Aware

This time I present a guest whose view and philosophy mirrors my own. Many of my friends and family do not get why I carry a gun. Perhaps this will help them to see the world more like I do.

I carry a gun every day

Ernie Traugh, guest columnist
January 4, 2015

Every day I get up and put on a gun. It’s part of my daily routine. No different from making coffee or feeding the dogs before I leave for work.

There is so much misinformation about who that makes me. I’m a “gun nut.” I’m one of “those right-wing Second Amendment people.” I’m the scourge of the earth to some.

Funny how that works.

They don’t even know me but they are worried that I’m what’s wrong with this country, this state and this city I call home. I walk among them and they don’t even know it. I’m the guy in the jeans and Under Armour shirt, the guy in the $200 sport coat and $125 shoes, the guy in Nike pants and a hoodie, and some days I’m the guy with dirty hands from working in the yard, but most of all I’m the guy they never see.

Oh, they acknowledge me sometimes. When I hold the door for them because my parents raised me that way. When I let them go ahead of me in line at the gas station because they seem to be in a hurry. When I pick up their baby’s pacifier in the aisle at the grocery store and hand it back to them because it fell out and they didn’t notice. But they don’t see me. I’m just another guy in the store with things in my hand. But only my left hand. I don’t carry things in my right hand. Not at the store. Not in public.

Why? Because I’m “that guy.” I know that bad things happen. Every day. Everywhere. So I try to be aware. I try to study my surroundings. I expect to not see it coming every time. I expect that evil may show up while I’m shopping or walking through the mall or eating at a restaurant. It doesn’t make me crazy. It doesn’t make me paranoid. It simply makes me aware. Unlike a lot of people that walk by me every day. Looking at their phones, their notes, their purses, or any of the other distractions that plague us. I get it.

I also get that there are wolves. Hungry. Lean. Skilled at their trade. Studying you. Studying me. They like you. They don’t like me. I see them at the mall. I see them at the gas station. I see them right here in this town. Do they know I’m armed? No, they don’t. They know that I’m aware. I look at them. Kill them with kindness. It’s a like a mutual agreement. I see you; you see me. Let’s not kid each other.

It’s weird in a way. The man and his friend in the store that looked all around and even glanced at the camera above us — those guys see me. I’m aware that the door is over there. I’m aware that the coffee pot is within reach and full. He urges me to go first to the counter. “Oh no, you go please. I have all day,” I reply. Now he has to make a purchase. Now he knows I’m polite …. I’m polite and I do not want them behind me in line.
The lady with her kid? She doesn’t notice me, but I’m there. I have a phone. I have a flashlight. I have two knives. I have a firearm. And I have a plan. If this doesn’t go well I want to get her and that little one out of here. Chances are nothing is going to happen until they’re gone anyway. I’d like to leave too.

One man asks the other a question. He hands the guy a few extra bucks to make the purchase of an item at the counter. They leave. I make my purchase. I call the employee by name and tell him to have a good night. I walk to the door and hold it open for the woman approaching. She says, “Thanks.” I say, “Yes ma’am.” Then, poof. I’m gone.

Just another uneventful trip to the store. The best kind ever. It’s funny those men truly saw me but other customers didn’t. Why? Maybe too busy. Maybe too much on their minds. Maybe because they didn’t worry for one second about those two men or me.

When I get home I don’t tell my wife about the two men who lingered. The two men who entered together but stood so far apart. The two men that seemed to have no sense of purpose or item they were in search of. No need to talk of them because nothing happened. This happens daily. Sometimes once. Sometimes multiple times. I like uneventful days.

Most people don’t know me. But man, they sure do judge me. If I use a gun to defend myself they will read about it. They will hear about it. They will weigh in on what should have happened.

I have seen bad people do bad things. I have seen good people dumbfounded and in shock because they couldn’t comprehend what was happening in front of them or, worse yet, to them. It’s not fun or pretty to think about, so most people don’t. They don’t stay awake late at night watching videos from self-defense experts. They don’t read the articles. They don’t look at unedited news on the Internet. They don’t search out the videos of people fighting for their lives and losing.

A man stabbed outside a bar. A couple hijacked and killed in front of the store. A store clerk shot even after complying with a robber’s demands. A video from inside the grocery store of a mad man with a gun shooting people while looking for his ex. Dashboard cameras of an officer involved in a shooting. It’s an ugly world so they choose not to see it.

I don’t train for the warm fuzzy days where everyone gets along. I train for the other days. I try to round out my skill sets. I look at what others have done to succeed. I watch videos of those who haven’t. Some refer to it as making something good out of something bad. Like watching videos of officers being killed as every person that’s gone through any type of law enforcement academy has had to do. Learn from others’ experiences.
People from all walks of life legally carry guns. Some are men and some are women. Some are old and some are young. The ones I know train. The ones I know are aware: Aware of their surroundings. And aware of all of the armchair quarterbacking that will be done if they ever have to use that tool of last resort on their belt. So why do it anyway? Because they value their life and the lives of others. Simple.

My so-called “gun nut” friends and customers are some of the most congenial, trustworthy people I know. I only wish everyone had such friends. I wish everyone understood like I do.

• Ernie Traugh is owner operator of Cedar Valley Outfitters, which opened in 2001, and has been a reserve police officer since 2004. Comments: ernie@cedarvalleyoutfitters.org

Posted with Blogsy

Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns?

Sam Harris is a neuroscientist who is also a philosopher, atheist and author of many books and articles on those and other topics. He also wrote: "Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world."

In my view, Sam would be considered a liberal, as am I, which would cause many gun owners and supporters of the right of self defense to dismiss him without further adoo. This would be a big mistake. Sam has put together the most cogent, reasonable and supportive arguments for the legal right and responsibilities of the American citizen to own, carry and, if absolutely necessary, use guns for self defense and the defense of others. I know that if you also believe this, you may want to dismiss Sam's reasoning, but you should not. He makes a very strong case, which, while also recognizing the fear and misunderstandings of the anti-gun factions, supports these rights.

With his permission, I have included some excerpts and remarks from his essay, "The Puzzle of the Gun" below. I urge you to read the entire essay here:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun

Reading it in it's entirety will take about fifteen minutes. A brief time well spent. I have included some excerpts from Sam's article below. These are meant to capture some of the main points and to whet your curiosity so that you will read the entire thing, think about it, and be more informed to discuss these issues with all sides.


Selected excerpts from Sam's Harris' The Riddle of the Gun: 

Fantasists and zealots can be found on both sides of the debate over guns in America. On the one hand, many gun-rights advocates reject even the most sensible restrictions on the sale of weapons to the public. On the other, proponents of stricter gun laws often seem unable to understand why a good person would ever want ready access to a loaded firearm. Between these two extremes we must find grounds for a rational discussion about the problem of gun violence. (my emphasis)


(Otherwise intelligent people...)

Most of my friends do not own guns and never will. When asked to consider the possibility of keeping firearms for protection, they worry that the mere presence of them in their homes would put themselves and their families in danger. Can’t a gun go off by accident? Wouldn’t it be more likely to be used against them in an altercation with a criminal? I am surrounded by otherwise intelligent people who imagine that the ability to dial 911 is all the protection against violence a sane person ever needs.

But, unlike my friends, I own several guns and train with them regularly. Every month or two, I spend a full day shooting with a highly qualified instructor. This is an expensive and time-consuming habit, but I view it as part of my responsibility as a gun owner. It is true that my work as a writer has added to my security concerns somewhat, but my involvement with guns goes back decades. I have always wanted to be able to protect myself and my family, and I have never had any illusions about how quickly the police can respond when called. I have expressed my views on self-defense elsewhere. Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him. This is not the fault of the police—it is a problem of physics.

(The ethical importance of guns...)

Like most gun owners, I understand the ethical importance of guns and cannot honestly wish for a world without them. I suspect that sentiment will shock many readers. Wouldn’t any decent person wish for a world without guns? In my view, only someone who doesn’t understand violence could wish for such a world. A world without guns is one in which the most aggressive men can do more or less anything they want. It is a world in which a man with a knife can rape and murder a woman in the presence of a dozen witnesses, and none will find the courage to intervene. 

... A world without guns is a world in which no man, not even a member of Seal Team Six, can reasonably expect to prevail over more than one determined attacker at a time. A world without guns, therefore, is one in which the advantages of youth, size, strength, aggression, and sheer numbers are almost always decisive. Who could be nostalgic for such a world?

(Carrying in public...)

Carrying a gun in public, however, entails even greater responsibility than keeping one at home, and in most states the laws reflect this. Like many gun-control advocates, I have serious concerns about letting ordinary citizens walk around armed. Ordinary altercations can become needlessly deadly in the presence of a weapon. A scuffle that exposes a gun in a person’s waistband, for instance, can quickly become a fight to the death—where the first person to get his hands on the weapon may feel justified using it in “self-defense.”

Some Facts About Guns

(Mass shootings...)

Fifty-five million kids went to school on the day that 20 were massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Even in the United States, therefore, the chances of a child’s dying in a school shooting are remote. As my friend Steven Pinker demonstrates in his monumental study of human violence, The Better Angels of Our Nature, our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events. Is gun violence increasing in the United States? No.

Seventy mass shootings have occurred in the U.S. since 1982, leaving 543 dead. These crimes were horrific, but 564,452 other homicides took place in the U.S. during the same period. Mass shootings scarcely represent 0.1 percent of all murders. When talking about the problem of guns in our society, it is easy to lose sight of the worst violence and to become fixated on symbols of violence.

(Context and risk...)

Of course, it is important to think about the problem of gun violence in the context of other risks. For instance, it is estimated that 100,000 Americans die each year because doctors and nurses fail to wash their hands properly. Measured in bodies, therefore, the problem of hand washing in hospitals is worse than the problem of guns, even if we include accidents and suicides. But not all deaths are equivalent. A narrow focus on mortality rates does not always do justice to the reality of human suffering. Mass shootings are a marginal concern, even relative to other forms of gun violence, but they cause an unusual degree of terror and grief—particularly when children are targeted. Given the psychological and social costs of certain low-frequency events, it does not seem irrational to allocate disproportionate resources to prevent them.

(Protection...)

As Jeffrey Goldberg points out in The Atlantic, it may no longer be rational to hope that we can solve the problem of gun violence by restricting access to guns—because guns are everywhere, and the only people who will be deterred by stricter laws are precisely those law-abiding citizens who should be able to possess guns for their own protection and who now constitute one of the primary deterrents to violent crime. This is, of course, a familiar “gun nut” talking point. But that doesn’t make it wrong.

(Focus on the wrong things...)

Another problem with liberal dreams of gun control is that the kinds of guns used in the vast majority of crimes would not fall under any plausible weapons ban. And advocates of stricter gun laws who claim to respect the rights of “sportsmen” or “hunters,” and to recognize a legitimate need for “home defense,” simply give the game away at the outset. The very guns that law-abiding citizens use for recreation or home defense are, in fact, the problem.

In the vast majority of murders committed with firearms—even most mass killings—the weapon used is a handgun. Unless we outlaw and begin confiscating handguns, the weapons best suited for being carried undetected into a classroom, movie theater, restaurant, or shopping mall for the purpose of committing mass murder will remain readily available in the United States. But no one is seriously proposing that we address the problem on this level. In fact, the Supreme Court has recently ruled, twice (in 2008 and 2010), that banning handguns would be unconstitutional.

The problem, therefore, is that with respect to either factor that makes a gun suitable for mass murder—ease of concealment (a handgun) or range (a rifle)—the most common and least stigmatized weapons are among the most dangerous. Gun-control advocates seem perversely unaware of this. As a consequence, we routinely hear the terms “semi-automatic” and “assault weapon” intoned with misplaced outrage and awe.

(Dispair and amazement...)

As Goldberg notes, with understandable despair and amazement, the security plans at many schools encourage students to spontaneously arm themselves with pencils and laptops and engage a shooter directly in defense of their lives—all the while forbidding the lawful possession of firearms on campus, no matter what a person’s training. As Goldberg says, “The existence of these policies suggests that universities know they cannot protect their students during an armed attack.” 

(Guns in the hands of good people...)

Gun-control advocates appear unable to distinguish situations in which a gun in the hands of a good person would be useless (or worse) and those in which it would be likely to save dozens of innocent lives. They are eager to extrapolate from the Aurora shooting to every other possible scene of mass murder. However, a single gunman trying to force his way into a school, or roaming its hallways, or even standing in a classroom surrounded by dead and dying children, would be far easier to engage effectively—with a gun—than James Holmes would have been in a dark and crowded movie theater. Even in the case of the Aurora shooting, it is not ludicrous to suppose that everyone might have been better off had a well-trained person with a gun been at the scene. The liberal commentariat seems to have no awareness of what “well-trained” signifies. It happens to include an understanding of what to do and what not to do when the danger of shooting innocent bystanders exists. The fact that bystanders do occasionally get shot, even by police officers, does not prove that putting guns in the hands of good people would be a bad idea. Gun-control advocates seem always to imagine the worst possible scenario: legions of untrained, delusional vigilantes producing their weapons at a pin drop and firing indiscriminately into a crowd.

(Using furniture as a self defense response to an active shooter...)

Needless to say, it is easy to see how things can go badly when anyone draws a firearm defensively. But when an armed man enters an office building, restaurant, or school for the purpose of murdering everyone in sight, things are going very badly already. Imagine being one of the people in the Houston video trapped in the office with no recourse but to hide under a desk. Would you really be relieved to know that up until that moment, your workplace had been an impeccably gun-free environment and that no one, not even your friend who did three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be armed? If you found yourself trapped with others in a conference room, preparing to attack the shooter with pencils and chairs, can you imagine thinking, “I’m so glad no one else has a gun, because I wouldn’t want to get caught in any crossfire”?  Despite what the New York Times and dozens of other editorial pages have avowed in the weeks since Newtown, it isn’t a vigilante delusion to believe that guns in the hands of good people would improve the odds of survival in deadly encounters of this kind. The delusion is to think that everyone would be better off defending his or her life with furniture.

And those who are horrified at the idea of stationing a police officer in every school should be obliged to tell us how long they would like to wait for the police to arrive in the event that they are needed. Declaring schools to be “gun-free zones” makes them especially good places to commit mass murder—this is more NRA propaganda that happens to be true.  With the exception of the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every mass shooting since 1950 has taken place where civilians are forbidden to carry firearms [Correction 1/11/13: I have been informed that this mall is a gun-free zone too.]

(Some real and positive things we can do...)

We could do many things to ensure that only fully vetted people could get a licensed firearm. The fact that guns in the U.S. can be legally purchased from private sellers without background checks on the buyers (the so-called “gun show loophole”) is terrifying. Getting a gun license could be made as difficult as getting a license to fly an airplane, requiring dozens of hours of training. I would certainly be happy to see policy changes like this. In that respect, I support much stricter gun laws. But I am under no illusions that such restrictions would make it difficult for bad people to acquire guns illegally.  Given the level of violence in our society, the ubiquity of guns, and the fact that our penitentiaries function like graduate schools for violent criminals, I think sane, law-abiding people should have access to guns. In that respect, I support the rights of gun owners.

Finally, I have said nothing here about what might cause a person like Adam Lanza to enter a school for the purpose of slaughtering innocent children. Clearly, we need more resources in the areas of childhood and teenage mental health, and we need protocols for parents, teachers, and fellow students to follow when a young man in their midst begins to worry them. In the majority of cases, someone planning a public assassination or a mass murder will communicate his intentions to others in advance of the crime. People need to feel personally responsible for acting on this information—and the authorities must be able to do something once the information gets passed along. But again, any law that allows us to commit or imprison people on the basis of a mere perception of risk would guarantee that large numbers of innocent people will be held against their will.

Rather than new laws, I believe we need a general shift in our attitude toward public violence—wherein everyone begins to assume some responsibility for containing it. It is worth noting that this shift has already occurred in one area of our lives, without anyone’s having received special training or even agreeing that a change in attitude was necessary: Just imagine how a few men with box cutters would now be greeted by their fellow passengers at 30,000 feet.

Perhaps we can find the same resolve on the ground.

Laser Myths

As I noted on this blog earlier, there is a high bandwidth of ignorant and misinformed internet opinions available at the click of a mouse. They live among, and sometimes overwhelm, factual, rational and real information that would be helpful to the curious and the uninitiated. Gun forums are particularly prone to becoming a venue for unsupported opinion and basic misinformation. The interesting but unfortunate consequence of this is that many wrong, stupid, ignorant and sometimes hazardous opinions are accepted as fact.

In this post, I would like to offer some facts and reason to evaluate a common internet gun forum topic about which laser sight is "better", disregarding that "better" in this context is a very undefined attribute.

I have read many forum posts that go back and forth about which laser sight is "better": the LaserMax CenterFire or the Crimson Trace Laserguard. Mostly, the comments center on perceived notions of size, shape, beam and actuation preferences. Price usually doesn't come up, although the CT (Crimson Trace) is much more costly than the LM (LaserMax).It seems to me that the purpose of a laser sight on a handgun is to provide a highly visible aiming point on the same plane as the target when one wishes to fire a shot. This is especially important under low light conditions and with small handguns that are difficult to shoot accurately. All laser sights will do this with the same focal precision and power. The amount of power a laser sight maker can supply to the device is restricted. 

Looking at the LaserMax and the Crimson Trace models that attach to the underside of the frame, their size, weight and profiles are close enough to not make a real difference. I have used both and can vouch for this fact. Arguments about one being "slimmer" than the other are nonsense in any meaningful sense.


The main difference between the LaserMax CenterFire and the Crimson Trace Laserguard, disregarding cost, is the method of operation. With the LM you have a choice; with the CT, you don't.

The CT laser, given a firm grip on the pistol, is always on regardless of whether you want it on or not. I don't like technology that tries to do my thinking for me. I suspect that many people don't want to have to think about this so they go for the default "on" state. This indicates a lack of training on their part and their not understanding that the only time you need or want a laser shining from your gun is when you need to shoot.

Anybody can grab a CT equipped handgun and turn on the laser. Doesn't matter if they know what they are doing or not, whether their finger is on the trigger when they draw or not. As long as they hold the pistol with a firm grip, the CT laser is always shining. To disengage it, one has to modify the grip. Not a particularly optimal choice.

Additionally, I've noticed that with small guns like the LCP, where there are two fingers on the grip, depending on the shooter's hand size, the CT doesn't always stay on under rapid fire when the fingers may shift a bit under the recoil and mental pressure. If you are focused on the red dot and it suddenly disappears, you can be distracted and that next round may end up somewhere you didn't want it to go. Yes, if you can maintain a consistent hold and grip pressure during a self-defense shooting episode, this probably won't happen. But I submit that most people won't be that aware and precise.

Which leads to the fact that with the LM, the shooter always has the choice of the laser being on, or off. Whichever, it's not going to change from that state unexpectedly. 
You will see many posts about this by people who haven't bothered to learn and train sufficiently for defensive shooting. Think about it. 

If someone is set to quickly grab their gun and begin banging off shots with the laser on, I think this shows a lack of basic training on safe gun handling and shooting. When we train to operate defensively, we train to quickly and consistently draw our weapon from the holster, and position, of our choosing, in such a manner as to not shoot ourselves or an innocent bystander in the process. Proper grip. Trigger finger extended alongside the slide or trigger guard (varies with gun model of course). Extract gun and rotate clear of the body, pointing down range toward the target area. Finger extended, not on the trigger. Threat identification. Decision to shoot or not. If yes, finger goes to trigger as the weapon is centered on the target. Fire.

In the above scenario the only time the laser needs to be on is when you decide to shoot. If you are doing things right, the CT comes on when you grip the pistol in the holster. The LM does not. Why? Because you haven't turned it on. When can you turn it on? Whenever you choose because, if you are doing this right, as your gun clears the holster, your trigger finger will be resting on the LM slide switch. When your finger sweeps back to the trigger - whenever you decide to fire - the slide switch gets pushed in and the laser goes on as your finger slides into the trigger guard. Or, you may decide not to shoot but to actuate the laser anyway. Push the switch and it's on. Enough? Push the switch to turn it off. 

It is easy and natural to push the slide switch off with the thumb on your supporting hand to disengage the laser. Then, your trigger finger will automatically (it should!) be extended and again resting naturally on the LM slide switch where it all began.

With the CT, you are shining that laser beam around all the time, whether you have decided to shoot or not, unless you relax the grip on your weapon. And, if you are drawing, presenting and aiming correctly with a CT equipped gun, your trigger finger will be extended alongside the weapon, just like in the LM example, until you make the conscious decision to shoot. However, there won't be a switch under your finger because your laser will always be on, regardless of whether you want it on or not.

I've gone into some detail about this because this is a serious matter and deserves a serious and detailed examination, not off-hand remarks.

Statistics will show that the idea that all or most deadly force self defense shooting encounters are not of the split-second grab and shoot as fast as possible kind. Many encounters don't involve shooting at all, but the presentation of a deadly threat -  your weapon -  to a potential criminal perpetrator. Just the sight of your handgun may be enough to defuse the threat. Or that and the purposeful switching on of a little red dot on the middle of his chest. The fact remains, that if the person legally carrying is sufficiently trained to handle his or her weapon correctly, that person will be in charge of when and if the laser sight needs to be actuated and can do so as effectively and quickly with a LM as with a CT. But, with the LM, you get to be in control and make the decisions.

Simply put, if a person is trained to properly grasp, present, aim and fire a handgun in a self defense scenario, one is, by that very fact, trained to be in control of a LaserMax sight.

A Powerful, Well Reasoned Statement About Civil Rights (read: 'gun control')

A friend, a former commune hippie living up in the mountains, passed this on the other day. As in most things, it is wise to not rely on assumptions. Hippies, current and former, are often considered to be left leaning, tree-hugging, socialist and anti-guns. This is perhaps the norm with city-dwelling hippies, but the ones I have lived with and known who make our homes in the country, the farms and the mountains are quite the opposite. All of the old hippies I know would agree with the 'virtual' President's statements.

I do.

Even though both sides of this question are too often drenched in emotional bullshit, if one can dig oneself out of the manure pile and marshal facts in support of your argument, it is, maybe, possible to reach some kind of consensus on this.

Just because you don't (or do) like something, doesn't mean it is wrong.

A Virtual Presidental Address on Guns

More Guns Means More "Gun Deaths"

I saw that someone posted this little bit of relatively useless information on facebook. Now, naturally, many folks will interpret this to mean that anyone having a gun is likely to use it to kill someone else. But, let's look a little deeper into this bit of folk 'wisdom'.

Firstly, I would note that if in fact there are more 'gun deaths' and also an increase in the number of guns, it is logical that an increasing number of people killed by the gun were shot by a legal gun owner defending his or her life and or property. That is a good thing.

It is also logical to think that many of the possessors of "more guns" are bad guys, criminals and crooks who are busy doing each other in. This is also a good thing.

A good argument can also be made that with an increase in the number of citizens owning and legally carrying guns for self defense, the number of citizen (read: good people) deaths have decreased since criminals are less likely to rob, assault and try to kill someone whom they suspect is armed. This fits nicely with the notion that the bad guys are doing themselves in more frequently.

On the other side, let's say that there were far fewer guns, that citizens were prohibited from owning or carrying guns. Then, I'd agree that the number of "gun deaths" might decrease overall, but would definitely increase for the poor, defenseless public.

Making bald, unsupported and ambiguous statements like "more guns equal more gun deaths" is like saying "more cars equal more car deaths". Maybe, but getting to what that really means, if it is true at all, requires honesty, research and an unbiased desire to get at the truth.


Like Mark Twain said, there are "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics".

Here are a few facts, not biased in one way or the other, just facts that can be checked for accuracy. From "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12.

A note about the research by Agresti and Smith:

This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.

See the link below for the source of the facts to follow and to see more for yourself:
 http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp:


In 2011 the US had a murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000. Chicago alone (known for their strict gun laws, even banning handguns) had a murder rate of 15.9. The last time our murder rate was below 4.7 was in 1963. State of Vermont allows anybody who can legally own a firearm to be able to carry it without a permit. Their murder rate is .4 per 100,000

According toBureau of Justice Statistics numbers, each year between 1987 and 1992 about 62,200 victims of violent crimes used guns to defend themselves, while another 20,000 annually used guns to protect property. According to the National Self-Defense Survey conducted by criminology professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University in 1993, Americans used guns 2.3 million times a year to defend themselves between 1988 and 1993.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

A Few Facts About Carrying a Gun for Self Defense

There is a source available on the internet for facts concerning many important topics and issues. Gun Control is one of these. The source is Just Facts. This is a valuable and important source for all gun owners and self-defense carry people to know about and be familiar with because, in the current gun debate, facts are the best tools you can have.

What distinguishes this resource from many other internet "fact sources" is the site's care to be unbiased and to avoid skewed and inaccurate data.

In JustFacts introductory note they say:

"This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.

Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.

Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts'Standards of Credibility."

Justfacts.com is one research source I can rely upon to provide fact-based information from which I can draw my own conclusions. To that end, I present some interesting facts gleaned from their site relevant to those who carry for self defense, and also to those who oppose self-defense carry out of ignorance, or because they don't understand the, well... facts.

Number of gun owners in the US

According to private firearms manufacturers data in 2010, there are between 40 and 45 million adults who own handguns.

A 2005 Gallup poll indicates there are 100 million adults who own guns of different types. In the same poll, 67% said they owned guns for self protection.

Why is having a gun for self protection necessary?

Some facts (from the Justfacts.com website. See the site for additional references and support for the information listed below.):

1. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." 
2. Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
3. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
4. A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."
5. A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
6. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

The last, number 6, should be especially relevant to those who support self-defense carry.

Those are some facts pertaining to the usefulness of a gun in preventing violent crime. How vulnerable are we? Consider this:

 At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.

A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once

A 1997 survey of more than 18,000 prison inmates found that among those serving time for a violent crime, "30% of State offenders and 35% of Federal offenders carried a firearm when committing the crime."

Justfacts goes on to show interesting charts describing the effects of various anti-handgun legislation passed in different locations. You can see these yourself on their site, but the summary is that where anti-handgun legislation is passed that inhibits the citizens from owning and carrying a gun for self protection, the incident of violent crime increases. When those restrictions are struck down, not surprisingly, the incidents of violent crime perpetrated against citizens goes down. Not a big surprise to most of us.

Why this information is important.

In the continuing national debate over gun control, which I think should be about violence control, it is important to have a good grasp of the facts. Every time I have argued this issue with someone opposed to guns, I have found that they do not know the basic facts about guns and self protection. They are working from rhetoric, falsehoods and, in many cases, just plain fear of guns. 

My response is usually to point out that it is a free country, that they don't have to own or carry a gun, but in fact, they depend upon someone for their protection who does carry a gun when thing go bad. As they frequently do, facts tell us. And, given this, all law-abiding citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms in self defense in order to assist us in our constitutional rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, conversely, no one has the right to prevent me from exercising those freedoms.

When the criminals and crazies can no longer have guns, or knives, or baseball bats, or screwdrivers, cars, explosives, ice picks, poisons or any other implement that can be turned into a deadly weapon, I might consider giving up my guns.

Not likely....

Actual Facts

I have been in correspondence with many of my state and national legislators, and have written my views directly to the White House. In response, and in some stories I have read in various media, people who are pushing an agenda often quote supposed "facts" in order to substantiate their claims and viewpoints. Now, there is nothing wrong with using facts to oppose or support a given topic, but often what are presented as "facts" are not objective and real. Many statistics and so-called facts are not without bias, sometimes extreme. One example I have seen references a study that if a certain measure were to be passed by the legislature, it would cost the average person over $700 per year more to pay their basic expenses - food, utilities, rent, etc. While this may be true in the aggregate, the study failed to take into consideration a projected $300 per year general cost of living increase, whether the measure under discussion passed or not. The real fact was a $400 increase, not $700.

There is an organization of researchers who find and publish actual factual data, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not. It is really not a matter of debate, but of provable fact derived from actual data. Studies with a high degree of objectivity and integrity. Statutes. Laws. Regulations. See them at http://www.justfacts.com

The, of course, have a section on gun control. It is quite extensive, even containing relevant state and federal statutes. At the beginning, there is a very interesting section of facts that anyone engaging in reasonable and rational discussions about firearms and violence should be familiar with. There are frequently 'facts' quoted in the media that seem to indicate that guns in the hands of citizens don't deter crime. However, the statistics and facts compiled by this organization speak otherwise.

I encourage you all to visit www.justfacts.com and see for yourself, but I am also quoting the beginning part of their section on gun control that I think can serve as good information to educate those who are opposed to gun ownership out of fear, misunderstanding and reliance on biased 'facts'.

From www.justfacts.com

"Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Finding What You Want » Click on the footnote numbers for meticulous documentation of each fact. Introductory Notes This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys,[1] but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.[2] Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results. Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility. Ownership * As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people.[5] * Based on production data from firearm manufacturers,[6] there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.[7] * Based upon surveys, the following are estimates of private firearm ownership in the U.S. as of 2010:  Households With a Gun  Adults Owning a Gun  Adults Owning a Handgun Percentage  40-45%  30-34%  17-19% Number  47-53 million  70-80 million  40-45 million [8] * A 2005 nationwide Gallup poll of 1,012 adults found the following levels of firearm ownership: Category  Percentage Owning a Firearm Households  42% Individuals  30% Male  47% Female  13% White  33% Nonwhite  18% Republican  41% Independent  27% Democrat  23% [9] * In the same poll, gun owners stated they own firearms for the following reasons: Protection Against Crime  67% Target Shooting  66% Hunting  41% [10] Crime and Self-Defense * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12] * Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16] * Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18] * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19] * A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20] * A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21] • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22] * Click here to see why the following commonly cited statistic does not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility: "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost 3 times more likely to occur than in homes without guns."