have received the grants necessary to purchase the technology) and see that those rates have increased to prior CCW times and are growing ever larger daily. It is being a little Pollyannaish to think that the multifaceted problem of violent crime can be solved or even influenced by a single approach, especially one that has shown itself to be so inefficient.
As far as the description of the warrior I was referring to the modern military and peace officers. The soldier of today (and yesterday for that matter) would not dream of acting outside of the structure and protection of his or her unit an its leader nor would the police officer. These are concepts to which the CCW owner does not subscribe in acting as a vigilante. As far as the restrictions on guns or their ownership, I would not propose that the government be involved in the restriction. My view is that those who possess the facts and a margin of intelligence would reason that if safety is the primary concern, and I am less safe toting a loaded firearm around or storing one in the home, maybe I ought to restrict myself and not make myself and those around me less safe. The government could never pull off such an act of reason and higher thought process! As you have said that you have owned guns for years and no injuries yet. I submit that this is nothing more than the roll of the dice that the sheep were supposedly taking in leaving the home without a loaded gun. Well, I'll take my roll of the dice over yours because the fact of the matter is that my dice are loaded! (no pun intended... well maybe just a little).
Rebuttal is welcome since I have thick skin (not thick enough for misguided ammo of course!). I can be emailed directly if you like as well at [JGH: for privacy reasons please post rebuttals below in the comments, I have removed Joe’s email address as this is now a public discussion]
Happy shooting!
From: Joshua
Subject: RE: Joe and CCW
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2011, 2:00 PM
And, the discussion continues...
This is good, this is why I send out emails-to get people thinking and talking. A lot of times people like to sweep the tough subjects under the rug and pretend they'll go away. This particular conversation has been the one to give me the final little nudge I needed to start a blog, since that is really what my email list is anyway. I will be starting it up in the near future and will let you all know when I do. In the meantime, Joe has answered a few statements/questions that were directed his way. I've since received a few other responses to his initial email, which I will let those people send to Joe at their own discretion as he has provided his email address below. I will say this, Joe has provided his email address for discussion, please keep it civil and respectful.
Thank you,
Josh
…….And now, “Mike’s” rebuttal:
Oh boy, where to start...
I wrote a reply to Joe's earlier email last night, so I'll start with that one
"Not quite sure who has appointed and qualified these "sheep dogs" since most (read: I don't have a clue how many, so I'll just say most) firearm injuries are inflicted by gun owners upon themselves and their own families (a third of this entire planets inhabitants are gun owners, looks like overpopulation won't be a problem right Joe). I just question whether as much training, education, and maintenance is devoted to the use of one's brain and one's decision making skills (so because someone decides to carry a gun they are ignorant?) as is devoted to the care and maintenance of a unitasked (because you can only think of one thing to do with a firearm, it's unitasked?) piece of machinery with questionable (stop buying high-point firearms and there is no question), at best, efficiency (efficiency? Really Joe? I would like to hear your more efficient way of stopping an attacker/home invader...I got it, I'll walk around with 9-1 pushed on my phone, then the cops will get there faster to collect my body)."
It seems that perhaps those who would contemplate (there is no contemplation, it's on me all day, every day) leaving the home without the false sense of security (it may be false for you, but I know what I can do with my gun) that a loaded (is there another way) weapon produces in an individual who is ten times (source? or, yet again, you have no clue about any real statistics, so "ten times" sounds good) more likely to self inflict a lethal injury on himself (redundant statement, your thesaurus didn't help you there) than he would be on the almost mythical (In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide according to the FBI... seems pretty mythical to me) assailant may have made themselves safer based simply on the fact that he has lessened the possibility that he may, of his own hand produce an additional opening in his own body or, even worse, in that of an innocent bystander. (Never mind the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, stating that "Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13
seconds.")
I am all for the ownership of guns without interference (then start showing it), what I am not in favor of is the perception that society is made safer simply by moving a firearm from transport on the outermost garment of a individual to transport on the innermost garment (no one is saying that but you) . What makes society safer is not individualized meting out of violence but swiftly executed justice (the judge will not jump in front of a bullet while you explain this to your attacker. He will also not put a chastity belt on your daughter while she walks to her car alone) and that based on a wise response to the incident rather than an immediate reaction (we'll punish the rapist after the rape?) by an unqualified (in your lay eyes. Everyone that has a functioning brain is more then qualified to protect themselves), quick-drawing (for instance Wyatt Earp? this isn't the 1800's Joe, there has not been a shootout at the O.K. Corral despite what you seem to think), self-appointed "warrior" to a perceived (2.5 million times a year Joe, do you live in a bubble?) threat. In order to be considered a warrior (in your opinion, which is very uneducated on the subject), two conditions must apply (alive and breathing). First, a commission from an entity (the lord and savior Barrack Obama?) that ensures the continual, if not constant, mental as well as physical training of the individual (too easy, 1. are you of sound mind?, 2. are you of sound body? Then you are allowed the use of a firearm for self defense). Second, there is clearly defined "battle zone" (it's all around you Joe, open your eyes) in which the individual operates and that within the confines of a command (the gubmint?) that utilizes brains before braun (*brawn. Brute force, not the shaver Joe. Having the ability to protect yourself and those around you sounds like using your noodle to me). The typical CCW operates under neither (in your opinion again). He or she is more a kin to a vigilantly (I'm not sure if you know what a vigilante is) and not an effective (2.5 million times a year Joe) one at that.
It is at this time that all the CCW (read: freedom loving) people get their shorts in a bunch. I am not trying to be inflammatory, just trying to inject a little (uneducated) objectivity into the discussion surrounding the launching of projectiles (For every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348)with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000) are preserved through defensive use.) toward those would-be assailants or, more (less) likely, wives, sons, and daughters (everyone is a wife, son, or daughter, don't sensationalize Joe). While not necessarily a Hestonphile, I do support gun freedom (freedom with restrictions is not freedom, there are already laws against killing people). Just like with any freedom, however, it is necessarily limited by the freedoms of those who cohabitate the area in the immediate vicinity of a concealed weapon
(my right to be a sheep-dog/warrior, trumps your right to be a sheep/victim. I'll pull my gun, you pull your thesaurus, we will see who doesn't get robbed. In fact, I'm pretty sure a thug would kick your ass for sounding pompous.)
Now that that is done, I'll continue with his more recent reply...
For Brad,
It does make it a little easier for me when someone makes my point for me. Police officers who "run around with weapons on a daily basis" and who unholster those weapons only for qualification proves that those most likely to encounter situations in which deadly force is a viable option show that those situations and the need to use a firearm are rare indeed (The number of times per year an American uses a firearm to deter a home invasion alone is 498,000. Seems pretty rare.) . The police officers strongest weapon is their brain, a show of force (multiple imposing individuals) (so you want to not only carry around one cop with you, now you want two?), and various other nonlethal instruments. Most CCW individuals possess none of these with regularity (so if you have a CCW you don't have a brain, or the ability to talk your way out of a violent situation, or to not be there in the first place?). I would be willing to wager that, given a tenuous situation involving a very real individual (as opposed to a fake individual), the typical CCW individual would make poor if not pathetic attempts (read plural) to aim and then hit the target at which they are aiming (11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
kill an innocent person....Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns to defend themselves, 92% merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers.... or here ya go, Sheriff Greg White, Cole County, Missouri, July 31, 2009 said "In actual shootings, citizens do far better than law enforcement on hit potential. They hit their targets and they don't hit other people. I wish I could say the same for cops. We train more, they do better."). Those individuals trained and experienced with unruly individuals (real individuals) (I thought they were mythical) that choose not to draw on an bad guy are exercising a choice between subduing an individual through lethal force at great risk to themselves and others and subduing the same individual with far more effective methods (not sure what is more effective then 124 grains of lead in your temporal lobe creating a permanent wound cavity about the size of a baseball, but ok). Those that a CCW owners do not generally have (or do they?).
To Web,
The trick is not to put yourself in the tough situation to begin with (cool trick Joe, I'm not sure what utopia you live in, but every town has violent crime). My life, for a career, has been about tough situations as I enter burning buildings and plug the holes that gun owners (got an article with you running into a burning building to save gunshot victims?) have the well documented tendency (source? or are you just adding words to make it sound good) to place within their own bodies (see above "For every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348)with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000) are preserved through defensive use"...in the military, it's called acceptable losses) . I have done so for the better part of 23 years. Do not mistake the ability to (ab)use the language as the inability to use a firearm. In fact, one compliments the other (you could be mute and still effectively defend yourself with a firearm). The only thing that I do not use is the liberal media. I subscribe to neither newspaper nor do I watch broadcast news. I watch no commentaries nor do I believe that information of the sort that I spoke of prior comes anywhere other than from actual research. The toughness of an individual comes not only from what he does but more often from what he doesn't (Confucius say, "don't make action as two guys rape wife, you be tougher for it." Leave the philosophical blather at home Joe, this isn't the place for it). To discount facts in favor of perception is not tough but only self-willed (good point, try taking your own advice). Please do not feel as though you need to protect me as I have endured more than a few near-death situations without the need to blaze a trail of lead out of them (it only takes one time Joe, really it's a simple decision, it's better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it ). One suggestion I may add is that if you stick to the objective discussion of the facts then you remove the temptation to launch ill-fated and misguided attacks of individuals (umadbro?). Many gun owners lose credibility for themselves and their cause by becoming personal in their responses. Especially when those responses do not include any facts whatsoever (like yours?). Keep in mind that most (source? or are you adding things again?) CCW owners are suburbanites who stand more of chance of the necessity to draw down on Bigfoot as would be found in a "tough situation" (again with the 2.5 MILLION times per year. That's a lot of yeti's).
To Al,
Simply put, your error in the statement that you do not read about self-inflicted wounds is because you are looking in the wrong place (ever hear the phrase "if it bleeds, it leads"?). Self-inflicted wounds, be it firearm, knife, or #2 pencil are not news as far as the media is concerned. They do not sell newspapers nor do they keep anyone riveted to the tube during commercial breaks. (how would you know Joe, are you a journalist? You already said you don't read the paper or watch the news so again you add things that you don't know about) The place you need to look is in the medical journals and reports for such things. The incidence of unintentional deaths and injuries prompted the American Medical Association to make declaration to the government, in particular the CDC that "inasmuch as (firearms) are one of the main causes of... intentional injuries and deaths" (so now the AMA and CDC are experts on crime data? Think before you type Joe) that they enlarge their efforts to reduce these injuries. Firearms rank second (source? Actually, smoking 18%, obesity 4.6%, and alcohol 3.5%, kill more people then guns as well as car accidents 1.8%, in fact only STD's are lower 0.8% ) only to motor vehicle accidents as they relate to deaths from unintentional and self inflicted causes (so now you are anti-automobile too right?). The fact of the matter is that according to research, "A firearm in the home is more likely to result in a death during a household quarrel, a suicide attempt, or an unintentional shooting than in the protection of the household." (source? and no kidding a firearm will kill you if you are trying to commit suicide) And, "several careful (ha) studies show that the risk of harm in a home (that has a firearm) far (got a percentage, or is the "careful study" just throwing out numbers like you do?) outweighs the benefit of self-protection." This sentiment is echoed by virtually every medical organization on the planet. (source? also, medical studies are not done by criminologists, just as doctors don't study crime data)
I could continue to bore you with the (non)facts of the very real danger of gun (and car, right Joe) ownership but I will not. I will, however, address what has become the mantra for the CCW advocates in that "states that have enacted CCW laws have had a reduction in crime." This is just patently untrue. (I'm assuming you are referring to the Stanford law review. Did you read the whole thing? Or just what you wanted to see?) What is (partially) true is an anomaly that occurred during the time that many states enacted CCW laws. Simply put, the national data base for the reporting of violent crime was computerized. The system became paperless. Unfortunately, most, if not all to some extent, police departments were not paperless. The result was a false dip in the number of violent crimes (and other crimes for that matter). It wasn't that the crimes were not perpetrated, it was that the crimes were simply not reported by PD's who did not possess the technology to do so! (the departments that couldn't go paperless are from areas that don't experience much violent crime (small department, small budget), so their data would hardly change the results) check the facts now (1.3 MILLION violent crimes in 2009 according to the FBI, they haven't collected the data from 2010 yet ) (since PD's have received the grants necessary to purchase the technology) and see that those rates have increased to prior CCW times (1987 FYI, and two states have always had CCW without permit) and are growing ever larger daily (source? or are you making things up again?). It is being a little Pollyannaish (says the guy that lives in a utopia where self defense isn't necessary) to think that the multifaceted problem of violent crime can be solved or even influenced by a single approach, especially one that has shown itself to be so inefficient. (you just don't get it, CCW proponents don't care about crime rates, it's self defense that is the issue. Can your granny stop a 6' 220 pound guy on meth by using big words? Can you?)
As far as the description of the warrior I was referring to the modern military and peace officers. (you are the only one that refers the CCW "warrior" as a modern military member, look at feudal Japan for an example of a real CCW warrior) The soldier of today (and yesterday for that matter) would not dream (did you take a poll for that data?) of acting outside of the structure and protection of his or her unit an its leader nor would the police officer (you sure about that?). These are concepts to which the CCW owner does not subscribe in acting as a vigilante (I don't think that means what you think it means). As far as the restrictions on guns or their ownership, I would not propose that the government be involved in the restriction. My view is that those who possess the facts and a margin of intelligence (what margin? Who decides?) would reason that if safety is the primary concern, and I am less (more) safe toting a loaded firearm around or storing one in the home, maybe I ought to restrict myself and not make myself and those around me less (more) safe. The government could never pull off such an act of reason and higher thought process! As you have said that you have owned guns for years and no injuries yet. I submit that this is nothing more than the roll of the dice that the sheep were supposedly taking in leaving the home without a loaded gun. Well, I'll take my roll of the dice over yours because the fact of the matter is that my dice are loaded! (are they? all it takes is one drunk guy that thinks your house/car is his. I'll assume you know how easy a guy on PCP or meth is to reason with) (no pun intended... well maybe just a little).
The real fact of the matter Joe, is that you are unable to defend yourself or your family against a superior force (bigger, stronger, or just more of them) and it seems that you are trying to use mostly false statistics to justify your fear of carrying a firearm.
Let's assume you are right, that CCW people are more likely to shoot you/themselves/innocent bystander then the bad guy, wouldn't you like to even the playing field? You can control how much training you get, how often you practice, and how well you shoot. Then all of your arguments melt away.
Or continue living in your bubble, and God help you if trouble ever comes looking for you, because you won't be able to help yourself.
-Mike
