Archived

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

Sean

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership

Recommended Posts

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

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?.....

 

If you are talking to me Booze, it means that the cut and paste that Tom has been using ad infinitum is clearly bullshit. That of course calls into question other information he provides. He appears either to have a very poor understanding of information production and quality, OR set out to mislead us. I prefer to assume the first option.

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

Here's another hoot: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Yuk, yuk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another hoot: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Yuk, yuk.

 

The Handgun Control Inc Brady version is waaay funnier.

 

"A well regulated An indoor militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms a single handgun in their homes but not in public places like the porch or garage shall not be infringed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Here's another hoot: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

 

Yuk, yuk.

 

The Handgun Control Inc Brady version is waaay funnier.

 

"A well regulated An indoor militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms a single handgun in their homes but not in public places like the porch or garage shall not be infringed."

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The self defense myth is about confronting bad guys.

But bad guys are shooting relatively few of our homicide victims.

However, the guns acquired to shoot the bad guys whoops are shooting each other.

 

Other figures and sources are most welcome, but it seems that from about 70% to 85% of our homicides are family and acquaintences.

My point again: Fear of homicidal strangers is misplaced, since that's not the bulk of the problem.

 

 

 

Quote

Source One

The FBI Uniform Crime Report will give you an answer of a sort, but only two out of three homicides are ‘solved by arrest.’ snip...

That said, statistical analysis pegs the most likely number between 1800 (14%) to 2200 (17%) a year (are murdered by a stranger).

Pasted from <http://extranosalley.com/?p=25008>

Quote

Source Two Percentage of murders are convicted by a stranger?

In probably upwards of 80 or 90-percent of homicides, there is some sort of relationship.

Pasted from <http://www.chacha.co...d-by-a-stranger>

Quote

Source Three Dr. Harrell Quote

Violent Victimization Committed By Strangers, 1993-2010

Erika Harrell, Ph.D.

December 11, 2012 NCJ 239424

Presents findings on the rates and levels of violent victimization committed by offenders who were strangers to the victims, including homicide, rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The report presents annual trends and compares changes across three 6-year periods in the incidence and type of violence committed by strangers from 1993 through 2010. It describes the characteristics of victims and circumstances of the violent crime. The nonfatal violent victimization estimates were developed from the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. The homicide data are from the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) for 1993 through 2008.

Highlights:

  • In 2010, strangers committed about 38% of nonfatal violent crimes, including rape/sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.
  • In 2005-10, about 10% of violent victimizations committed by strangers involved a firearm, compared to 5% committed by offenders known to the victim.
  • From 1993 to 2008, among homicides reported to the FBI for which the victim-offender relationship was known, between 21% and 27% of homicides were committed by strangers and between 73% and 79% were committed by offenders known to the victims.

About the Source Data

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Pasted from <http://www.bjs.gov/i...detail&iid=4557>

Quote

Source 4 FBI Uniform Crime Reports Quote

The Top 5 Murders by Relationship to the Victim in the United States

Strangers not even listed in top 5

Sources: FBI Uniform Crime Report: Crime in the United States, 2011.

http://www.skyvalley...the-time-625525>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't read post 421 or follow the link, huh, Jocal?

 

Mighta skipped over it. You have been spewing recently, Tom.

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?

For your first paragraph, I'm not going to debate it, off the subject of these deceptive statistics, but if you're passionate about getting rid of gun registries, then best of luck to you.

 

For the second, the correct way to make a meaningful analysis is to compare as like groups as possible with just one variation. So, how do crime statistics compare for middle class suburban CWP holders versus middle class suburban non-CWP holders? I'm guessing that the results may not look so good, but it's just a, hunch. Or what about crime stats for working class urban dwellers who hold CWP versus working class urban dwellers who don't hold CWP?

 

This is basic statistics process 101, I'm not suggesting anything too radical, but I suspect the reason the deceptive stats are used rather than the correct process is because the results are inconvenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EveryTown dot org? Fuking really? ....... :lol:

 

Rick, fear them. You laugh them, and at Bloomberg, and at the both separately and combined.

What you don't do is get ahead of them.

 

In a type of study never tried before, they just demonstrated a high ratio of criminals buying on the internet in VT.

You guys wanted evidence-based proof of criminals and the private sales loophole, and they are down with providing it.

 

Scoff away.

 

VT sting: Prohibited persons buying guns online

Mike Donoghue, Free Press Staff Writer2:18 p.m. EST January 21, 2015

A three-month undercover sting operation shows an estimated 126 firearms are being transferred annually to legally unauthorized persons in Vermont through unchecked Internet sales.

"Hiding in Plain Sight," a first-of-its kind investigation in Vermont by the group Everytown for Gun Safety, monitored guns for sale on three primary websites, according to a copy of the report.

The group also posted 24 guns for sale on Armslist.com between July 28 and Oct. 9 and developed a list of 169 potential buyers seeking guns online through unlicensed sales, the report notes.

Investigators hired by Everytown conducted criminal record cheeks by searching court records in the geographic area where the potential buyer voluntarily listed his or her address, the report said.

Seven of the 169 people were prohibited by law from possessing firearms.

"At this prevalence, gun sale transacted on just three websites put an estimated 126 guns into the hands of felons and domestic abusers in Vermont — and likely many more — in this year alone," the report said.

Subscribe to the Burlington Free Press

The investigation uncovered convicted drug dealers and domestic abusers that would be denied firearms if they attempted to buy them through a licensed gun dealer, the report shows. Investigators also were seeking domestic violence misdemeanors, protections orders or bench warrants, the report said.

The potential gun buyers ranged from 18 to 76 years old. Four percent (seven of 169 persons) were women.

The report also noted that nearly one-third (31.5 percent) of guns recovered by police at Vermont crime scenes had been purchased within the previous two years.

The disclosures come as the top Democratic Senate leadership is preparing Vermont legislation that would try to curtail guns from getting into the hands of criminals, domestic abusers and the seriously mentally ill without a background check.

President Pro Tempore John Campbell, D-Windsor, Majority Leader Phil Baruth, D-Chittenden and Assistant Leader Sen. Claire Ayer, D-Addison say the proposed state law would mirror some federal gun laws. It would allow the state to prosecute gun cases that sometimes cannot be handled by federal authorities.

Vermont cases

Everytown for Gun Safety said its review of Vermont court records shows among the attempted gun buyers uncovered in the sting were:

• A 27-year-old convicted drug trafficker in central Vermont with a history of making threats with firearms. He responded to an ad offering an AK-47 and also expressed interest in any handguns the seller had available.

He told an investigators that he had drugs ripped by another person and that he chased him around town, ramming his car, noting that "if he had a gun he would have shot the guy because he had nothing to lose."

• A 55-year-old Huntington man, who court records show brutally attacked his wife and repeatedly threatened to kill her by choking. The man responded between Aug. 7 and Oct. 10 to seven gun ads, including a Glock 40mm, a Ruger 9mm and a Kel-Tec .380.

• A twice-convicted cocaine dealer in Bennington with a history of exchanging guns for drugs. The 36 year-old man responded to five gun advertisements between July 29 and Oct. 21.

•A 32-year-old domestic abuser in St. Albans, who also was a fugitive from justice in Nebraska. The man, who has been in trouble with the law more than a dozen times, attempted to buy a Glock 30 semiautomatic handgun.

Everytown for Gun Safety said it believes that one in 24 people in Vermont trying to buy or trade for a gun online is prohibited from legally having a gun.

That is six times higher than the share of Vermonters that attempt to buy a gun through a licensed dealer and fail a background check.

Vermont has 366 federally licensed gun dealers as of Tuesday, according to Special Agent Christopher J. Arone of the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Everytown, which had the numbers of licenses closer to 320, noted more than 991/2percent of Vermonters live within 10 miles of a federally licensed dealer.

Since 1998 federal law has required licensed gun dealers to run background checks before completing the sale.

"But guns offered in unlicensed sales or trades — which account for the majority of transactions in Vermont's vast online market for firearms — do not require background checks," the report notes.

"This gives criminals an open door to evade the public safety measures designed to keep guns out of dangerous hands."

The Everytown report also notes that Vermont law does allow for private sales at guns shows without background checks. Some gun sale organizers say they do offer background checks as a service.

Everytown said licensed gun dealers in Vermont ran 371,564 background checks for proposed gun sales, but 3,034 were blocked because they had committed a felony, a domestic violence crime, or was otherwise prohibited from possessing guns, the group said.

Everytown for Gun Safety was formed in April 2013 in a marriage of two groups. Mayors Against Illegal Guns was founded by Mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Thomas Menino of Boston in 2006. It grew into more than 1,000 current and former mayors.

The second group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America formed the day after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut in December 2012.

The Everytown group did one other statewide sting last year in Washington.

The three Vermont senators said they have been working hard to get the wording right and to address the needs of Vermonters. The proposed bill could be made public as early as this week.

Campbell told the Free Press last week that the Democratic proposal will not set up any registry or collection of personal information.

Last week a Brattleboro-based group, Gun Sense Vermont held a news conference supporting many of the elements the Democratic leaders have proposed.

They delivered to state senators 1,000 personal letters in support of criminal background checks and a petition to Gov. Peter Shumlin with 12,000 signatures.

For more information check vermont.everytown.org

Contact Mike Donoghue at 660-1845 or mdonoghue@freepressmedia.com. Follow Mike on Twitter at www.twitter.com/FreepsMikeD.

761CONNECT 69TWEETLINKEDIN 75COMMENTEMAILMORE

MORE STORIES

Pasted from <http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2015/01/20/vt-sting-prohibited-persons-buying-guns-online/22076061/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

EveryTown dot org? Fuking really? ....... :lol:

 

Rick, fear them. You laugh them, and at Bloomberg, and at the both separately and combined.

What you don't do is get ahead of them.

 

In a type of study never tried before, they just demonstrated a high ratio of criminals buying on the internet in VT.

You guys wanted evidence-based proof of criminals and the private sales loophole, and they are down with providing it.

 

Scoff away.

 

We have done a pretty good job of beating them here in PA. Seems like Texas and a number of other states are doing a bang up job of stopping thwarting their disarmament efforts as well. Most of the SC cases are going our way and giving Bloomberg some serious agita.

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.

 

Hey Jokey ... Why so reluctant to address the highlighted part above. Do you drink Alcoholic beverages? Why should I have to tolerate the carnage caused by your prefered recreational activity while you work to ban mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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?

For your first paragraph, I'm not going to debate it, off the subject of these deceptive statistics, but if you're passionate about getting rid of gun registries, then best of luck to you.

 

For the second, the correct way to make a meaningful analysis is to compare as like groups as possible with just one variation. So, how do crime statistics compare for middle class suburban CWP holders versus middle class suburban non-CWP holders? I'm guessing that the results may not look so good, but it's just a, hunch. Or what about crime stats for working class urban dwellers who hold CWP versus working class urban dwellers who don't hold CWP?

 

This is basic statistics process 101, I'm not suggesting anything too radical, but I suspect the reason the deceptive stats are used rather than the correct process is because the results are inconvenient.

 

The issues with CWP fees infringing on rights are exactly the same as the issues with registration fees infringing on rights. Why are you OK with one but not the other?

 

Instead of separating out everyone into sub-groups, I don't see why we can't just compare them all in a bunch. If you say what you're doing, how is that deceptive?

 

I suspect you just find the comparison inconvenient because we both know that regardless of socio-economic class, people who bother to get a permit are unlikely to commit crimes. I also suspect you could research your suspicions if you really wanted the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

EveryTown dot org? Fuking really? ....... :lol:

 

Rick, fear them. You laugh them, and at Bloomberg, and at the both separately and combined.

What you don't do is get ahead of them.

 

In a type of study never tried before, they just demonstrated a high ratio of criminals buying on the internet in VT.

You guys wanted evidence-based proof of criminals and the private sales loophole, and they are down with providing it.

 

Scoff away.

 

We have done a pretty good job of beating them here in PA. Seems like Texas and a number of other states are doing a bang up job of stopping thwarting their disarmament efforts as well. Most of the SC cases are going our way and giving Bloomberg some serious agita.

 

Everytown may be a gamechanger.

 

Here's a book which suggests that women are late to the starting line of gun safety due to being distracted by women's rights for 40 years.

 

Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America

By Kristin A. Goss

 

And she reviews the vital part public funding has played in different social successes. She compares the consistent failures of the gun control movement to the successes of deep-south civil rights, gay rights, conception rights, and tobacco awareness. One piece of her work described the lack of a single national leadership model.

 

There was a vacuum for Everytown. Their moves have been pretty good.

 

Brady bashing is good sport and all, but hey if this is any indication, get used to finding bona fide research challenges from Everytown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing BoomBurg and Every Town are doing is helping us Pro 2A folks dig our heels in even deeper, to raise more awareness of their idiocy & ultimate goal of total gun confiscation, to make us rally even harder to protect our rights and our enjoyment of the shooting sports. Trust me, this shit is gonna so backfire on them that they'll all be moving to France out of shame. And the sooner the fuking better.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I read it on the internet, it must another mythical defensive gun ownership incident


"They said they were going to kill (her), and that's when I really lost hope, you know?" Skargee said.

 

Skargee's girlfriend, Sable Nehme, tried to lock herself in her room and grabbed a revolver just as one of the men burst in.

 

"The only thing I could think was, 'I need to figure out a way to protect us,'" Nehme said. "I grabbed the gun from out here in my closet. I pointed it at them, because he has busted through my door."

 

Nehme said the man saw the weapon and immediately ran from the room.

 

"I was helpless on the ground and it went from like, complete despair until, you know, I see her in the hallway holding a big revolver, and they're running out the door," said Skargee.

 

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/ucf-student-pulls-gun-burglar-he-breaks-through-do/njyhp/

 

Gift from a loving father saved their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I read it on the internet, it must another mythical defensive gun ownership incident

 

 

"They said they were going to kill (her), and that's when I really lost hope, you know?" Skargee said.

 

Skargee's girlfriend, Sable Nehme, tried to lock herself in her room and grabbed a revolver just as one of the men burst in.

 

"The only thing I could think was, 'I need to figure out a way to protect us,'" Nehme said. "I grabbed the gun from out here in my closet. I pointed it at them, because he has busted through my door."

 

Nehme said the man saw the weapon and immediately ran from the room.

 

"I was helpless on the ground and it went from like, complete despair until, you know, I see her in the hallway holding a big revolver, and they're running out the door," said Skargee.

 

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/ucf-student-pulls-gun-burglar-he-breaks-through-do/njyhp/

 

Gift from a loving father saved their lives.

 

 

Wow, the first authenticated case of an American protecting themselves with a firearm?.......:lol:

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?.....

 

If you are talking to me Booze, it means that the cut and paste that Tom has been using ad infinitum is clearly bullshit. That of course calls into question other information he provides. He appears either to have a very poor understanding of information production and quality, OR set out to mislead us. I prefer to assume the first option.

 

. Nixononcredibilitydefinitionofdisinforma

 

I hope that it was the former ( a very poor understanding of information production and quality) as well. But "intention to mislead" also applies to an alarming problem I've had with Tom about research blockage. He denies it is happening. (And so does John R. Lott.) I find this running gag alarming.

The statements that the NRA is not blocking funding have been sourced as false, several ways. Four link,s from 100 eductors, affected researchers, the CDC administrator at the time of the molestation, and even from the Republican senator who provided the NRA access to the Appropriations Committee, Jay Dickey) have been presented, yet Tom's dangerous disinformation persists.

PA usually straightens out such matters.

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

I can't describe the disgust I feel about this one.

--If you're gonna do the deed (gut public funding for gun violence research), at least be big enough to admit the deed.

--If you are going to insist on evidence-based law, then proceed to gather evidence.

--It's simple. In this situation (USA 2015AD), gun owners, if responsible, would support intelligent gun research. To prevent research and then deny the prevention lacks honor. It is an especially dangerous dishonesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Calhoun - your intentional obfuscation isn't working. Nobody "gutted research" - recognizing that a study of willfully committed violent acts doesn't fall under the purview of the CDC isn't "gutting research". Would you suggest, sir, that the EPA be charged with conducting clinical analysis of neutrinos/dark matter? Sounds more like a job for the DOE, to me.

 

Plenty of evidence has been gathered, it just doesn't support what you want it to.

 

I'm all for intelligent research into the causes and effects of violence. Suggesting that "gun research" should be the focus merely illustrates the misguided, myopic, solution looking for a problem way of thinking that you espouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since I read it on the internet, it must another mythical defensive gun ownership incident

 

 

"They said they were going to kill (her), and that's when I really lost hope, you know?" Skargee said.

 

Skargee's girlfriend, Sable Nehme, tried to lock herself in her room and grabbed a revolver just as one of the men burst in.

 

"The only thing I could think was, 'I need to figure out a way to protect us,'" Nehme said. "I grabbed the gun from out here in my closet. I pointed it at them, because he has busted through my door."

 

Nehme said the man saw the weapon and immediately ran from the room.

 

"I was helpless on the ground and it went from like, complete despair until, you know, I see her in the hallway holding a big revolver, and they're running out the door," said Skargee.

 

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/ucf-student-pulls-gun-burglar-he-breaks-through-do/njyhp/

 

Gift from a loving father saved their lives.

 

 

Wow, the first authenticated case of an American protecting themselves with a firearm?....... :lol:

 

This need to be enshrined in the national archives. It's as rare as ... hen's teeth, a Chicago Cubs World series pennant, Billy Ray Cyrus platinum albums, nuns in bikinis, stylish mullets, a "good hair day" for Donald Trump, tasty Michelle Obama school lunches and intelligent Jokecal postings..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Calhoun - your intentional obfuscation isn't working. Nobody "gutted research" - recognizing that a study of willfully committed violent acts doesn't fall under the purview of the CDC isn't "gutting research". Would you suggest, sir, that the EPA be charged with conducting clinical analysis of neutrinos/dark matter? Sounds more like a job for the DOE, to me.

 

Plenty of evidence has been gathered, it just doesn't support what you want it to.

 

I'm all for intelligent research into the causes and effects of violence. Suggesting that "gun research" should be the focus merely illustrates the misguided, myopic, solution looking for a problem way of thinking that you espouse.

1+^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trigger warning - close your eyes and scroll fast if you don't want to see an imaginary pistol held by Ms Nehme

 

2ai4pj8.png

 

No trigger warning - she even keeps her booger hook off the imaginary bang switch. Bet Dad is proud of his little girl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trigger warning - close your eyes and scroll fast if you don't want to see an imaginary pistol held by Ms Nehme

 

2ai4pj8.png

 

No trigger warning - she even keeps her booger hook off the imaginary bang switch. Bet Dad is proud of his little girl.

 

Wonder why this gal just didn't lay on her bed and let the bad guy have his way with her? Is it 'cuz she has an inbred dislike for rapists or something? She really doesn't seem like a nice gal to me if she chose to pull out a gun instead of just caving in to the poor misunderstood criminal thug. What a bitch......:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know Mr Jo is sorta locked up on this to the point of near fanaticism don't you? I mean you simply are not going to get even a tiny budge out of him. Are you just in it for the sport?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just the world's longest running game show. We call it 'Whack-a-troll'....:lol:..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just the world's longest running game show. We call it 'Whack-a-troll'....:lol:..

I figured as much. Carry on. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know Mr Jo is sorta locked up on this to the point of near fanaticism don't you? I mean you simply are not going to get even a tiny budge out of him. Are you just in it for the sport?

 

pretty much. I just put him back on ignore once it gets boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You guys know Mr Jo is sorta locked up on this to the point of near fanaticism don't you? I mean you simply are not going to get even a tiny budge out of him. Are you just in it for the sport?

pretty much. I just put him back on ignore once it gets boring.

 

IgnorIng the Queen of C&P is pretty much like not wanting to count the grains of sand on the beach. Peace of cake.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EveryTown dot org? Fuking really? ....... :lol:

 

Looks like everytown is being sued for defamation by a licensed firearm dealer. The Vermont "report" jocal cited

 

also asserted that Crossfire Arms was involved in providing firearms via unlicensed sales, a patently false claim, by including images of their listings in Armlist, including watermarked images.

30s9ik3.png

 

Crossfire Arms, LLC, of Mt. Holly, Vermont, has retained Attorney Rachel M. Baird as legal counsel to pursue claims against Bloomberg ­backed Everytown for Gun Safety and all parties involved in the fraudulent investigation leading to the publication of an Everytown report titled, Where Vermont Criminals Shop for Guns, together with media outlets responsible for continued distribution of the fraudulent report. In the blatantly false and malicious report distributed to a worldwide audience, Everytown misappropriated Crossfire Arms’ logo and defamed its owner Bobby Richards and Crossfire Arms by characterizing both as vehicles for the unlicensed sale of firearms to felons, fugitives from justice, domestic violence abusers, and other unspecified criminals.

 

http://bearingarms.com/firearms-dealer-sue-everytown-gun-safety-defamation-bogus-report/

 

So another report that might be found to be "mostly false?"

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.

 

 

With respect to the "facts" & what I've looked at. The polarised nature of these issues to me indicates there's something in my theory. In the first section of that article;

 

"As recently as October, Bushman and two colleagues reported the results of a poll of media psychologists and mass communication scientists in the journal Psychology of Popular Media Culture that there is a "broad consensus" among media psychologists and mass communication scientists that violent media increase aggression in children"

 

What or who are these scientists? do these careers actually exist? the other side is arguably just a dubious. My point being, in a polarised argument, these's usually a middle ground that reflects reality & truth. Look at the smoking debate, at one point in time you had doctors arguing both sides however over time & under the sheer weight of physical/medical proof we now accept that smoking isn't good for your health. It may not lead to cancer or smoking related illnesses in everyone but nor are their any health benefits. Many more examples exist

 

What I'm proposing is essentially in the middle. I'm not equating video games to a murderous career, all I'm saying (& just for the record, many other pro gun people here also) is that it affects the kid who plays & probably weights their reaction to a given situation when compared to a kid who isn't playing the violent games. Can I prove this? no I can't. Could a 'scientist' construct a study to prove or disprove this? sure they could but as we know the results usually support the financial backing for the study

 

So Tom, by posting "facts" are you asserting that behaviour isn't or cannot be influenced by a persons learning or influences?

 

In terms of a passive person being hurt, is this a possible outcome? sure it is. Is an assertive person being hurt in the same situation a possible outcome? sure it is. What's your point?

 

Edit: I watched the video & the guy got shot trying to take one of the guns. There's a good argument to say that if he kept his hands up he may not have been shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would give up my third testicle for that Super-Matic.

 

Oh fuk me blind but that gurl is just frickin gorgeous. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys know Mr Jo is sorta locked up on this to the point of near fanaticism don't you? I mean you simply are not going to get even a tiny budge out of him. Are you just in it for the sport?

 

If Joe seems like a fanatic then iit's through the lens of fanaticism. His fanaticism is equal and opposite to the fanaticism here.

 

Joe, Ed and I have guns, our moderate views get stretched to extremism when we're confronted by extremists. I guess Joe and Ed have just been dealing with this longer than I have, but I guess it's just a matter of time for me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issues with CWP fees infringing on rights are exactly the same as the issues with registration fees infringing on rights. Why are you OK with one but not the other?

 

First off, the registration fee issue isn't really part of this particular discussion for me, I'm more interested in seeing that silly statistic you used see an early grave.

 

As for CWP, it doesn't concern me much because I don't see CWP as an expression fo Constitutional Rights. Anything for which people have to ask permission from authority isn't any kind of "right" in my view. And I don't see wide-adoption of permitless concealed carry happening wherever a certain class of people wants to keep guns away from another class of people.

 

Instead of separating out everyone into sub-groups, I don't see why we can't just compare them all in a bunch. If you say what you're doing, how is that deceptive?

 

Because it's deceptive and unscientific. It's like saying that people who live near Disney theme parks are statistically better surfers than everyone else in the country. Okay, but their proximity to Disney theme parks probably doesn't make them better surfers, the fact that they live in year-round temperate climates with easy access to surf is probably more important.

 

I suspect you just find the comparison inconvenient because we both know that regardless of socio-economic class, people who bother to get a permit are unlikely to commit crimes. I also suspect you could research your suspicions if you really wanted the answers.

 

I suspect you find the comparison convenient because we both know that regardless of socio-economic class, people who commit crimes are unlikely to walk into police stations and ask permissions to conceal carry guns.

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?

 

No, BS! Its not deceptive. If the argument is that gun owners, and in particular CCW folks who want to use a gun for self-defense, are MORE dangerous with guns than without guns - then it is absolutely a valid comparo. Remember, the thread title is "the myth behind defensive gun ownership". The people most likely to use a gun for "defensive gun ownership" are those that have gone through the process of obtaining the training and the permits to carry concealed. Furthermore, it is another nail in PBO's thesis that people who own and more specifically buy into the concept of using a gun for defensive means are "more aggressive" and contribute to violence. The fact that CCW folks are statistically FAR less likely to commit crimes completely debunks that notion.

 

And remember - even people who do not submit to the process of obtaining a concealed permit STILL typically have to go through a background check to buy a gun. CCW people are not the only ones being checked. And yes, they still have to do a background check at gun shows too. ;) But I digress.....

 

So again, if the argument is being made that on balance, defensive use of guns do more harm in society than good - then its absolutely valid to look at the crime stats of those most likely to be using guns for self-defense. And the stats clearly show that that group of people are FAR FAR less likely to use a gun for evil - by an order of magnitude - than the general population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is another nail in PBO's thesis that people who own and more specifically buy into the concept of using a gun for defensive means are "more aggressive" and contribute to violence

 

That's not my theory. I'm looking at everyone, gun owners get included in 'everyone' by default

 

There are many different methods a person can choose for self defense. Using a gun is but one...haven't you see Home Alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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

 

So? What does "assertive self-defense" have to do with anything? If you are going to defend yourself against violence - I would suggest that being assertive about it is far more likely to be successful than being passive about it will be. Interestingly, our own CDC agrees with that.....

 

Also, I think you FAR over-estimate the reach of marketing. I'm an avid gun fanatic and I rarely if ever read any of the gun magazines or other publications. I'm a lifetime NRA member (thanks to jocal, seriously) and I have yet to read one of the American Rifleman magazines that I get monthly since I became a member about a year ago. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a marketing ad for a gun or for self-defense. Roughly about a 3rd of Americans own guns - so we are talking about at least 100 million people. The NRA has a membership of something like 4 million. A tiny fraction of the gun-owning public. Guns & Ammo magazine is probably the largest gun publication in the US. They have a readership of ~5.8 million. Again, a tiny fraction of the gun owning public. So your idea that "conditioning & mindset" are applied to everyone is a total fail.

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.

 

I see your Balderdash and raise you three poppycocks and a rubbish....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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

 

So? What does "assertive self-defense" have to do with anything? If you are going to defend yourself against violence - I would suggest that being assertive about it is far more likely to be successful than being passive about it will be. Interestingly, our own CDC agrees with that.....

 

Also, I think you FAR over-estimate the reach of marketing. I'm an avid gun fanatic and I rarely if ever read any of the gun magazines or other publications. I'm a lifetime NRA member (thanks to jocal, seriously) and I have yet to read one of the American Rifleman magazines that I get monthly since I became a member about a year ago. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a marketing ad for a gun or for self-defense. Roughly about a 3rd of Americans own guns - so we are talking about at least 100 million people. The NRA has a membership of something like 4 million. A tiny fraction of the gun-owning public. Guns & Ammo magazine is probably the largest gun publication in the US. They have a readership of ~5.8 million. Again, a tiny fraction of the gun owning public. So your idea that "conditioning & mindset" are applied to everyone is a total fail.

 

I was hoping you may find another string to your bow. Rather than focusing on guns & frantically trying to relate each post I make to guns, do you have anything to say about the 2/3 thirds of Americans who don't own guns? can you relate to them? (yes, yes, I know you don't do questions but give it a go)

 

To respond to what you say about your marketing experiences. Yay for you but I don't think you speak for anyone but yourself

 

In terms of marketing, well, I'll go out on a limb here & say that marketing probably works. I know you & the millions of companies investing ridiculous amounts of money into marketing will disagree but fuck it, that's my theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The self defense myth is about confronting bad guys.

But bad guys are shooting relatively few of our homicide victims.

However, the guns acquired to shoot the bad guys whoops are shooting each other.

 

Other figures and sources are most welcome, but it seems that from about 70% to 85% of our homicides are family and acquaintences.

My point again: Fear of homicidal strangers is misplaced, since that's not the bulk of the problem.

 

Talk about using stats in a creative way to lie..... just because one gang-banger in Chicago knew the other gang-banger before he murdered him doesn't mean they were close.

 

Try this out: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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

 

So? What does "assertive self-defense" have to do with anything? If you are going to defend yourself against violence - I would suggest that being assertive about it is far more likely to be successful than being passive about it will be. Interestingly, our own CDC agrees with that.....

 

Also, I think you FAR over-estimate the reach of marketing. I'm an avid gun fanatic and I rarely if ever read any of the gun magazines or other publications. I'm a lifetime NRA member (thanks to jocal, seriously) and I have yet to read one of the American Rifleman magazines that I get monthly since I became a member about a year ago. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a marketing ad for a gun or for self-defense. Roughly about a 3rd of Americans own guns - so we are talking about at least 100 million people. The NRA has a membership of something like 4 million. A tiny fraction of the gun-owning public. Guns & Ammo magazine is probably the largest gun publication in the US. They have a readership of ~5.8 million. Again, a tiny fraction of the gun owning public. So your idea that "conditioning & mindset" are applied to everyone is a total fail.

 

I was hoping you may find another string to your bow. Rather than focusing on guns & frantically trying to relate each post I make to guns, do you have anything to say about the 2/3 thirds of Americans who don't own guns? can you relate to them? (yes, yes, I know you don't do questions but give it a go)

 

To respond to what you say about your marketing experiences. Yay for you but I don't think you speak for anyone but yourself

 

In terms of marketing, well, I'll go out on a limb here & say that marketing probably works. I know you & the millions of companies investing ridiculous amounts of money into marketing will disagree but fuck it, that's my theory

 

Well, your theory is simply wrong. I've shown you stats that gun marketing reaches a tiny fraction of the gun-owning public much less the entire population. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

And what does the other 2/3 of the US have to do with this? This thread, as well as your silly theory, is about those that use guns for self-defense. If that 2/3 doesn't even own a gun - how are they part of the conversation? What exactly would you like me to say about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

So? What does "assertive self-defense" have to do with anything? If you are going to defend yourself against violence - I would suggest that being assertive about it is far more likely to be successful than being passive about it will be. Interestingly, our own CDC agrees with that.....

 

Also, I think you FAR over-estimate the reach of marketing. I'm an avid gun fanatic and I rarely if ever read any of the gun magazines or other publications. I'm a lifetime NRA member (thanks to jocal, seriously) and I have yet to read one of the American Rifleman magazines that I get monthly since I became a member about a year ago. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a marketing ad for a gun or for self-defense. Roughly about a 3rd of Americans own guns - so we are talking about at least 100 million people. The NRA has a membership of something like 4 million. A tiny fraction of the gun-owning public. Guns & Ammo magazine is probably the largest gun publication in the US. They have a readership of ~5.8 million. Again, a tiny fraction of the gun owning public. So your idea that "conditioning & mindset" are applied to everyone is a total fail.

 

I was hoping you may find another string to your bow. Rather than focusing on guns & frantically trying to relate each post I make to guns, do you have anything to say about the 2/3 thirds of Americans who don't own guns? can you relate to them? (yes, yes, I know you don't do questions but give it a go)

 

To respond to what you say about your marketing experiences. Yay for you but I don't think you speak for anyone but yourself

 

In terms of marketing, well, I'll go out on a limb here & say that marketing probably works. I know you & the millions of companies investing ridiculous amounts of money into marketing will disagree but fuck it, that's my theory

 

Well, your theory is simply wrong. I've shown you stats that gun marketing reaches a tiny fraction of the gun-owning public much less the entire population. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

And what does the other 2/3 of the US have to do with this? This thread, as well as your silly theory, is about those that use guns for self-defense. If that 2/3 doesn't even own a gun - how are they part of the conversation? What exactly would you like me to say about them?

 

Hahaha, you left out a fair chunk of the media available to gun marketing but whatever, you're clearly so much smarter than I am. I'm Boo-Boo & you're my Yogi

 

You desperately want my theory to be about gun owners because if it's not you can't argue with me & presumably that's because you have nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, your theory is simply wrong. I've shown you stats that gun marketing reaches a tiny fraction of the gun-owning public much less the entire population. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

And what does the other 2/3 of the US have to do with this? This thread, as well as your silly theory, is about those that use guns for self-defense. If that 2/3 doesn't even own a gun - how are they part of the conversation? What exactly would you like me to say about them?

 

Hahaha, you left out a fair chunk of the media available to gun marketing but whatever, you're clearly so much smarter than I am. I'm Boo-Boo & you're my Yogi

 

You desperately want my theory to be about gun owners because if it's not you can't argue with me & presumably that's because you have nothing

 

Ummm, you yourself said your theory is about gun owners. By having guns for self defense - we supposedly contribute to the overall violence in society. How does someone who doesn't have guns enter into a discussion about the "myth of gun ownership for self-defense" or about having guns contributing to a violent society? Did I misconstrue your "theory"? I can go back and re-quote your "theory" if you would like....

 

And what do you mean by "media available to gun marketing"? Are you talking about ALL media and the mythical potential for marketing? Or are you talking reality? I thought we were two adults talking about reality. If you want to get into hypotheticals - we can do that too. Just let me know which way you prefer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, your theory is simply wrong. I've shown you stats that gun marketing reaches a tiny fraction of the gun-owning public much less the entire population. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

And what does the other 2/3 of the US have to do with this? This thread, as well as your silly theory, is about those that use guns for self-defense. If that 2/3 doesn't even own a gun - how are they part of the conversation? What exactly would you like me to say about them?

 

Hahaha, you left out a fair chunk of the media available to gun marketing but whatever, you're clearly so much smarter than I am. I'm Boo-Boo & you're my Yogi

 

You desperately want my theory to be about gun owners because if it's not you can't argue with me & presumably that's because you have nothing

 

Ummm, you yourself said your theory is about gun owners. By having guns for self defense - we supposedly contribute to the overall violence in society. How does someone who doesn't have guns enter into a discussion about the "myth of gun ownership for self-defense" or about having guns contributing to a violent society? Did I misconstrue your "theory"? I can go back and re-quote your "theory" if you would like....

 

And what do you mean by "media available to gun marketing"? Are you talking about ALL media and the mythical potential for marketing? Or are you talking reality? I thought we were two adults talking about reality. If you want to get into hypotheticals - we can do that too. Just let me know which way you prefer.

 

Quote away. Full quotes are best

 

Adult reality....let me change hats...OK, let me quote myself "gun mags etc". Sorry for not being pedantic enough to methodically list every media outlet, agency, medium, strategy & principle. I wrote those words making the assumption that an adult would be able to decipher the "etc". Your expertise in marketing listed "publications" & "NRA", what do you think you've left out? your post below in case you need it

 

Edit: let's remember that my theory isn't centered around marketing nor gun specific marketing. While marketing is obviously (to me, not you) a strong influence it's not the most important aspect

 

Also, I think you FAR over-estimate the reach of marketing. I'm an avid gun fanatic and I rarely if ever read any of the gun magazines or other publications. I'm a lifetime NRA member (thanks to jocal, seriously) and I have yet to read one of the American Rifleman magazines that I get monthly since I became a member about a year ago. I couldn't tell you the last time I saw a marketing ad for a gun or for self-defense. Roughly about a 3rd of Americans own guns - so we are talking about at least 100 million people. The NRA has a membership of something like 4 million. A tiny fraction of the gun-owning public. Guns & Ammo magazine is probably the largest gun publication in the US. They have a readership of ~5.8 million. Again, a tiny fraction of the gun owning public. So your idea that "conditioning & mindset" are applied to everyone is a total fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well, your theory is simply wrong. I've shown you stats that gun marketing reaches a tiny fraction of the gun-owning public much less the entire population. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

 

And what does the other 2/3 of the US have to do with this? This thread, as well as your silly theory, is about those that use guns for self-defense. If that 2/3 doesn't even own a gun - how are they part of the conversation? What exactly would you like me to say about them?

 

Hahaha, you left out a fair chunk of the media available to gun marketing but whatever, you're clearly so much smarter than I am. I'm Boo-Boo & you're my Yogi

 

You desperately want my theory to be about gun owners because if it's not you can't argue with me & presumably that's because you have nothing

 

Ummm, you yourself said your theory is about gun owners. By having guns for self defense - we supposedly contribute to the overall violence in society. How does someone who doesn't have guns enter into a discussion about the "myth of gun ownership for self-defense" or about having guns contributing to a violent society? Did I misconstrue your "theory"? I can go back and re-quote your "theory" if you would like....

 

And what do you mean by "media available to gun marketing"? Are you talking about ALL media and the mythical potential for marketing? Or are you talking reality? I thought we were two adults talking about reality. If you want to get into hypotheticals - we can do that too. Just let me know which way you prefer.

 

Quote away. Full quotes are best

 

Adult reality....let me change hats...OK, let me quote myself "gun mags etc". Sorry for not being pedantic enough to methodically list every media outlet, agency, medium, strategy & principle. I wrote those words making the assumption that an adult would be able to decipher the "etc". Your expertise in marketing listed "publications" & "NRA", what do you think you've left out? your post below in case you need it

 

Fine, you said:

my proposed theory that the American attitude to self defense, because it in itself is inherently violent, contributes to the overall violence problem within the US. However it (the American attitude to self defense) is not recognised recognized as a contributing factor because the American attitude to self defense is both insidious & carefully crafted

 

So since we are specifically discussion guns in the context of American attitudes towards self-defense - I thought it a safe assumption to think that you were talking about guns. No? Then what other type of self-defense tool or method are we discussing? Are you now suggesting that people who carry pepper spray, cricket bats, pocket knives and hands and feet for self-defense are contributing to greater fear and societal violence?

 

Do I think our media in general contributes to overall violence? Absolutely! I've long said there is too much glorification of violence in both the news and entertainment media. But that is a bit different than specific marketing by the gun or even the general self-defense industry.

 

If you think the American notion of self-reliance is a contributor to the mindset of violence, then so be it. I'm more than happy for you to think us a violent country who aren't passive sheep and who don't cower in the corner until the police (or the coroner) arrive. If that notion scares you or makes you uncomfortable about America, then feel free to exercise your god-given right to stay the fuck away. Don't worry, I won't judge you for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I read it on the internet, it must another mythical defensive gun ownership incident

 

 

"They said they were going to kill (her), and that's when I really lost hope, you know?" Skargee said.

 

Skargee's girlfriend, Sable Nehme, tried to lock herself in her room and grabbed a revolver just as one of the men burst in.

 

"The only thing I could think was, 'I need to figure out a way to protect us,'" Nehme said. "I grabbed the gun from out here in my closet. I pointed it at them, because he has busted through my door."

 

Nehme said the man saw the weapon and immediately ran from the room.

 

"I was helpless on the ground and it went from like, complete despair until, you know, I see her in the hallway holding a big revolver, and they're running out the door," said Skargee.

 

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/ucf-student-pulls-gun-burglar-he-breaks-through-do/njyhp/

 

Gift from a loving father saved their lives.

 

Well, according to woofers - it wasn't actually a legitimate use of a gun for self-defense because a shot wasn't fired. Didn't you get the memo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Trigger warning - close your eyes and scroll fast if you don't want to see an imaginary pistol held by Ms Nehme

 

2ai4pj8.png

 

No trigger warning - she even keeps her booger hook off the imaginary bang switch. Bet Dad is proud of his little girl.

 

Wonder why this gal just didn't lay on her bed and let the bad guy have his way with her? Is it 'cuz she has an inbred dislike for rapists or something? She really doesn't seem like a nice gal to me if she chose to pull out a gun instead of just caving in to the poor misunderstood criminal thug. What a bitch...... :lol:

 

And she obviously contributes to the overall mindset of violence in America. All that unfounded fear that drove her to have a weapon for self-defense...... totally unwarranted as this sad story clearly shows. If only she had just been passive and waited for the police or the coroner to arrive - all would have been well. Society has been done a disservice by people of her elk contributing to to violence by choosing to protect themselves. Bitch indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote away. Full quotes are best

 

Adult reality....let me change hats...OK, let me quote myself "gun mags etc". Sorry for not being pedantic enough to methodically list every media outlet, agency, medium, strategy & principle. I wrote those words making the assumption that an adult would be able to decipher the "etc". Your expertise in marketing listed "publications" & "NRA", what do you think you've left out? your post below in case you need it

 

Fine, you said:

>>>my proposed theory that the American attitude to self defense, because it in itself is inherently violent, contributes to the overall violence problem within the US. However it (the American attitude to self defense) is not recognised recognized as a contributing factor because the American attitude to self defense is both insidious & carefully crafted

 

So since we are specifically discussion guns in the context of American attitudes towards self-defense - I thought it a safe assumption to think that you were talking about guns. No? Then what other type of self-defense tool or method are we discussing? Are you now suggesting that people who carry pepper spray, cricket bats, pocket knives and hands and feet for self-defense are contributing to greater fear and societal violence?

 

Do I think our media in general contributes to overall violence? Absolutely! I've long said there is too much glorification of violence in both the news and entertainment media. But that is a bit different than specific marketing by the gun or even the general self-defense industry.

 

If you think the American notion of self-reliance is a contributor to the mindset of violence, then so be it. I'm more than happy for you to think us a violent country who aren't passive sheep and who don't cower in the corner until the police (or the coroner) arrive. If that notion scares you or makes you uncomfortable about America, then feel free to exercise your god-given right to stay the fuck away. Don't worry, I won't judge you for it.

 

 

Again because you seem a bit thick, how should I say this....IT IS NOT explicitly about guns or gun ownership. DO YOU NEED MULTIPLE QUOTES FOR REFERENCE?????

 

Your excruciating pathetic understanding about marketing, the mediums available, the strategies employed & the money invested demonstrate that you are a sheep. Your backfilling about media/violence is cute but you again directly contradict yourself in earlier posts

 

Oh, by the way, God didn't give me any rights, that's an Americanism champ. And the irony of what you say about fear is that....wait for it....drum roll please. America is gripped by fear because fear sells shit (no not just guns, lost of things that adults understand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, by the way, God didn't give me any rights, that's an Americanism champ

 

Apparently, neither does your gov't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joke could not come up with a rationalization why one recreational activity is worth lives and another isn't.

 

Seems his gun hate is rooted in something other than in sound logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites