Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sean

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

Does government violence (police and military) contribute to the overall violence?

 

I don't think so. We hire them to protect us from the people who initiate violence, but by hiring someone to do a job, I don't give up the right to do it myself. People who initiate violence contribute to violence, and no one else. Defense stops it.

 

It seems to me that American attitudes on this haven't changed all that much since the 1980s, and to the extent they have, more would agree with my view than yours. During that time, perhaps coincidentally, our crime rates, including violent crime, have gone down.

 

So even if you're right that people who are trying to stop violence are causing violence, the problem is abating.

 

The bolded shows how insidious the "self defense" mentality is.

Because defense does not automatically mean armed defense.

And armed defense does not mean defense with AW's.

Tact and diplomacy are powerful self-defenses, at least for certain types.

 

 

It's all the same in Highland Park, where an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon and thus subject to confiscation.

 

Sorry again for the use of the "c" word and the resulting paranoia, just quoting the law again.

 

Excuse me, Tom. Please, no sideways jumps, no histrionics.

This is a good moment for you to stay on track.

Care to address it?

 

The subtle evolution in play is the same reason one shall not use MLK as a go-to guy for shall issue, BTW.

 

But armed defense with an Airsoft gun IS armed defense with an AW up there. And subject to the usual gungrabby solution: confiscation.

 

Why did you bring up armed defense with AW's if you don't want to discuss them? Do you agree with the classification of Airsoft guns as "assault weapons" and the resulting confiscation, or is there actually a gun control law that goes too far into the silly realm even for your tastes?

 

I never said armed self defense is the only alternative, any more than I said that one should shoot at the first legal opportunity. The voices in your head are not mine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jocal can identify the subtle & insidious nature of self defense mentality - he picked it within Tom's post

 

 

 

All I said was that people defending themselves against violence are trying to stop violence. Not sure what's so insidious about that.

 

Is it insidious if a uniform and badge are involved? You never did answer my question about government violence.

 

Let's talk some more about our own V Green. If he is off duty and out of uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? If he is on duty and in uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? I'd say no to both questions, but somehow personal defense seems different to you if it involves a government employee. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Jocal can identify the subtle & insidious nature of self defense mentality - he picked it within Tom's post

 

 

All I said was that people defending themselves against violence are trying to stop violence. Not sure what's so insidious about that.

 

Is it insidious if a uniform and badge are involved? You never did answer my question about government violence.

 

Let's talk some more about our own V Green. If he is off duty and out of uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? If he is on duty and in uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? I'd say no to both questions, but somehow personal defense seems different to you if it involves a government employee. Why?

Expect a question as a reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to make that comparison, make it, but since we seem to agree that a CWP is probably a mark of a non-violent person, why bother?

 

Your lecture is funny coming from the king of apples vs unicorns.

 

I'm not sure if CWP holders are any more nonviolent of anyone else of similar social class and means, in fact, I suspect that a middle class suburban CWP holder is probably a bit more violent than a comparable middle class suburban non-CWP holder, just my suspicion having known a few CWP holders, a few of them were the classic "beat up in grade-school" types.

 

Is CWP the mark of a nonviolent person? That's only a meaningful question when compared to people like them, not to everyone.

 

The thing about that "similarity" is that guns are used in armed robberies and in self defense without being fired every day, but no one has ever been shot by a gun that was not fired. Because you have to fire it to be shot. Similarly? I don't think so. Apples vs orangutans is inaccurate because orangutans actually exist.

 

Apples vs unicorns

 

Now you're debating something I didn't really mention. My complaint about these bizarre DGU stats is when they are used to write-off the negligent shootings and domestic shootings of people who have them in their homes. Looking at the FBI stats, it seems that the chance of a stranger coming into your suburban home to hurt you is so small that the chances of that gun being used negligently are a much higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My complaint about these bizarre DGU stats is when they are used to write-off the negligent shootings and domestic shootings of people who have them in their homes. Looking at the FBI stats, it seems that the chance of a stranger coming into your suburban home to hurt you is so small that the chances of that gun being used negligently are a much higher.

 

Again with the home thing..... self-defense happens outside the home too. Talk about willfully disingenuous.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All right mikey - let's knock off this petty pissing and moaning about studies. This thread is about the use of guns for self-defense purposes. Not about poverty class criminals.

 

If you don't want it to be about poverty-class criminals, then why would you use poverty-class criminals to make CWP holders look less violent in comparison?

 

 

This thread started as a statement that self defense is a myth and furthermore than guns in citizens hands who use them for self defense are more dangerous than those who don't have guns. Regardless of who tom's study compares to - the fact remains that those who go through the effort of obtaining a CCW permit commit crimes at extremely low rates. Common sense says that they are a safe group to be entrusted to have guns. So the rate of DGUs it whether DGUs even happen or not is irrelevant. Guns are safe in those peoples hands whether they use them for one of the core 2A purposes or not. So to me this thread is a total straw man in itself. It's not a zero sum game. So knock off your stupid bickering for once.

 

Without an actual study of comparable groups, what you wrote up there in the bold is your opinion only. And that's fine, but be clear, it's your opinion only. It may be right, it may be wrong, and until it is verified one way or another, it's an opinion. The "low rates" with which CWP holders commit crimes may actually be higher than people of their same social class and geographic area. All that we seem to have established is that CWP holders are less likely to commit crimes than the mass of Americans which includes people like them and also people very much unlike them. That's not your opinion, that's fact, and it's about as meaningful as saying that rich people who golf are less likely to DUI than the average American. Okay, but are rich people who golf less likely to DUI than rich people who don't golf? That's the meaningful question.

 

 

DGUs happen. I don't care if it's 1 or 1 million per year. If one life is saved that otherwise would not be then it's worth it. To me the straw man of both criminals using guns to commit crimes or suicidal people offing themselves don't belong in this conversation. People intent on murder or suicide will find others ways to do both. Accidental gun deaths, IMHO, are the only ones that should enter the conversation regarding whether keeping a gun for self defense is worth the potential for an accidenta death. By anyone's measure of DGU even gun opponents, would have an extremely hard time saying that There are less than 600 DGUs per year. Which is roughly the accidental death rate by gun. So yes, the defensive uses of guns are NOT a myth. They are a useful tool if people choose to use them. On balance, in the hands of able abiding citizen - they bring more good than bad. Are there risks or people who will abuse the right. Yes, but it's still worth it. Case closed.

 

Case closed? And if you're wrong? When I looked at the FBI stats, it was fairly clear to me that the chance of a gun being used in domestic violence and negligent shooting was considerably higher than the chance of it being used in a defensive manner for people who live middle class lives in suburbia and who don't associate with criminals. Yeah, someone who lives in the poverty class in the inner city, if they want to better their odds, might want to keep a gun around, because in that setting the DGU may tilt in their favor. But for people like you and I? Nope.

 

Case definitely not closed, but it's amusing to see how you're so eager to wrap everything up even without actual functional consideration.

 

If what you wrote in bold above really is your criteria for having a gun, then you should probably find a better criteria (like you might be a 2nd Amm activist, or you might collect them because you like them, or you might enjoy shooting.) Because, again, it seems that for people like most of us on this thread, that our families would be more safe without the gun in the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My complaint about these bizarre DGU stats is when they are used to write-off the negligent shootings and domestic shootings of people who have them in their homes. Looking at the FBI stats, it seems that the chance of a stranger coming into your suburban home to hurt you is so small that the chances of that gun being used negligently are a much higher.

 

Again with the home thing..... self-defense happens outside the home too. Talk about willfully disingenuous.....

 

 

That's fine, but I don't have functional FBI stats for what happens outside of the home, so I can't functionally debate that with you, and it doesn't interest me if I don't have facts to support that opinion, because opinion is death in these gun threads, opinion burns through time like a blowtorch through butter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see.

 

hey joe - two simple Yes/No questions for you.....

 

Has the number of guns in circulation gone up? Yes or no?

 

Has the crime rate dropped? Yes or no?

 

If you can answer YES to both, which all the stats tell us is true - then it is true that more guns = less crime. No one is remotely suggesting they are causal, least of all the studies you hate so much.

 

And if you don't like the notion that more guns = less crime, then you can certainly agree that more guns =/= more crime. The stats on THAT are very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem to work in Chicago or DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It doesn't seem to work in Chicago or DC

Have they tried it?

 

Sure, they banned guns and have a low gun ownership rate but a high crime rate.

 

You're still stuck on the idea that a low gun ownership rate causes a low crime rate, but the facts here don't show it. Whether we examine states or demographic groups, there's no correlation. We have states with low gun ownership rates and high crime and states with high gun ownership rates and low crime. The reverse of both statements is also true. It's quite possible to have low gun ownership rates and low crime rates like in Hawaii and Rhode Island. It's also possible to have high gun ownership rates and high crime rates, even without the complicating factors of big cities, as in Alaska.

 

Strict gun control laws and low gun ownership rates just don't correlate with low violent crime and murder rates. It's often repeated the correlation is not causation, but a complete lack of correlation is a pretty good indicator of lack of causation.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want to make that comparison, make it, but since we seem to agree that a CWP is probably a mark of a non-violent person, why bother?

 

Your lecture is funny coming from the king of apples vs unicorns.

 

I'm not sure if CWP holders are any more nonviolent of anyone else of similar social class and means, in fact, I suspect that a middle class suburban CWP holder is probably a bit more violent than a comparable middle class suburban non-CWP holder, just my suspicion having known a few CWP holders, a few of them were the classic "beat up in grade-school" types.

 

Is CWP the mark of a nonviolent person? That's only a meaningful question when compared to people like them, not to everyone.

 

 

 

 

What makes you so sure that CWP holders are middle class and suburban? There are over a million of us in Florida. I know at least a couple who don't meet your expectations when it comes to social class nor your opinion that we are "beat up in grade school types." And I don't know that many people!

 

I reject the idea that we are so unlike everyone else that we need to be compared only to a select group of middle class people who were beat up in grade school. We're just people, like everyone else.

 

Since the best evidence we can garner is your suspicions, do you suspect more concealed weapons permit holders are white or black? If we start down that road, pretty soon random will tell us we're headed to Apartheid, but we need to know if we are to find comparable people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect a question as a reply.

 

Chin up JBSF, I've played the answers game & I didn't whine about it

 

 

 

 

Jocal can identify the subtle & insidious nature of self defense mentality - he picked it within Tom's post

 

 

 

All I said was that people defending themselves against violence are trying to stop violence. Not sure what's so insidious about that.

 

Is it insidious if a uniform and badge are involved? You never did answer my question about government violence.

 

Let's talk some more about our own V Green. If he is off duty and out of uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? If he is on duty and in uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? I'd say no to both questions, but somehow personal defense seems different to you if it involves a government employee. Why?

 

In response to violence, you said "Defense stops it" & this is the important part...

 

I don't see much relevance in your V Green fella to my theory. I'm not talking about the physical act of defending oneself or uniforms, soldiers or police, what I'm referring to is the attitude that is constructed around self defense. It a carefully crafted message that sits prominently in the minds of average American. The perception of danger is cultivated through fear....the perception of danger drives sales & an assertive 'I'll get 'em before they get me' attitude to self defense

 

A recent study indicates average America doesn't recognise the decreasing crime rates & self defense also rates a mention

 

So who has the most to gain out of the self defense/fear culture? could the manufacturers of weapons, security systems et al benefit? do the gun ownership stats correlate? (rhetorical questions JBSF, stop frothing at the mouth)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

All I said was that people defending themselves against violence are trying to stop violence. Not sure what's so insidious about that.

 

Is it insidious if a uniform and badge are involved? You never did answer my question about government violence.

 

Let's talk some more about our own V Green. If he is off duty and out of uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? If he is on duty and in uniform and defends himself, does that contribute to violence? I'd say no to both questions, but somehow personal defense seems different to you if it involves a government employee. Why?

 

In response to violence, you said "Defense stops it" & this is the important part...

 

I don't see much relevance in your V Green fella to my theory. I'm not talking about the physical act of defending oneself or uniforms, soldiers or police...

 

I was talking about the physical act of defending oneself. It stops violence, at least when successful. When I asked about government violence, you said, "The context is personal self defense."

 

Were you talking about the physical act of defending oneself when you talked about personal self defense? If not, what were you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions are out remember Tom!

 

I'm simply talking about the attitude, the thinking, the rationalisation if you will - of self defense. Its at an individual, personal level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions are out remember Tom!

 

I'm simply talking about the attitude, the thinking, the rationalisation if you will - of self defense. Its at an individual, personal level

 

The rationale for the physical act of defending oneself (aka personal self defense) is that unprovoked violence is bad and sometimes the only way to stop it is physical and violent. I'm still not sure why personal self defense by government employees is outside the context of personal self defense. Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... It's often repeated the correlation is not causation, but a complete lack of correlation is a pretty good indicator of lack of causation.

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

How many million times have you pasted that Tom ... yawn.

 

Slightly fewer than the number of times people like you have asserted a correlation and causation where neither can be observed.

 

And I plan to keep doing it most times I see that fallacy, or at least until someone can explain to me why the lack of correlation between gun ownership rates and violent crimes shows causation.

 

You could be a hero by offering that explanation. You'll finally make the image stop appearing! Go for it!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cite where it came from. Then perhaps you could supply the same view for gun homicides.

 

Brady? Violent Crime? Murder? Got definitions?

 

I created it.

 

I did it by looking at the Handgun Control Inc Brady Center website to see how they ranked state gun control laws, looking at the Census Bureau stats for murder and violent crime rates, and I've forgotten where I got the gun ownership rates by state. Feel free to ignore that column if you don't believe I got it from a good source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing looks designed to confuse, even if that was not the intent. No definitions available for the columns you have used, that's not good Tom.

 

I am concerned that the Murder Rate and Violent Crime figures could include all methods of murder and crime, that would not make sense.

 

Looks to me like you are posting statistics with poor foundation. Something you have cobbled together.

 

P,S. And Ignore the gun ownership rates? Isn't that what this is all about?

 

I gave you the sources. Look up their definitions. If you want to include gun ownership rates, you could always do what I did and research them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like you are posting a 'Tom fabrication' that you are unable to defend.

 

SO, we are comparing Gun Ownership Rates that cannot be verified (and can be ignored)

WITH columns that we have no definition for.

 

Most likely Murder includes strangulation, knife attacks and other non gun homicides?

 

So after posting this here and probably elsewhere, untold million times, you are unable to verify the information? Tom this is disgraceful.

 

No, just didn't feel like looking it up again.

 

Didn't know you were unable to research things for yourself. For those of us with access to search engines and the willingness to use them, gun ownership rate stats can be verified.

 

If you're so helpless that you can't look up the definitions used by US Census and the Brady Center, I really can't help you and you will be left with only speculation as to what is included. That doesn't mean we are all unable to find those definitions and left with only speculation.

 

I'm able to run another search and click a couple of links that come up as previously visited. Are you able to click on them, or am I going to have to spoon feed you with screen shots or something?

 

http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You post it, but it is clear that it is a fabrication of yours that has no basis in fact. After conceding that, all you can do is to tell me to look it up myself?

 

All I am left with is my original opinion that more guns = more deaths.

 

 

Sigh. Spoon-feeding it is. From the first link above:

 

high-gun-ownership-states.jpg

 

low-gun-ownership-states.jpg

 

Looks like they've updated and some percentages are a bit different from when I copied them, but the order appears to be the same.

 

Remarkable that I was able to make up a list that so closely matches one I can source with minimal research, huh? What are the odds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no relationship between 'death by guns' and 'rates of gun ownership', the relationship you claimed the image you posted was about.

 

I never made that claim. If you think I did, quote the post. If you don't know how to search out such things, I'll teach you. But we'll have to search for something that can be found.

 

How do you think I was able to make up a list that so closely matches the sourced one? That would be a pretty neat trick, beyond anything I know how to do, yet you assume I can do it.

 

I wonder how you think I did that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure, they banned guns and have a low gun ownership rate but a high crime rate.

 

You're still stuck on the idea that a low gun ownership rate causes a low crime rate, but the facts here don't show it.

 

 

 

Still no relationship between 'death by guns' and 'rates of gun ownership', the relationship you claimed the image you posted was about.

 

Tom Said: I never made that claim. If you think I did, quote the post.

 

Really Tom? See big text above.

 

Your figures are worthless, you have no valid argument. You have been posting rubbish that no one has looked at closely.

 

 

The post you quoted is not one in which I make any claim about "death by guns." Not in the big text nor any other.

 

Even if my figures are worthless and made up as you claim, I still want to know how you think I could make up figures that so closely match the ones I sourced and then spoon-fed to you.

 

That would be a really neat trick, getting the order of all twenty states right and the percentages so darn close, just by making stuff up off the top of my head. Seems impossible to me. Since you think it's not only possible but the most likely explanation, I want to know how you think I did it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, 'relationship means of any fit. Your attempt to show that there is no relationship requires a valid attempt to find one. Your repeated post is not credible for any purpose.

 

You can keep claiming that I was trying to show a relationship or "any fit" to death by guns if you want, but what you can't do is quote a source for that claim. Because I never made it.

 

 

If you want just murders by firearm, here are some good stats posted by jocal.

 

Wow, Tom deferring to Jocal? WTF!

 

I have a confession to make. I don't want the figures. I want you to realize that your prized paste is in statistical terms is worthless.

 

You didn't follow the link, did you? Why am I not surprised?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your attempt to show that there is no relationship between rates of violence, murder and gun ownership is not credible and you are unable to defend what you posted.

 

You have no definitions for the columns and appear to be relating Murder and Violence generally to guns. That's not valid but deceptive and misleading.

 

OK, I will stop trying to get you to look at my sources for the definitions you seek, but I'm still curious about that list of gun ownership rates that you believe I made up.

 

Why won't you tell me how I could make up a list that so closely matches the sourced one? That seems like a really neat trick. Impossible, in fact. How could I do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

If you want to make that comparison, make it, but since we seem to agree that a CWP is probably a mark of a non-violent person, why bother?

 

Your lecture is funny coming from the king of apples vs unicorns.

I'm not sure if CWP holders are any more nonviolent of anyone else of similar social class and means, in fact, I suspect that a middle class suburban CWP holder is probably a bit more violent than a comparable middle class suburban non-CWP holder, just my suspicion having known a few CWP holders, a few of them were the classic "beat up in grade-school" types.

 

Is CWP the mark of a nonviolent person? That's only a meaningful question when compared to people like them, not to everyone.

 

 

What makes you so sure that CWP holders are middle class and suburban? There are over a million of us in Florida. I know at least a couple who don't meet your expectations when it comes to social class nor your opinion that we are "beat up in grade school types." And I don't know that many people!

 

I reject the idea that we are so unlike everyone else that we need to be compared only to a select group of middle class people who were beat up in grade school. We're just people, like everyone else.

 

Since the best evidence we can garner is your suspicions, do you suspect more concealed weapons permit holders are white or black? If we start down that road, pretty soon random will tell us we're headed to Apartheid, but we need to know if we are to find comparable people.

Normy, please re-read, I wrote that A suburban middle class CWP owner needs to be compared to other suburban middle class non CWP holders, NOT the entire mass of humanity, or at least the ones just living in the USA. Doing the former has value, doing the latter is deceptive.

 

I didn't make any claim as to the average CWP holder, you misread. But, at a typical few hundred bucks for class, fees, and submission to background check, it's reasonable to see that broke people and criminals aren't probably going to be a typical CWP holder.

 

Why does it matter? Because statistical honesty is still important, and if someone is going to use statistics to support their political views, then their statistics should be correct.

 

I keep guns because I want to, and that desire doesn't require that I lie with statistics. I keep my guns in safety, without ammo, and locked away, because truthful statistics mean something to me.

 

As to the last part of your post, I don't support CWP at all, I find it corrosive to what my understanding of the 2nd supports. If you want to carry a gun, carry it openly and notoriously. If you don't feel comfortable to carry it openly, then maybe you shouldn't carry it at all. Sure, your Publius thing is adorable, but I am quite sure that there would no longer be a functional First Amendment if we had 200-some years of opinions being expressed largely anonymously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd_amend.jpg

 

Golf clap. So we'll assume that:

A. None of those deaths in the right column would have happened without guns

B. None of those deaths are accidents (unless we're going to start claiming that deadly accidents are a good reason for making something illegal, in which case I support banning bicycles, pools, and automobiles)

C. We have a tyrant in our country that needs to be overthrown that wasn't

 

I'm probably overanalyzing a silly political cartoon, but the fact is that someone's using it to make a point when the cartoon itself is inherently point-less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to make that comparison, make it, but since we seem to agree that a CWP is probably a mark of a non-violent person, why bother?

 

Your lecture is funny coming from the king of apples vs unicorns.

I'm not sure if CWP holders are any more nonviolent of anyone else of similar social class and means, in fact, I suspect that a middle class suburban CWP holder is probably a bit more violent than a comparable middle class suburban non-CWP holder, just my suspicion having known a few CWP holders, a few of them were the classic "beat up in grade-school" types.

 

Is CWP the mark of a nonviolent person? That's only a meaningful question when compared to people like them, not to everyone.

 

 

What makes you so sure that CWP holders are middle class and suburban? There are over a million of us in Florida. I know at least a couple who don't meet your expectations when it comes to social class nor your opinion that we are "beat up in grade school types." And I don't know that many people!

 

I reject the idea that we are so unlike everyone else that we need to be compared only to a select group of middle class people who were beat up in grade school. We're just people, like everyone else.

 

Since the best evidence we can garner is your suspicions, do you suspect more concealed weapons permit holders are white or black? If we start down that road, pretty soon random will tell us we're headed to Apartheid, but we need to know if we are to find comparable people.

Normy, please re-read, I wrote that A suburban middle class CWP owner needs to be compared to other suburban middle class non CWP holders, NOT the entire mass of humanity, or at least the ones just living in the USA. Doing the former has value, doing the latter is deceptive.

 

I didn't make any claim as to the average CWP holder, you misread. But, at a typical few hundred bucks for class, fees, and submission to background check, it's reasonable to see that broke people and criminals aren't probably going to be a typical CWP holder.

 

Why does it matter? Because statistical honesty is still important, and if someone is going to use statistics to support their political views, then their statistics should be correct.

 

I keep guns because I want to, and that desire doesn't require that I lie with statistics. I keep my guns in safety, without ammo, and locked away, because truthful statistics mean something to me.

 

As to the last part of your post, I don't support CWP at all, I find it corrosive to what my understanding of the 2nd supports. If you want to carry a gun, carry it openly and notoriously. If you don't feel comfortable to carry it openly, then maybe you shouldn't carry it at all. Sure, your Publius thing is adorable, but I am quite sure that there would no longer be a functional First Amendment if we had 200-some years of opinions being expressed largely anonymously.

 

Those fees are not typical. It's much cheaper and easier in Florida than in a place like DC. I don't think it's necessary to compare FL CWP holders to only suburban, middle-class people since I see no evidence the million + permits are held exclusively by that group. I've seen evidence in my own life that the permits are NOT held exclusively by suburban, middle-class people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2nd_amend.jpg

 

Golf clap. So we'll assume that:

A. None of those deaths in the right column would have happened without guns

B. None of those deaths are accidents (unless we're going to start claiming that deadly accidents are a good reason for making something illegal, in which case I support banning bicycles, pools, and automobiles)

C. We have a tyrant in our country that needs to be overthrown that wasn't

 

I'm probably overanalyzing a silly political cartoon, but the fact is that someone's using it to make a point when the cartoon itself is inherently point-less.

 

I'd add that the fact that no tyrants have been overthrown in the US does not mean it will never happen.

 

I know from personal experience that natural disasters can create a temporary situation in which the government can't provide security. I also know that those disasters can get a lot worse than any I've experienced.

 

Discarding our right to keep and bear arms involves assuming no tyrant will ever rise in the US, our government will always be acceptable to the people, and natural disasters will not temporarily or permanently disable our government as we know it. I'm not willing to make any of those assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to violence, you said "Defense stops it" & this is the important part...

 

I don't see much relevance in your V Green fella to my theory. I'm not talking about the physical act of defending oneself or uniforms, soldiers or police, what I'm referring to is the attitude that is constructed around self defense. It a carefully crafted message that sits prominently in the minds of average American. The perception of danger is cultivated through fear....the perception of danger drives sales & an assertive 'I'll get 'em before they get me' attitude to self defense

 

A recent study indicates average America doesn't recognise the decreasing crime rates & self defense also rates a mention

 

So who has the most to gain out of the self defense/fear culture? could the manufacturers of weapons, security systems et al benefit? do the gun ownership stats correlate? (rhetorical questions JBSF, stop frothing at the mouth)

 

Gun companies and security companies may benefit some from the media pushing a narrative of escalating violence, but the folks who benefit most are the media companies and the govt. The media companies because it keeps people watching 24/7, and the govt because it encourages people to cede more and more of our liberty to the govt in a vain attempt to stop a fictional crisis. The escalating violence narrative is as much a threat to the gun industry as it is a boon to it. More often than not, the fiction of a violence epidemic is used to push for restrictions on gun ownership. The gun control agenda has been very successful in places like CA, NJ, and NY. Those are huge markets which they can not sell a great deal of their products because of the fictionalized narrative of a violence epidemic. Guns are marketed now as much for competition and hunting as for defense. In the absence of a narrative of a violence epidemic, they would simply market more to those areas and less to the defense market. I would bet their margins are far greater on the target shooting market with high end modern guns, than the self defense market where the gun is simply a tool to stop a bad guy. If I were Ruger or S&W, I would gladly trade some of my small self defense revolvers in CA if I could instead sell all my high end competition rifles and pistols which are currently banned there. Same for NY, NJ, or MA.

 

The gun companies are simply responding to the environment and leveraging it to turn a profit, just like any other business. They are not the ones manufacturing the crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions are out remember Tom!

 

I'm simply talking about the attitude, the thinking, the rationalisation if you will - of self defense. Its at an individual, personal level

 

PBO - Please read and reply to my post - here: http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&page=4#entry4823959

 

I'm interested in your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Frankly I'm surprised you weren't able to comprehend my theory until #290 but maybe I credited you with too much ability?

 

I don't have time for a full response now but tell me how, in your words, the US has a violence problem. You've posted this opinion many, many times & therefore I'm assuming it won't take much time

 

 

I am not JBSF, but can offer my opinion. The violence problem in the US, to the extent we have one, is primarily the result of our misguided war on drugs.

 

I'd add to this the result of several generations of an economically disadvantaged portion of our society being taught by parents that are kids themselves that their plight is someone else's fault, and that it's OK to do whatever they have to do to "get theirs". There is a portion of society that has no respect for themselves, or for anyone else, that haven't been taught how to behave properly. That portion of society wants stuff too, and has been conditioned that the only way to get what they want is to take it from someone else.

 

There are multiple factors that contribute to this problem, economic despair, societal conditioning, popular culture that glamorizes thuggish behavior, media that accentuates the hardships that perpetrators of violence have endured moreso than the damage those violent perpetrators inflicted upon their victims, shoot, brudda - it'd take us a year and an encyclopedia's worth of writing to even begin to capture it all.

 

To your point: If knowing that the person you intend to take something from may respond forcefully to this attempt, thus, you prepare for that taking by planning to inflict violence on your intended victim, then I could see the basis for your perspective. If your perspective is based upon anything other than this idea, than I don't.

 

As many others have said, recognizing that there are potential hazards and preparing for those hazards doesn't mean that you want to see those hazards realized. I ride motorcycles, and dress for the crash, not the ride. I sure as hell HATE crashing - especially getting older and healing more slowly. That doesn't mean I'm going to start riding without boots, gloves and a helmet because I like how the breeze feels on a summer evening.

 

The economically disadvantaged are more prone to what you've described. You only need look at incarceration statistics

 

I can see the point you make but my perspective isn't about an arms race of sorts - which is kind of what you're saying. The would be criminal increasing their potential for violence in anticipation of violent self defense...it probably does happen, everyone naturally looks for an advantage

 

My perspective is centered around the conditioned mindset. The example of a kid playing violent video games indirectly makes the US more violent has general acceptance & it would appear logical that some violent conditioning takes place because of the game fundamentals. It's not a stretch to imagine that the kid who's so caught up in the artificial game world may adopt the winning strategies from the game to their life & employ violence as a solution. If we use the same kid & expose them to a perspective that thinks self defense should be assertive, unassisted & with a potential for a violent response greater than the threat, what effect does it have on that kid? I believe it does influence the kid toward violence as a solution. In contrast if the kid is mentally conditioned to think that self defense isn't a significant requirement, that even in the event requires different skills & non violent solutions that may involve third parties, then I see that influences the kid to make less violent responses. Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Frankly I'm surprised you weren't able to comprehend my theory until #290 but maybe I credited you with too much ability?

 

I don't have time for a full response now but tell me how, in your words, the US has a violence problem. You've posted this opinion many, many times & therefore I'm assuming it won't take much time

 

 

I am not JBSF, but can offer my opinion. The violence problem in the US, to the extent we have one, is primarily the result of our misguided war on drugs.

 

I'd add to this the result of several generations of an economically disadvantaged portion of our society being taught by parents that are kids themselves that their plight is someone else's fault, and that it's OK to do whatever they have to do to "get theirs". There is a portion of society that has no respect for themselves, or for anyone else, that haven't been taught how to behave properly. That portion of society wants stuff too, and has been conditioned that the only way to get what they want is to take it from someone else.

 

There are multiple factors that contribute to this problem, economic despair, societal conditioning, popular culture that glamorizes thuggish behavior, media that accentuates the hardships that perpetrators of violence have endured moreso than the damage those violent perpetrators inflicted upon their victims, shoot, brudda - it'd take us a year and an encyclopedia's worth of writing to even begin to capture it all.

 

To your point: If knowing that the person you intend to take something from may respond forcefully to this attempt, thus, you prepare for that taking by planning to inflict violence on your intended victim, then I could see the basis for your perspective. If your perspective is based upon anything other than this idea, than I don't.

 

As many others have said, recognizing that there are potential hazards and preparing for those hazards doesn't mean that you want to see those hazards realized. I ride motorcycles, and dress for the crash, not the ride. I sure as hell HATE crashing - especially getting older and healing more slowly. That doesn't mean I'm going to start riding without boots, gloves and a helmet because I like how the breeze feels on a summer evening.

 

The economically disadvantaged are more prone to what you've described. You only need look at incarceration statistics

 

I can see the point you make but my perspective isn't about an arms race of sorts - which is kind of what you're saying. The would be criminal increasing their potential for violence in anticipation of violent self defense...it probably does happen, everyone naturally looks for an advantage

 

My perspective is centered around the conditioned mindset. The example of a kid playing violent video games indirectly makes the US more violent has general acceptance & it would appear logical that some violent conditioning takes place because of the game fundamentals. It's not a stretch to imagine that the kid who's so caught up in the artificial game world may adopt the winning strategies from the game to their life & employ violence as a solution. If we use the same kid & expose them to a perspective that thinks self defense should be assertive, unassisted & with a potential for a violent response greater than the threat, what effect does it have on that kid? I believe it does influence the kid toward violence as a solution. In contrast if the kid is mentally conditioned to think that self defense isn't a significant requirement, that even in the event requires different skills & non violent solutions that may involve third parties, then I see that influences the kid to make less violent responses. Make sense?

 

It does - and I think that Jeffie's generally in agreement with this perspective. Where I'd suggest that our perspectives diverge is in the idea that those folks who've considered defense are somehow contributing to that conditioning. Going back to my motorcycling analogy (No shit, Crashing SUCKS!), being prepared for a crash doesn't contribute to crashing, riding the motorcycle does. You could argue that if we didn't ride motorcycles, we wouldn't have to worry about crashing, and you'd be quite correct.

 

We don't, however, have the ability to insulate ourselves from that portion of society who's decided that the rules don't apply to them. I don't see that acknowledging that people with that attitude exist, and that they live where we live, is as large a causal factor as I think you're suggesting it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Questions are out remember Tom!

I'm simply talking about the attitude, the thinking, the rationalisation if you will - of self defense. Its at an individual, personal level

The rationale for the physical act of defending oneself (aka personal self defense) is that unprovoked violence is bad and sometimes the only way to stop it is physical and violent. I'm still not sure why personal self defense by government employees is outside the context of personal self defense. Please explain.

I'm not making any delineation based on employment. Each person walks around not making fundamental decisions based on employer but based on their accumulated life skills which start developing at a very young age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you want just murders by firearm, here are some good stats posted by jocal.

 

Wow, Tom deferring to Jocal? WTF!

 

I have a confession to make. I don't want the figures. I want you to realize that your prized paste is in statistical terms is worthless.

 

To whom it may concern. This link does not go to stats posted by me. It goes to an allegation by Tom of cherry-picking by myself wrt 1999 FL.

??????

I was not even a participant of the conversation linked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good job, Random. GunlobbyspokesmanTomRay_zps58dda322.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you want just murders by firearm, here are some good stats posted by jocal.

Wow, Tom deferring to Jocal? WTF!

 

I have a confession to make. I don't want the figures. I want you to realize that your prized paste is in statistical terms is worthless.

 

To whom it may concern. This link does not go to stats posted by me. It goes to an allegation by Tom of cherry-picking by myself wrt 1999 FL.

 

People who follow the link will see that you posted this, jocal. Stats posted by you. I quote, I don't wrongly characterize what others have said like you do.

 

 

 

murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

 

 

It also contains my response, in which I note that 1999 is an outlier and measuring from that point is just cherry picking. The fact that it refutes your cherry picked stats does not mean you did not post them. You did, and I linked to it.

 

Now, you wanna go explain exactly when you think Billy's Magazine should be confiscated? You've said you support CT law, under which it will be confiscated when he dies, but you've also expressed support for the Governor's panel. They want to go ahead and confiscate it now. Your continued expressions of regret that mean looking guns are still around after the 1994 mean looking weapons ban was "gutted" by adding grandfather provisions like the one Billy took advantage of further suggest you are on board that panel's official suggestion to confiscate now.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see.

 

hey joe - two simple Yes/No questions for you.....

 

Has the number of guns in circulation gone up? Yes or no?

 

Has the crime rate dropped? Yes or no?

 

If you can answer YES to both, which all the stats tell us is true - then it is true that more guns = less crime. No one is remotely suggesting they are causal, least of all the studies you hate so much.

 

And if you don't like the notion that more guns = less crime, then you can certainly agree that more guns =/= more crime. The stats on THAT are very clear.

 

Extremely Simple Jeff.

Your version is too simple indeed.

Cuntfinder the Great may need to think his narrative out. The crime drop (less crime) was in the early nineties. The CCP increases (more guns) were in the 2000's.

 

 

Back to self defense myths, the topic of the thread...

 

Does strengthening self-defense law deter crime or escalate violence?

Evidence from castle doctrine

After Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in Florida, February 2012, a national debate began over how such a tragedy could have befallen an unarmed teenager. Beginning with Florida in 2005, 24 states enacted so-called “stand your ground” laws that widen the scope for the justified use of lethal force by citizens. In the past, self-defense laws have adhered to the principle that one has a duty to retreat from an assailant before using force. But this recent legislation, known as “castle doctrine laws” — under the theory that a home is one’s “castle,” and therefore can be defended — have relaxed this principle, allowing the use of deadly force in one’s home as well as some public spaces.

Following Zimmerman’s acquittal, the effectiveness of these laws and the outcomes produced continue to be debated, and the available research data have some insights.

A 2012 paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, “Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Castle Doctrine,” examines the effects such laws have on illegal activity and rates of lethal incidents. Researchers from Texas A&M University used FBI state-level crime data from 2000-2009 to test the effects of castle doctrine laws and compare outcomes across states.

The study’s findings include:

  • States that adopted castle doctrine laws saw a 7% to 9% increase in murder and manslaughter incidents compared to states that did not adopt such laws. This percentage increase “translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.”
  • Adoption of castle doctrine laws resulted in a 17% to 50% increase in justifiable homicides, with justifiable homicide defined by the FBI as “the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.” The authors note, however, that this result is suggestive, not conclusive.
  • Adoption of castle doctrine laws did not, on average, deter crimes including burglary, robbery and aggravated assault.

The authors note that their findings effectively negate the “possibility that castle doctrine laws cause economically meaningful deterrence effects” on general crime. Furthermore, the authors conclude that “by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it … due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise nonlethal conflicts.”

Another 2012 paper, from researchers at Georgia State University, draws similar conclusions; its findings “raise serious doubts against the argument that Stand Your Ground laws make America safer.” Some statistical analysis has also found that stand your ground laws produce unequal outcomes in trial contexts, with a finding of “justifiable homicide” more likely in the case of a white-on-black killing, according to data from the Urban Institute.

- See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/self-defense-laws-castle-doctrine-murder-rates-crime-deterrence#sthash.s1JtZUMW.dpuf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure somewhere in that shroom ravaged skull of yours that you think you're making some sort of point. Unfortunately I'm too sober right now go determine what it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does government violence (police and military) contribute to the overall violence?

 

I don't think so. We hire them to protect us from the people who initiate violence, but by hiring someone to do a job, I don't give up the right to do it myself. People who initiate violence contribute to violence, and no one else. Defense stops it.

 

It seems to me that American attitudes on this haven't changed all that much since the 1980s, and to the extent they have, more would agree with my view than yours. During that time, perhaps coincidentally, our crime rates, including violent crime, have gone down.

 

So even if you're right that people who are trying to stop violence are causing violence, the problem is abating.

 

The bolded shows how insidious the "self defense" mentality is.

Because defense does not automatically mean armed defense.

And armed defense does not mean defense with AW's.

Tact and diplomacy are powerful self-defenses, at least for certain types.

 

 

It's all the same in Highland Park, where an Airsoft gun is an assault weapon and thus subject to confiscation.

 

Sorry again for the use of the "c" word and the resulting paranoia, just quoting the law again.

 

Excuse me, Tom. Please, no sideways jumps, no histrionics.

This is a good moment for you to stay on track.

Care to address it?

 

The subtle evolution in play is the same reason one shall not use MLK as a go-to guy for shall issue, BTW.

 

But armed defense with an Airsoft gun IS armed defense with an AW up there. And subject to the usual gungrabby solution: confiscation.

 

Why did you bring up armed defense with AW's if you don't want to discuss them? Do you agree with the classification of Airsoft guns as "assault weapons" and the resulting confiscation, or is there actually a gun control law that goes too far into the silly realm even for your tastes?

 

I never said armed self defense is the only alternative, any more than I said that one should shoot at the first legal opportunity. The voices in your head are not mine.

 

 

O Badgeless Dodger, thus you jump further sideways as you attempt to de-rail this much-needed discussion a second time.

A wonderful very easy-to-take discussion of the makeup of self defense mechanisms and mentality has occurred in our midst.

Care to stay on track?

 

For my taste, your many collective assumptions of significant violence in most situations is laughable to me.

Because I served on the dark inner city streets of Chicago, SF, Detroit and Philly,

 

About 10% of homicides are concurrent with other crimes, so the danger of gun fatality is to be found in inter-relationships.

Shit goes bad in segments, there are usually warning signs. Contributors, too.

The physical violence part arrives pretty late in the game; other abuse usually preceeds it.

 

Besides tact and diplomacy, sympatico is powerful, and so is not having a short fuse.

Not being a jerk helps a lot; respect is sensed.

More powerful than those things, on those streets for me at least, was simply being unarmed.

It disarmed the other POV.

 

The point is the succession of skillsets available, up to the US choice of increasingly lethal guns for self defense.

To an outsider, the very popular allure of the gun choice mentality offers tones of The Twilight Zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you're right (which I know you're not, but I'll play your little numbers game with you for bit)...so what?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure somewhere in that shroom ravaged skull of yours that you think you're making some sort of point. Unfortunately I'm too sober right now go determine what it is...

 

Are we back to the druggie connections? Wrong again. I live on six acres of mushrooms. I haven't tried any, and am not intending to.

IMG_0904_zpsb4abf07a.jpg

 

 

 

Have a drink. That post is in English, Amigo. Why don't you read it and play it back to me.

It disputes one choirbooy's disinformation, suggested upthread, that loose gun laws have no consequence, that's all.

 

So does this one.

 

States With Background Checks Have Fewer Domestic Violence Homicides, Fewer Police Killed By Guns

01. 16. 2015

Nearly 50 Percent Fewer Police Murdered with Guns, Women Shot to Death by Intimate Partners in States with Background Checks

Everytown for Gun Safety today released updated figures from its leading research on the state-level impact of background check laws. The research, which now examines a broader dataset over a longer time period, reveals that states that require background checks on all handgun sales see fewer domestic violence and law enforcement homicides than were previously measured or reported. The analysis updates Everytown’s leading research in three key areas: domestic violence homicide, suicide, and law enforcement homicide.

In the states that require background checks for unlicensed, “private” handgun sales, which includes 14 states and Washington D.C.:

Domestic Violence: Women are 46 percent less likely to be shot to death by intimate partners than in states that do not.

Suicide: Controlling for population, there are 48 percent fewer gun suicides than in states that do not.

Law Enforcement: Law enforcement officers are 48 percent less likely to be killed with handguns than in states that do not.

“This research makes it clear that police officers and domestic violence victims are safer from gun violence in states with background checks,” said John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety. “Everytown will continue to push for sensible measures, state by state, until our country’s patchwork of gun laws has been repaired because the numbers make it clear that lives are on the line.”

More detailed information about Everytown’s research on this topic – and others – can be found at http://everytown.org/resources/.

Pasted from <http://everytown.org/press/latest-gun-violence-research-states-with-background-checks-have-fewer-domestic-violence-homicides-fewer-police-killed-by-guns/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everytown? Aren't they the group whose previous report even leftist Politifact found to be "mostly false?" That Everytown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're the Baghdad Bob of the anti-gun-nutters Cartel. ......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you're right (which I know you're not, but I'll play your little numbers game with you for bit)...so what?.....

 

 

Thank you for asking. Rick, we had this conversation mid-2012. You called me a liar over it. I moved on.

 

 

The point is huge. Fear of armed criminals may be over-hyped. We all appreciate you but you may be a cover boy for acceptance of that fear-the-criminal hype.(No random criminal killed your housemates, for example. )

#262

R Booze

Anarchist

  • Members
  • 40,362 posts
  • Location:43 miles from both Mexicos.....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 17 September 2014 - 02:08 PM

Here's where all your shit goes right out the window---and that if the 'murder rate' has gone up lately, that tells me that more bad guys are getting their cumupence and being killed.

I for one see absolutely nothing wrong with that. At all....

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=159770&page=3>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The crime drop (less crime) was in the early nineties. The CCP increases (more guns) were in the 2000's.

 

 

The crime drop has been ongoing since the late 80's, early 90s, depending on which crimes we are talking about.

 

Florida instituted CWP's in 1987. I've documented the change since then previously...

 

 

 

 

 

...

To be sure, even as gun rights and ownership have expanded, most of the tragic scenarios predicted by opponents of gun rights have not played out. However, murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

...

 

Gosh, I wonder why they picked 1999 in particular for that statistic? Could there be more to the story if you look at other years?

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

They could have picked 1987, the year Florida started issuing concealed weapons permits.

 

But that would have shown a slight decrease in firearms murders and a larger decrease in handgun murders, which is not exactly useful propaganda.

 

...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

OK, I will stop trying to get you to look at my sources for the definitions you seek, but I'm still curious about that list of gun ownership rates that you believe I made up.

 

Why won't you tell me how I could make up a list that so closely matches the sourced one? That seems like a really neat trick. Impossible, in fact. How could I do that?

 

Straw man Tom. The figures in that column are meaningless without relationship to the other columns. ..

 

Fine, I'm not going to argue that one with you any more. I just wonder how you think I managed to make up these numbers:

 

brady-vs-census.jpg

 

And have them so closely match these from a source I linked:

 

high-gun-ownership-states.jpg

 

low-gun-ownership-states.jpg

 

That seems an incredible mental feat. I don't think I would ever argue with someone capable of making shit up with such uncanny accuracy, yet you think I did it. I didn't, but I wonder how you think it possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with gun arguments is that all the numbers are rubbish. There are sources who are loony-pro, and loony-against. preshus little middle ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

If you want just murders by firearm, here are some good stats posted by jocal.

Wow, Tom deferring to Jocal? WTF!

 

I have a confession to make. I don't want the figures. I want you to realize that your prized paste is in statistical terms is worthless.

 

To whom it may concern. This link does not go to stats posted by me. It goes to an allegation by Tom of cherry-picking by myself wrt 1999 FL.

 

People who follow the link will see that you posted this, jocal. Stats posted by you. I quote, I don't wrongly characterize what others have said like you do.

 

 

>

murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

 

 

 

It also contains my response, in which I note that 1999 is an outlier and measuring from that point is just cherry picking. The fact that it refutes your cherry picked stats does not mean you did not post them. You did, and I linked to it.

 

Now, you wanna go explain exactly when you think Billy's Magazine should be confiscated? You've said you support CT law, under which it will be confiscated when he dies, but you've also expressed support for the Governor's panel. They want to go ahead and confiscate it now. Your continued expressions of regret that mean looking guns are still around after the 1994 mean looking weapons ban was "gutted" by adding grandfather provisions like the one Billy took advantage of further suggest you are on board that panel's official suggestion to confiscate now.

 

 

 

 

 

Tom, be nice. The link I punched, from 2012 (when you seemed bright and knowledgable to me), go not to my study, but to your sob story that I was a propagandist, because the link quoted 1999, wooh wooh etc.

 

FFS the confiscation straw man, your loaded question/hot button recently, has been answered, directly I might add, on the Stoopid CT Law thread.

 

Badgeless Dodger, this is very very Badgeless Boy-like. Bad doggie.

 

Why are you hopping around avoiding examining the nuances and levels of self defense, which is the thread topic?

Speak up, we're interested in your grasp of this.

 

***************************************************************

 

Geez, Tom. You must be claiming now that you did not tell me that a.either the old coot had such-and-such a legalese right to shoot the burglar cousin girl's leg

or b.that you would do so personally.

Is that your position? Are you now saying you were not approaching that shot, and exonerating it with license, but were rejecting it with discretion? Good doggie.

If so, again, I like it, but it changed IIRC. Sorry for quoting your old values, I intended no mis-truth. Now contribute to socially positive self defense reality, okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with gun arguments is that all the numbers are rubbish. There are sources who are loony-pro, and loony-against. preshus little middle ground.

 

This is my favorite choirboy song,

IMO this is best sung by Len P to Tom, then the both of them with a rousing duet.

Then followed by chanting "Crooked Science, Crooked science"

Get real. The "looney observations" fail muster right around the time of peer review.

Willing researchers can respond, and correct and absorb valid observations within days, and often do so cheerfully.

You should read a bunch of studies, and make an informed opinion of who makes sense, and get back to us.

Now on the anti side, a generation of researchers is gone, and a new generation is coming in. In other words, if cooking science is really the game here, the playing field is level for the SAF to produce their own epidemiologists, teach them to spin numbers, and just cook away. That won't happen as easily with peer-reviewed science as it did with the non-peer-reviewed history "scholarship" done over six years by Robert Levy for Heller.

Given the variety of private researchers I have read personally, the numbers will support Hemenway, Kellerman et al.

Quality research suggestions?

--Garen Wintemute openly criticized a solid study for some interesting reasons last year. He's a rich doctor, a fearless guy out of UC Davis (who became fascinated with gun shows the way I am fascinated by the Gun Club Choir).

--Kellerman, whom Tom bashes with great hubris, seemed to be the most quoted individual in the IOM/CDC product, in two categories (one of them medicine) which TR evidently did not read.

--David Hemenway stayed with this research field thru the duration of the research blockage, and forms ALL his study conclusions to be congruent with the second amendment. He landed at Harvard, the real deal.

--Mother Jones is sourced enough to be quoted by higher courts. None of their numbers support gun management laxity, based on evidence-based numbers, but their studied conclusions are far from advocacy.

--The Bangalore study was simply two NY doctors wondering which side was lieing in this debate.

High rates of mental illness in any country, on the other hand, did not predict more gun deaths.

"Regardless of exact cause and effect, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that countries with higher gun ownership are safer than those with low gun ownership."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study?CMP=twt_fd>

For solid articles on the current research, the OP source, the Armed with Reason scientist gun guys, are pretty sharp.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-guns-dont-kill-people-people-kill-people-myth/

All these sources just up numbers, with great care, and relate and share them. Battleship, these gun guys need to get ahead of that, IMO, not behind it...or Shannon Watt will be steering their boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to this day you completely ignore both the CDC & the FBI's reports, statistics and studies. Amazing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to this day you completely ignore both the CDC & the FBI's reports, statistics and studies. Amazing....

 

You are quite mistaken on both counts. I read both and I quote both.

 

You do yourself poorly to insist on it.

The FBI figures suggest consistently modest DGU's, as per the justifiable homicides rate. In the low 200's averaged over five recent years.

 

Justifiable homicide total, 2010: 278

  • Law enforcement reported 665 justifiable homicides in 2010. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 387 felons, and private citizens justifiably killed 278 people during the commission of a crime. (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 14 and 15.)

Pasted from <http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

People who follow the link will see that you posted this, jocal. Stats posted by you. I quote, I don't wrongly characterize what others have said like you do.

 

 

>

murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

It also contains my response, in which I note that 1999 is an outlier and measuring from that point is just cherry picking. The fact that it refutes your cherry picked stats does not mean you did not post them. You did, and I linked to it.

 

 

Tom, be nice. The link I punched, from 2012 (when you seemed bright and knowledgable to me), go not to my study, but to your sob story that I was a propagandist, because the link quoted 1999, wooh wooh etc.

 

 

 

Geez, Tom. You must be claiming now that you did not tell me that a.either the old coot had such-and-such a legalese right to shoot the burglar cousin girl's leg

or b.that you would do so personally.

Is that your position? Are you now saying you were not approaching that shot, and exonerating it with license, but were rejecting it with discretion? Good doggie.

If so, again, I like it, but it changed IIRC. Sorry for quoting your old values, I intended no mis-truth. Now contribute to socially positive self defense reality, okay?

 

 

The link to my post quoted yours, so anyone could click the link back to see your full post.

 

And yes, something about the number of murders by firearm in 1999 looks a bit unusual.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

You're making up my old values again, like the lying sack o shit you are. I'll teach you how to quote what I actually say instead of making it up if you like. I did not acknowledge your earlier apology because that was not the first time you've made up stuff you wish I said and I knew it would not be the last. Sorry to see I was right again, but my offer to teach you how to actually quote posts instead of making shit up still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to this day you completely ignore both the CDC & the FBI's reports, statistics and studies. Amazing....

 

 

 

This is Mike the Gun Guy weigning in on the thread topic. The guy makes a lot of sense to me.

New FBI Report Casts Doubt on NRA's 'Good Guy Stops Bad Guy' Nonsense

Posted: 09/29/2014 12:03 pm EDT Updated: 11/29/2014 5:59 am EST

After years of listening to Wayne LaPierre croon away about how "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," we finally have some real data to test whether this rationale for arming civilians (and selling more guns) is really true. I'm referring to a report on active shooting incidents just released by the FBI which analyzed 160 "active shootings" resulting in injuries to 1,043 victims, including 486 deaths, between 2000 and 2013.

Most of the media coverage of this report will no doubt focus on the FBI's claim that the number of incidents and victims totals of these shootings has of late been going up, with the annual number of incidents averaging 7.5 between 2000 and 2006, and jumping to an annual average of 16.3 between 2007 and 2013. The increase in casualties each year is even more dramatic, with the totals (not including the shooters) going from 247 between 2000 and 2006 up to just under 800 over the following seven years.

It should be noted, incidentally, that the FBI defines an "active shooting" as an incident during which "both law enforcement personnel and citizens[my italics] have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses." Which is exactly what Wayne-o claims his gun-toting compatriots are all about.

Here's how these incidents ended. More than half (56 percent) were terminated by the shooter who either took his or her own life, simply stopped shooting or fled the scene. Another 26 percent ended in the traditional Hollywood-like fashion with the shooter and law enforcement personnel exchanging gunfire and in nearly all of those situations the shooter ended up either wounded or dead. In 13 percent of the shooting situations, the shooter was successfully disarmed and restrained by unarmed civilians, and in 3 percent of the incidents the shooter was confronted by armed civilians, of whom four were on-duty security guards and one person was just your average "good guy" who happened to be carrying a gun.

The fact that 21 of these shooting situations were terminated by unarmed civilians as opposed to a single incident that ended because a good guy had a gun might come as a big surprise to the NRA, but for those of us who try to engage in the gun debate by issuing statements based on facts, this finding is consistent with other evidence that the pro-gun community chooses to ignore. For example, in 2005 Gary Kleck published a study funded by the Department of Justice which showed that persons who resisted assaults by running away or calling the police had a better chance of escaping injury than if they resisted the assault with a gun. This is the same Gary Kleck whose 1994 paper claiming that millions of Americans thwart crimes each year with guns is still cited by the NRA as its gospel for justifying civilian armed defense.

The FBI report not only debunks the "good guy stops the bad guy" nonsense, but also gives us some important data to judge the validity of another NRA mantra, namely, whether "bad guys" are drawn to commit shootings in gun-free zones. This bromide was all over the media after the Aurora theater shooting when it was pointed out by John Lott that the Cinemark was chosen by James Homes because it was the only theater showing the movie Batman that had a policy against allowing patrons to carry guns.

According to the FBI, of the 160 active shootings, 39 or roughly 25 percent took place in educational facilities and the shooters were overwhelmingly students who either attended or had attended the particular school. In most of these cases the connection of the shooter to the school was the motivating issue, not the fact that the schools were gun-free zones. More than two-thirds of all the active shooting incidents between 2000 and 2013 took place in locations which were not readily understood to be gun-free zones. But why let facts stand in the way of an opinion or, better yet, a good marketing scheme?

Pasted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/fbi-report-active-shooters_b_5900748.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People who follow the link will see that you posted this, jocal. Stats posted by you. I quote, I don't wrongly characterize what others have said like you do.

 

 

>

murders by firearm have increased 45 percent since 1999, despite an overall drop in violent crime, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

It also contains my response, in which I note that 1999 is an outlier and measuring from that point is just cherry picking. The fact that it refutes your cherry picked stats does not mean you did not post them. You did, and I linked to it.

 

 

Tom, be nice. The link I punched, from 2012 (when you seemed bright and knowledgable to me), go not to my study, but to your sob story that I was a propagandist, because the link quoted 1999, wooh wooh etc.

 

 

 

Geez, Tom. You must be claiming now that you did not tell me that a.either the old coot had such-and-such a legalese right to shoot the burglar cousin girl's leg

or b.that you would do so personally.

Is that your position? Are you now saying you were not approaching that shot, and exonerating it with license, but were rejecting it with discretion? Good doggie.

If so, again, I like it, but it changed IIRC. Sorry for quoting your old values, I intended no mis-truth. Now contribute to socially positive self defense reality, okay?

 

 

The link to my post quoted yours, so anyone could click the link back to see your full post.

 

And yes, something about the number of murders by firearm in 1999 looks a bit unusual.

 

Flfirearmmurders.gif

 

 

You're making up my old values again, like the lying sack o shit you are. I'll teach you how to quote what I actually say instead of making it up if you like. I did not acknowledge your earlier apology because that was not the first time you've made up stuff you wish I said and I knew it would not be the last. Sorry to see I was right again, but my offer to teach you how to actually quote posts instead of making shit up still stands.

 

Ah, the histrionics are here. And another sidestep-with-ad-hominem too.

And a link to a Tom propagandist witchunt/rant with another link, with my name all over the first link. Ah.

And a study of absolutely no importance to me whatsoever, under Tom's name. From 2012.

WTF?

Are you huffing the swamp gas?

Calm down, and share all this (newfound or other) last-resort self defense wisdom with us, which is a great subject.

Hell I get misquoted a few times a day. Your leading verbage, Tom, sometimes puts very compound even twisted ideas is my mouth, right under your name bracket, twisting this and that, including recently, ending right jocal?

That aside, Tom, I'm getting not just dodging, but some serious off-topic distortion here. Yet we have so many direct conversations to look forward to.

Go get some rest. Or hang out on your boat or something. Random must have worn you out, bless your heart.

Cheer up, and navigate to something shared here, something that really hit me. It went like this---

 

*venturing an idea & moving it back & forward with each person contributing ideas or reasoning to further the discussion without it becoming an argument

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=163210&page=4>

Sorry you're having a bad day, Tom. I mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The boys are going to chip in and get you a little gift, Jokeawf.

 

100_1723.jpg

 

Jokeawf, would you prefer another color? Something to match your dress and pantyhose

 

Still mad, bro?

 

For you to play that angle, (meaning "dress and pantyhose") is an admission that your masculinity is tied to or bolstered by firearms.

If so, your masculinity is broken.

 

Such bashing is cheap stuff, and is probably beneath you as well. But bash away; haters gonna hate, mate.

 

 

 

Between certain PNW athletic stuff and a 40 year ride building stuff, I have seen my manhood in play.

I spent my life more fit than anyone in the room, too. I drew very few fighters BTW.

Got nuttin' to prove by now, masculinity-wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd but you make DT seem almost fuking normal. And trust me, that is NOT a compliment.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Frankly I'm surprised you weren't able to comprehend my theory until #290 but maybe I credited you with too much ability?

 

I don't have time for a full response now but tell me how, in your words, the US has a violence problem. You've posted this opinion many, many times & therefore I'm assuming it won't take much time

 

 

I am not JBSF, but can offer my opinion. The violence problem in the US, to the extent we have one, is primarily the result of our misguided war on drugs.

 

I'd add to this the result of several generations of an economically disadvantaged portion of our society being taught by parents that are kids themselves that their plight is someone else's fault, and that it's OK to do whatever they have to do to "get theirs". There is a portion of society that has no respect for themselves, or for anyone else, that haven't been taught how to behave properly. That portion of society wants stuff too, and has been conditioned that the only way to get what they want is to take it from someone else.

 

There are multiple factors that contribute to this problem, economic despair, societal conditioning, popular culture that glamorizes thuggish behavior, media that accentuates the hardships that perpetrators of violence have endured moreso than the damage those violent perpetrators inflicted upon their victims, shoot, brudda - it'd take us a year and an encyclopedia's worth of writing to even begin to capture it all.

 

To your point: If knowing that the person you intend to take something from may respond forcefully to this attempt, thus, you prepare for that taking by planning to inflict violence on your intended victim, then I could see the basis for your perspective. If your perspective is based upon anything other than this idea, than I don't.

 

As many others have said, recognizing that there are potential hazards and preparing for those hazards doesn't mean that you want to see those hazards realized. I ride motorcycles, and dress for the crash, not the ride. I sure as hell HATE crashing - especially getting older and healing more slowly. That doesn't mean I'm going to start riding without boots, gloves and a helmet because I like how the breeze feels on a summer evening.

 

The economically disadvantaged are more prone to what you've described. You only need look at incarceration statistics

 

I can see the point you make but my perspective isn't about an arms race of sorts - which is kind of what you're saying. The would be criminal increasing their potential for violence in anticipation of violent self defense...it probably does happen, everyone naturally looks for an advantage

 

My perspective is centered around the conditioned mindset. The example of a kid playing violent video games indirectly makes the US more violent has general acceptance & it would appear logical that some violent conditioning takes place because of the game fundamentals. It's not a stretch to imagine that the kid who's so caught up in the artificial game world may adopt the winning strategies from the game to their life & employ violence as a solution. If we use the same kid & expose them to a perspective that thinks self defense should be assertive, unassisted & with a potential for a violent response greater than the threat, what effect does it have on that kid? I believe it does influence the kid toward violence as a solution. In contrast if the kid is mentally conditioned to think that self defense isn't a significant requirement, that even in the event requires different skills & non violent solutions that may involve third parties, then I see that influences the kid to make less violent responses. Make sense?

 

PBO, I don't dispute your assertion may apply to some folks in the US. But in general I think you are wrong. You are an outsider looking in with little to no perspective on the US mindset. Unless you have grown up here, live here and especially are a part of that self-defense oriented community - you simply do not have the correct view to broad-brush something like 100+ million people who own guns. You make it an all or nothing proposition. Its not. People who use and keep guns for self-defense, among other uses, do not generally believe that the gun is the only solution and that involving 3rd parties (police) is not an option. That is so far from reality that its inconceivable that you would even say it. We do not live in the wild west anymore, as much as jocal would like to fantasize that we do. The vast majority of people who carry guns for self defense always think of a gun as a last resort. Part of the required training is to seek alternatives like call the police, leave the scene, deescalate the confrontation, etc. When and if none of those work - then the gun is the last resort. But its is a viable resort, because if all those others fail - then the end result is you end up possibly raped, injured or dead. That is not an acceptable outcome no matter what the odds of that happening are.

 

Again, are some out there with guns cowboys - of course. There are going to be some in every crowd somewhere. But I and everyone I know takes the approach to the ownership of guns with a sober responsibility. I do not lay awake at night in fear stroking my gun waiting for someone to kick down my door. I do not nervously glance around as I walk through a crowded mall waiting for someone to stab me. You are trying to make gun owners into this monolithic group and its just not so.

 

Preparing for the possibility of violence does not make someone violent nor contribute to violence anymore than preparing for fire by keeping a fire extinguisher in your house makes you an arsonist. I reject your thesis. You are simply wrong and are looking at it from an extremely narrow and distant POV and I think your preconceived notions about Americans and guns have led you to the common logical fallacy that many people who postulate theories fall into. Its an interesting thesis and worth discussion, but I believe it is simply wrong for the vast majority of gun-owners in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those fees are not typical. It's much cheaper and easier in Florida than in a place like DC. I don't think it's necessary to compare FL CWP holders to only suburban, middle-class people since I see no evidence the million + permits are held exclusively by that group. I've seen evidence in my own life that the permits are NOT held exclusively by suburban, middle-class people.

 

Okay, I didn't claim anywhere that the permits are held only by suburban, middle-class people.

 

They do cost around the country, some states are cheaper than others, I guess a handful are even free or close to free. And sure, some working class people can pony up the $322 if it's important to them. But a permit that requires both money (usually), background check (usually) and a visit to the LEO (often) is going to dissuade certain people.

 

Again, comparing the select group of CWP holders to the group of everyone is just deceptive. And surely you're smart enough to see that, but you support it anyway. Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frankly I'm surprised you weren't able to comprehend my theory until #290 but maybe I credited you with too much ability?

 

I don't have time for a full response now but tell me how, in your words, the US has a violence problem. You've posted this opinion many, many times & therefore I'm assuming it won't take much time

 

I am not JBSF, but can offer my opinion. The violence problem in the US, to the extent we have one, is primarily the result of our misguided war on drugs.

I'd add to this the result of several generations of an economically disadvantaged portion of our society being taught by parents that are kids themselves that their plight is someone else's fault, and that it's OK to do whatever they have to do to "get theirs". There is a portion of society that has no respect for themselves, or for anyone else, that haven't been taught how to behave properly. That portion of society wants stuff too, and has been conditioned that the only way to get what they want is to take it from someone else.

 

There are multiple factors that contribute to this problem, economic despair, societal conditioning, popular culture that glamorizes thuggish behavior, media that accentuates the hardships that perpetrators of violence have endured moreso than the damage those violent perpetrators inflicted upon their victims, shoot, brudda - it'd take us a year and an encyclopedia's worth of writing to even begin to capture it all.

 

To your point: If knowing that the person you intend to take something from may respond forcefully to this attempt, thus, you prepare for that taking by planning to inflict violence on your intended victim, then I could see the basis for your perspective. If your perspective is based upon anything other than this idea, than I don't.

 

As many others have said, recognizing that there are potential hazards and preparing for those hazards doesn't mean that you want to see those hazards realized. I ride motorcycles, and dress for the crash, not the ride. I sure as hell HATE crashing - especially getting older and healing more slowly. That doesn't mean I'm going to start riding without boots, gloves and a helmet because I like how the breeze feels on a summer evening.

The economically disadvantaged are more prone to what you've described. You only need look at incarceration statistics

 

I can see the point you make but my perspective isn't about an arms race of sorts - which is kind of what you're saying. The would be criminal increasing their potential for violence in anticipation of violent self defense...it probably does happen, everyone naturally looks for an advantage

 

My perspective is centered around the conditioned mindset. The example of a kid playing violent video games indirectly makes the US more violent has general acceptance & it would appear logical that some violent conditioning takes place because of the game fundamentals. It's not a stretch to imagine that the kid who's so caught up in the artificial game world may adopt the winning strategies from the game to their life & employ violence as a solution. If we use the same kid & expose them to a perspective that thinks self defense should be assertive, unassisted & with a potential for a violent response greater than the threat, what effect does it have on that kid? I believe it does influence the kid toward violence as a solution. In contrast if the kid is mentally conditioned to think that self defense isn't a significant requirement, that even in the event requires different skills & non violent solutions that may involve third parties, then I see that influences the kid to make less violent responses. Make sense?

PBO, I don't dispute your assertion may apply to some folks in the US. But in general I think you are wrong. You are an outsider looking in with little to no perspective on the US mindset. Unless you have grown up here, live here and especially are a part of that self-defense oriented community - you simply do not have the correct view to broad-brush something like 100+ million people who own guns. You make it an all or nothing proposition. Its not. People who use and keep guns for self-defense, among other uses, do not generally believe that the gun is the only solution and that involving 3rd parties (police) is not an option. That is so far from reality that its inconceivable that you would even say it. We do not live in the wild west anymore, as much as jocal would like to fantasize that we do. The vast majority of people who carry guns for self defense always think of a gun as a last resort. Part of the required training is to seek alternatives like call the police, leave the scene, deescalate the confrontation, etc. When and if none of those work - then the gun is the last resort. But its is a viable resort, because if all those others fail - then the end result is you end up possibly raped, injured or dead. That is not an acceptable outcome no matter what the odds of that happening are.

 

Again, are some out there with guns cowboys - of course. There are going to be some in every crowd somewhere. But I and everyone I know takes the approach to the ownership of guns with a sober responsibility. I do not lay awake at night in fear stroking my gun waiting for someone to kick down my door. I do not nervously glance around as I walk through a crowded mall waiting for someone to stab me. You are trying to make gun owners into this monolithic group and its just not so.

 

Preparing for the possibility of violence does not make someone violent nor contribute to violence anymore than preparing for fire by keeping a fire extinguisher in your house makes you an arsonist. I reject your thesis. You are simply wrong and are looking at it from an extremely narrow and distant POV and I think your preconceived notions about Americans and guns have led you to the common logical fallacy that many people who postulate theories fall into. Its an interesting thesis and worth discussion, but I believe it is simply wrong for the vast majority of gun-owners in the US.

My theory includes all Americans because it would be incorrect to say only gun owners have an interest in self defense. It's not about gun ownership or gun use, I understand that's the conclusion you immediately draw but the conditioning & mindset are applied to everyone. Gun owners probably see more marketing that tweaks the self defense nerve with adverting in gun mags etc however the self defense conditioning doesn't preclude anyone

 

I could with reasonable ease find multiple posts here within SA (predominantly PA of course) that speak of or make reference to assertive self defense - this most likely includes your favourite gun grabbers as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Joke Off wants a police state and is happy to surrender his freedom for what he thinks will be a miniscule increase in safety.

 

People like Guns. Guns are fun on many levels. Guns do kill innocent people. Joke Off wants to criminalize your gun because he says it will save a few lives.

 

People Like Alcohol. Alcohol is apparently (I don't drink) fun on many levels. Alcohol kills many more innocent people than guns do. Joke Off won't address criminalizing alcohol.

 

He seems willing to trade a large number of deaths for an activity that has no purpose other than recreation on one hand but wants to criminalize something that actually has a purpose beyond recreation.

 

 

Hey Jerk off ... sorry I mean Joke off what is your position on alcohol. Why is one fun activity worth the carnage and the other isn't?

 

BTW eliminate alcohol and the number of gun deaths will also fall substantially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those fees are not typical. It's much cheaper and easier in Florida than in a place like DC. I don't think it's necessary to compare FL CWP holders to only suburban, middle-class people since I see no evidence the million + permits are held exclusively by that group. I've seen evidence in my own life that the permits are NOT held exclusively by suburban, middle-class people.

 

Okay, I didn't claim anywhere that the permits are held only by suburban, middle-class people.

 

They do cost around the country, some states are cheaper than others, I guess a handful are even free or close to free. And sure, some working class people can pony up the $322 if it's important to them. But a permit that requires both money (usually), background check (usually) and a visit to the LEO (often) is going to dissuade certain people.

 

Again, comparing the select group of CWP holders to the group of everyone is just deceptive. And surely you're smart enough to see that, but you support it anyway. Why?

 

The bolded part is true with respect to gun registration too, and it is one of many reasons I oppose it. The main one, of course, is confiscation, but putting unneeded barriers in the way of exercising rights disproportionately affects the poor, whether we're talking CWP's or gun registries.

 

OK, so if not everyone nor suburban middle class people, to whom should we compare the violent crime rates among CWP holders?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

I could with reasonable ease find multiple posts here within SA (predominantly PA of course) that speak of or make reference to assertive self defense - this most likely includes your favourite gun grabbers as well

 

Go for it.

 

Here's a tip to make it even easier: search for the phrase "last resort" by author Tom Ray. You might just find a few examples of what you're looking for. Or maybe examples you don't wish to see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The boys are going to chip in and get you a little gift, Jokeawf.

 

100_1723.jpg

Jokeawf, would you prefer another color? Something to match your dress and pantyhose?

Interesting insight to your own defects you just offered there ... someone who is committed to a certain viewpoint to which you don't share, must be a woman.

 

Grow up on the wrong side of a domineering vagina there, mister?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yamamoto-grass-quote.jpg

So ... we were so resistant to invade Japan, where there was little civilian weaponry, that we resorted to dropping nukes on them. How does that fit into your shortlist worldview then?

 

You're a friendly enough fellow NGS, but you have the logic center of a dickhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a stretch to imagine that the kid who's so caught up in the artificial game world may adopt the winning strategies from the game to their life & employ violence as a solution.

 

Yes, it's quite a stretch for those who look at facts.

 

But now the old guard is being challenged by a new generation of researchers who are calling their theories, methods, data, and sweeping assertions into question. Stetson University psychologist Christopher Ferguson is one of the chief antagonists. In their drolly titled 2013 commentary, "Does Doing Media Violence Research Make One Aggressive?," Ferguson and his colleague, German researcher Malte Elson, invite readers to contemplate a thought experiment as a way to think about the plausibility of the "monkey see/monkey do" theory. "Take 200 children and randomize 100 to watch their parents viciously attack one another for an hour a day, the other 100 to watch a violent television program an hour a day," they suggest, "then assess their mental health after one month is over." Surely they are right when they assert that "to suggest the mental health outcomes for these children would be even remotely identical is absurd." As the thought experiment makes clear, ordinary folks do recognize that people, including children, can distinguish between real and fictional violence and will react accordingly.

 

...

 

I'm not relating this to guns, this is about the attitude to defense. Would you say that the attitude in that thread of a violent or passive nature?

 

Sometimes, a passive response doesn't work out so well. Not everyone agrees that "Hands UP" means "Don't shoot!"

 

Warning: graphic video of a store clerk with hands up being shot. I'm sure Reverend Al will be along to straighten it all out soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff. You guys sort of play both sides of this, I have found. On one side an innocent choirboy, and on the other a justice rectifier self-image. I haven't saved the worst quotes because I won't have such filth on my computer.

 

Good conversation.

PBO, I don't dispute your assertion may apply to some folks in the US. But in general I think you are wrong. You are an outsider looking in with little to no perspective on the US mindset. Wait. He reads SAILING ANARCHY. Unless you have grown up here, live here and especially are a part of that self-defense oriented community - you simply do not have the correct view to broad-brush something like 100+ million people who own guns. You make it an all or nothing proposition. Its not. People who use and keep guns for self-defense, among other uses, do not generally believe that the gun is the only solution and that involving 3rd parties (police) is not an option. That is so far from reality that its inconceivable that you would even say it. We do not live in the wild west anymore, as much as jocal would like to fantasize that we do. The vast majority of people who carry guns for self defense always think of a gun as a last resort. See below, pardner. Part of the required training is to seek alternatives like call the police, leave the scene, deescalate the confrontation, etc. When and if none of those work - then the gun is the last resort. But its is a viable resort, because if all those others fail - then the end result is you end up possibly raped, injured or dead. That is not an acceptable outcome no matter what the odds of that happening are. Again, are some out there with guns cowboys - of course. There are going to be some in every crowd somewhere. But I and everyone I know takes the approach to the ownership of guns with a sober responsibility. I do not lay awake at night in fear stroking my gun waiting for someone to kick down my door. I do not nervously glance around as I walk through a crowded mall waiting for someone to stab me. You are trying to make gun owners into this monolithic group and its just not so. It's fair to say that many vengeful fantasies have been offered on these boards,m and have gone unadmoniushed by forum members.Preparing for the possibility of violence does not make someone violent nor contribute to violence anymore than preparing for fire by keeping a fire extinguisher in your house makes you an arsonist. Jeff, you guys don't do firedrills, but you do go to the range and train others to shoot at human sillouettes, to visualize and accept and enhance daily lethality, and thnk nof destruction of what you are shooting at, and ait at the center of mass due to higher destructive capability, and think in terms of"doublt tap" and "stopping power", not to mention "tactical" gear. Balderdash. I reject your thesis. You are simply wrong and are looking at it from an extremely narrow and distant POV and I think your preconceived notions about Americans and guns have led you to the common logical fallacy that many people who postulate theories fall into. Its an interesting thesis and worth discussion, but I believe it is simply wrong for the vast majority of gun-owners in the US. I hope so. The less the association with the NRA, the more correct you may about that. Zimmerman, for example, preached gun ownership on his neighborhood watch rounds at least once. For another, guns are aggressively being presented legally, in marketing, and in popular culture as a first choice, (cool, faster-than-a-donut-eater) for a claimed last resort.

 

Quote

Post 2587, Gun Nutter Sttrikes Again

JBSF, on 31 Aug 2014 - 23:54, said:

jocal505, on 31 Aug 2014 - 16:28, said:

To expose what you are laying out here, even if 26 DGU's matched 26 criminal homicides, that's what one would call a real mess. It would show a broken, gun-ridden society. Is that what you are proposing?

(From Jeff) I would call that a "good start".....

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=142774&page=26>

 

This gent (below) tells of having taught thousands of children about gun safety.

Please note: insidious self defense attitude is the subject.

Quote

From the Heller Being Heard Thread

Posted 27 July 2014 - 01:42 PM

Well, the other good thing about that is you will no longer have to incessantly ask the "2A right in the home only" question anymore.

"Guns do not kill people. Dads with pretty daughters kill people".

Point Break, on 05 Apr 2014 - 13:58, said:

Nice dodge.......classic Wolfing..... You wolfed away from the point

R Booze

Anarchist

  • Members
  • 40,382 posts
  • Location:43 miles from both Mexicos.....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 27 July 2014 - 02:24 PM

This is a most fuktabulous ruling----one which will immediately begin to save lives rather than ending the lives too soon of law abiding citizens. I hope to fuk that DC's criminal element takes note and changes their current game plan on preying on the innocent.

(Ah hell, who am I kidding. Would love to see about three dozen pussified, chicken shit gang members meet an early demise)......

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=69325&page=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

yamamoto-grass-quote.jpg

So ... we were so resistant to invade Japan, where there was little civilian weaponry, that we resorted to dropping nukes on them. How does that fit into your shortlist worldview then?

 

You're a friendly enough fellow NGS, but you have the logic center of a dickhead.

 

Mike, this level shows the running tradgedy of the preaching-to-the-choir self affifmation of the pro-rights culture.

And it shows what happens when you dumb in down.

They chant sound bites back and forth, while minimizing and excusing the gun violence in play.

 

Tom Ray, David Workman, Robert Farago, and Gottlieb are the preachers. The choirboys read them after the preachers organize the deceit, and spin the reality.

 

These historical quotes they use (all of them) are predictably a hoot.

They are pretty easy to de-bunk. Don't get me started.

Misquoting Yamamoto

  • Posted on May 11, 2009

Advocates of gun rights often argue that in World War II Japan was deterred from invading the U.S. mainland by a fear of American citizens with guns in their closets. They frequently quote Japan’s Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto as saying: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

How do we know? We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans" (1993) and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor" (1981). He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."

In an exchange of e-mails he said:

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

We included this in an update to an Ask FactCheck item we posted May 10, debunking an error-filled "gun history lesson" circulating by e-mail.

We make no argument either for or against gun ownership. But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.

Pasted from <http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites