So open the mailbox this morning, and have a pair of emails from Ralph Albertson. I havent got any really stupid or abusive email so far. Im genuinely impressed at the level of comments and email Ive received to date, so Im going to quote these screeds in full and comment:
Your pro-gun arguments are specious to the point of being farcical. Perhaps you are merely unaware of the large number of children that are injured, maimed, or slain by “accidents” involving guns in their homes or perhaps you actually love your guns more than your children. In any even, if you will list your home address, I will be more than happy to report to the your nearest child protection agency for child endangerment.
Now there is another NRA nutcase sniper shooting people at random. That is another excellent example of your argument in action. In Stockton, one of your people uses a similar weapon to shoot up a schoolyard and murder children. Rather than act to protect the lives of children as the English did in a similar case by banning weapons, NRA people like you fought regulation, which proves again that you love your guns more than your children. The blood of thousands of innocent American who are murdered by guns in this country every year is on your hands. You must be proud to be gun scum.
http://www.childhealthmonitor.org/DirectorySearch.php?topic=84
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
and
Professor InstaCracker Seeks To Deflect Attention Away From NRA
Professor InstaCracker, gunloon and NRA water-carrier, is beating the drums complaining nobody is looking into the Maryland (Montgomery County) Shootings as a potential Al Qaeda terrorism attack. Professor InstaCracker vaguely cites Al Qaeda training manuals as ‘evidence’ this could be a terrorist attack.
While terrorism as a motive for these crimes cannot be discounted, it should be noted the Al Qaeda manuals advised would-be terrorists to take advantage of lax US gun laws (the very same laws Professor InstaCracker would do away with) to obtain firepower.
However, this shooting spree doesn’t really fit the mold of a terrorist attack; one would think a terrorist would select crowds and would attack in a more dispersed area in order to maximize terror. I suspect InstaCracker knows this as well but is engaging in a bit of misdirection to deflect attention from the far greater possibility these senseless murders are the result of yet another of the NRA’s apocryphal “law-abiding citizens” exercising the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Another NRA killer on the loose.
Ralph, youre a moron.
Youre not a moron for opposing guns; thats a legitimate position to take, albeit one that I think is wrong (albeit is a long word that means although). Youre a moron for believing that overheated rhetoric and namecalling will do anything except vent whatever personal frustrations you may have with your life, and make you look foolish in public, which in the long run will add to the personal frustrations you have with your life. Its a sad negative feedback loop.
You want to challenge my beliefs or Glenn Reynolds beliefs, step up and challenge them. Thats what this is about. But youll have to actually do some thinking and work to do so.
Id suggest that you start with the CDC databases, where youll learn that swimming pools are far more dangerous to American children than guns are, something sadly borne out in my personal experience (I have two friends who have lost children in swimming pool drownings). So your concern isnt with the safety of children, but with banning guns, and you’re shilling behind dead children to make your argument. OK, that’s sleazy, but you need to make a case. And unless youre prepared to actually attempt to construct an argument, do it someplace else.
You see, this is arguments
abuse and stupidity are down the hall.
Date: 10/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Mr. Lyman:Your posts are an unending string of cliches and hackneyed slogans.You assert you deserve better–try living up to it.
Date: 10/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Zarquon–Good points.Actually, I haven’t conceded the necessity of background checks, which represent a form of prior restraint. I have endorsed laws prohibiting felons from owning guns, and providing penalties for same. Now in truth, I don’t mind backgroud checks provided they do not become a sneaky form of registraion. Unfortunatly, our current NICS system is just that, despite the law saying clearly that it must not be.Furthermore, under current federal law, the onus is on the government to prove that a gun buyer is ineligible. In that sense, saying that background checks “reverse the presumption of innocence” is a little bit too strong. I just don’t have a better rhetorical phrase. However, it is clear that many gun control proponents DO wish to reverse this presumption and require proof that a gun buyer “needs” a gun. THAT would be deeply offensive to our legal tradition.As for drawing the line between hydrogen bombs and .22 rifles, I don’t find it difficult to draw at all. Weapons which are useful to my self-defense or the defense of the community against common threats such as crime and riots, and which can be operated by a single man, should be considered the right of every American. Yes, I include select-fire rifles. Exceptions may be made for children, convicted violent felons (but not tax-evaders), the mentally ill, etc. but these exceptions must be tied to provable past behavior on the part of the individuals excepted (or the fact that the individual is 8 years old). This principle preserves what I consider to be the essential feature of weapons ownership: protection agaisnt crime and tyranny. It also preserves the centrality of the individual in our legal system.Crew-served weapons, or weapons which are useful only in large tactical formations–tanks, artillery pieces, etc., may (but need not necessarily) be regulated or banned. These weapons are distinguished from ordinary infantry rifles and pistols in that they are not appropriate for individual self-defense or defense of family; their destructive power is too great to avoid innocent casualties even in legitimate self-defense encounters. Grandma can safely off a burgler with her Uzi, but she can’t avoid hurting the neigbors if she uses a howitzer or a .50 caliber cart-mounted machine gun.
Date: 10/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
“Is it too much to ask that gun owners not be violent felons or mentally ill or physically incapable of safely handling a weapon? “Guy Cabot, meet my buddy Straw Man. You just knocked him down, and I don’t think that’s a very nice thing to do.There are a few people who argue that felons should have the right to own guns. You won’t find them here. I am sympathetic to the 50-year-old guy who got into a bar fight when he was 21, and wants to go hunting today, but don’t expect me to stand up for some drug-dealing punk’s right to carry.Ditto for the mentally ill.And, no, it isn’t terrible unreasonable to expect gun owners to be able to handle a gun. But then, it isn’t terribly unreasonable to expect parents to have training in childrearing. Are you suggesting licensing and registration for sperm and eggs? What part of the Bill of Rights would prevent such a thing? Wouldn’t it be better if children were never born to parents who can’t take care of them?Seriously, if I screw up, punish me. But don’t pile on the prior restraint. Accidental gunshot death is actually at the lowest level since records have been kept, so the social case is weak. And you STILL haven’t attempted to justify treating guns differently than any other aspect of life in a free country, in which my fist has a presumptive right to occupy any airspace not currently taken up by your nose.
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
Guy:Most people just call me ‘Armed’.Darn it, you’re still not reading what I’m writing.I received two emails from Ralph Albertson. I then got a supportive comment (supportive of him) from you, with your url. I clicked through, as I try to do, and discovered a post on your blog that was word-for-word identical to Ralph’s email.My question to you, for the third time: Did he steal your words?Well??As to swimming pools, the arguments (which I linked because they came from the same author) that he made were that guns were a prominent cause of death of children, which is true, if you ignore all the things which cause more deaths of children…like swimming pools.You ran with that, and suggested that swimming pools weren’t a problem, but guns were.I replied by asking how you prioritized problems.I’m still waiting for an answer to that, as well.The next ball from you needs to be somewhere on the court or I won’t play with you any more…A.L.
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
Rob- Unfortunately, you don’t quite escape the clutches of the social cost-benefit analysis yourself, since you add the (perfectly reasonable) caveat that there are some weapons that people shouldn’t own, and there are some people who shouldn’t own weapons. You say this is obvious, and I agree. But, why is this obvious? Why, if you owning guns can harm no one (or at least, no one undeserving of harm), why then should you not be allowed to own any weapon of any kind? If the chance of those weapons being misused is zero, then surely the potential harm they can do is irrelevant. As for inappropriate people, at least you’ve conceded the necessity of background checks (how else to determine if you are one of those inappropriate people, after all.) However, that still means that on some level, you are required to show that you are not ______ before being allowed to have a gun, which breaks the presumption of innocence you were claiming earlier. All we’re doing now is haggling over what goes in the blank.
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
Looking back, I see Mr. Lyman made yet another foolish point that must be pointed out:”please explain why it is that gun owners, gunsmiths, gun experts, shooting instructors, et al. seem to oppose these safety “improvements”?”Could the answer possibly have something to do with a financial motive?Golly, gee whiz. Maybe we really ought to listen to those heroin addicts who tell us the drug is harmless…
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
Guy:First, my question was whether Ralph had appropriated your blog post or you were him. I have never challenged your, or anyone else’s use of pseudonyms…it’s just nice to know if you’re dealing with one person or two.Gotta read more carefully, perhaps?And my first question stands…how do you prioritize problems? If saving children is the goal (and it certainly seemed to be so from Ralph’s original email), in a world of finite attention and resource, what is the first thing you do?A.L.
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
This thread, and a few others, caused me to notice something which is perhaps obvious to others but which surprised me a little:BOTH sides in the gun control debate have adopted a collectivist assumption, namely, that gun laws ought to be based on their effect on crime.Yet this assumption frequently inverts the presumption of innocence and the generally accepted notion that one should be free to do whatever one wishes provided one does no harm to others.My possesion of guns harms no one. If you want to take them away, or subject me to registration, or whatever, you need to prove that I pose a threat to others, not that someone, somewhere, might potentially pose a vague threat to someone else. We apply such a presumption to activities. I can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, but that doesn’t mean I get bound and gagged at the entrance because some one *MIGHT* yell “FIRE.” Yet plenty of people want to apply prior restraint to my gun ownership because someone, somewhere *MIGHT* commit a crime. Long-winded post about this here.
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
AL:Guy Cabot is my real name; I’ve no idea who Ralph Albertson is. Of course, it’s amusing to see someone named “Armed Liberal” get exercised about pseudonyms.Mr. Sabet:Anything can be misused and cause death or injury. However, pools, autos, airplanes, etc. have intended uses other than death or injury. Firearms do not. Comparing apples to oranges, Mr. Sabet.Mr. Lyman:Who really cares what you believe? You’ve not formed a semblance of a logical argument other than to shout your misguided beliefs into the wind.As for Project Exile being an initiative for “gun safety” or a mitigating factor of gun violence—you’re terribly confused. Project Exile merely closes the barn door after the livestock has taken flight. It assigns greater penalties to crimes committed with an illegal gun. Cold comfort to a victim’s family.
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
First, on Australia, he starts from the wrong baseline by using data that inlcudes the one-off event of the “massacre” that triggered the gun bam. I hope you aren’t referring to the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, because the Australian data I linked to is from 1900-1940, regarding the effects of introducing mandatory firearms registration to New South Wales in 1920. The international comparison also deals with that period. Try not to leave out all the other violent crimes when looking at Australia as well.Homicide is the most consistently reported, easily measurable crime. If you have a source for violent crime rates for NSW for that time period that I could look at, I’d appreciate it.On a side note, if it turns out to be the case that gun control is positvely correlated with violent crime, but negatively correlated with homicide, where do people think the balance should be? Are 100 less homicides worth 1000 more assaults and robberies? 10,000? 200? In regards to Lott’s response, I will appeal to authority yet again:http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node20.htmlhttp://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lott/node19.htmlOne sentence in Lott’s response amused me, given the context of this conversation:”Yet, they fail to recognize that a law can be associated with reduced crime even when the average crime rate in the period after the law is the same or higher than the average crime rate before the law.” (pg. 6)
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
One final point–“Improving gun safety” is the new trend for gun controllers. Will someone–like Guy, or Ralph, or whoever–please explain why it is that gun owners, gunsmiths, gun experts, shooting instructors, et al. seem to oppose these safety “improvements”? Does Sarah Brady know more about gun safety than these people?And why do these “safety” laws always contain an exemption for police and soldiers? Do we WANT our police to be unsafe?
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
Do we shred the US Constitution because Al Qaeda thinks we have too many freedoms?Do we disregard the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves – just to attempt to prevent crime? What is the logical extension of abandoning freedom in the name of security?
Date: 10/16/2002 00:00:00 AM
Zarquon falls into a couple of traps. First, on Australia, he starts from the wrong baseline by using data that inlcudes the one-off event of the “massacre” that triggered the gun bam. Look at longer-range trends, and look at them over time, and you will see my point. Try not to leave out all the other violent crimes when looking at Australia as well. Classic data mining, in short. In any event, all I have ever claimed for Australia was that crime resumed its previous rate of decline after going up for a few years. Hardly a stellar success story. The data from England is so bad for the gun control side that it can’t be mined, I supposed.As for the Yale piece, I find Lott’s response adequate. Look here for a run-down of studies on the subject. http://www.guncite.com/lott_more_papers.htmlIn any event, it takes some pretty serious book-cooking by Ayres & Donohue to come up with their response, and it only takes a little common sense to note that high-crime jurisdictions have the strictest gun laws, and low-crime jurisdictions the most lenient. There is no state where the absolute rate of violent crime went up after shall-issue concelaed carry passed, leaving the anti-gunners looking pretty foolish for having predicted exactly that would occur.
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
I forgot to mention–the claim that the NRA has opposed each and every gun control measure is false and can come only from ignorance. The NRA has taken a lot of heat–including from me–for selling out on some important points.The NRA used hundreds of thousands of members’ dollars to support Project Exile in Virginia. The NRA dropped its objection to the Brady Bill and the “armor piercing ammunition” ban when those laws were improved to the NRA’s liking. If you’re going to complain about the NRA, you might at least get your facts somewhere other than a VPC fax.
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
Well, Guy, I guess it’d depend on how you defined ‘big threat’; me, I’d use the number of people who died – you? And did ‘Ralph Albertson’ (two of our neighboring stores, BTW) appropriate your blog post and send it to me, or is that you under a pseudonym?A.L.
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
Cabot,You do your side a great disservice w/ your rampant idiocy. A.L. didn’t say that pools are a pox on humanity, he was merely showing the weakness in the argument that guns are a great danger to our children, unless of course you concede that pools are a danger as well.Yes, the D.C. sniper is around because there are guns. Do you support banning airplane because a couple of them were used to kill 3,000 (which at last glance is much larger than 11) of our countrymen?Zarquon shows the polite, intelligent way to argue for the virtues of gun control. Notice the civility (even in the sarcasm) and most importantly a link to sources with actual facts!!! That is why you are a moron and Zarquon is not.
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
The opposite occurred in spades in England and, initially, in Australia (although the pre-ban decline has apparently resumed at the same rate). Did it? Homicide must have been an exception, then.http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/international/msg00010.htmlhttp://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/archive/nsw/Conversely, in this country, high gun ownership and/or shall-issue concealeed carry permits are associated with lower crime. Except when they aren’t.http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/ayres%20donohue%20on%20guns%20-%203-021.pdf
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
Check out the big brain on Armed Liberal. Let’s see; swimming pools are the big threat, not firearms.Hmmmm.Gee, I didn’t know you could drag a swimming pool into a 7-11 and drown the clerk. And I’ll bet it’s pretty tough to get your swimming pool into an elevator, take it to the 41st floor and drown that boss and coworkers who’ve caused you so much grief.We cannot help but be troubled by those drive-by soakings.The fact is Professor InstaCracker is carrying the water for the NRA which has opposed every–repeat–every initiative which might improve gun safety or mitigate gun violence.As noted, terrorism can’t be discounted as a motive for the Maryland shootings. But the fact remains captured Al Qaeda training manuals advised would-be terrorists to take advantage of the lax US gun laws.However, the shootings in the DC area aren’t likely being perpetrated by Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group or Crisco Johnny Ashcroft would be using this to support ‘regime change’ in Iraq or whatever country is handy to keep the economy and Harken Oil off the frontpage.
Date: 10/15/2002 00:00:00 AM
I haven’t followed the comments religiously, but I am still waiting for someone to point out an example of extensive gun control being associated with a decline in crime. The opposite occurred in spades in England and, initially, in Australia (although the pre-ban decline has apparently resumed at the same rate). Conversely, in this country, high gun ownership and/or shall-issue concealeed carry permits are associated with lower crime. Until someone has an instance that contradicts this pattern, the gun controllers will not be able to convince me that they are doing anything more than pursuing an irrational fear of guns.Bring it on , Ralph. Tell me where crime has gone down after gun control was instituted.
Date: 10/14/2002 00:00:00 AM
So your concern isn?t with the safety of children, but with banning gunsAmen.
Date: 10/14/2002 00:00:00 AM
Wow. Look at you go. 🙂
Walter Prescott Webb (author of “The Great Frontier”) predicted that as the North American population density reached that of pre expansion Europe we would see our freedoms being eroded away gradually. Now we see sophistry, duplicity and intellectual fraud utilized to undermine the most fundamental infrastructure of our rights.
One book written in support of such attacks was so shameful that the author resigned from a cushy tenured University position after public exposure. “Research” which was waved about and quoted eagerly to prove increase of concealed carry caused increased crime instead of its reduction was quietly dropped with no intellectual concession, reparation or admission when the manner of the statistical lie was clearly exposed.
I don’t mind losing an argument when it is a matter of learning I was wrong. I admit it and profit. That is learning. I don’t want to win by any means right or wrong, championing one lie then another and another until enough have been swallowed by the gullible.
When the time comes that our descendants wonder how their heritage of freedom was lost I think there will be a great many liars to thank for it. I’ve seen such, changing the name of their organization to escape the reputation and burden of their accumulated duplicity and frauds, in order to exploit semantic fraud as in their “common sense” “safety” or “public health” scams.
One opposing group that I know of has been intellectually stalwart, truthful, defending freedoms final infrastructure and has been standing the test of time since being founded by the likes of President Grant. Almost every president we’ve had simce that time has been a member, with the exception, I have read, of two whose absence is, in itself, a testimonial. If religion and free press and speech are to have any longevity beyond our own, among living freedoms then only one thing is the final bulwark, the innate God given (as are the other rights), Constitutionally acknowledged (unlike swimming pools), right to bear arms. The final intellectual defender of it (not the ACLU, for sure) and thus all the other rights is the fore mentioned group. You guessed it; it is the National Rifle Association in their millions. God bless them.
Let’s forget the bullsh*t and cut to the facts about gun control: In thousands of years of human population on this planet, when have rape, terrorism, murder, robbery of any other crime been legal?? Never! Duh! And how many crimes do you think these stupid “NO GUNS OR HAT PINS ALLOWED ON PREMISES” signs have actually stopped?? None! Hello! Restraining orders, speed limits and rules are writing on a scrap of paper and dont make an ounce of difference to a criminal, who’s profession is breaking rules, folks!
The NRA does not back terrorism, nor does it insist that everybody, including little kids be armed, nor does it insist tha school shootings are okay! The NRA and the rest of us simply want people to allowed the means and proper training to fight back AGAINST THE BAD GUYS.
How many schools have been shot up by dad on his way to gas up the car?? None! How many terrorists came from the boy scout meeting to kill fliers?? None! How many mommies leave birthing classes to rob a store?? NONE!! These acts are committed by rule braking, law ignoring criminals. These acts are opposed by people like me, who have licenses, guns and behave like civilised humanity. We do not deserve to have our guns taken from us. We are the ones who’s pregnant wives and crippled grandparents want the right and ability to defend outselves.
This crap over drive by shootings and workplace violence is just that, crap. Disarming citizens will not stop it. Criminals will always have guns or other weapons. The trouble is that the good guys cannot fight back without their idiot bosses firing them for it when they were not to blame. Besides, if you think the very government who wants to disarm you (oh yes, miss feinstein, nice .357. Oh yes maam, I turned my gun in like a good fellow when you told me to. I’m just a peasant, not a wealthy important person like you, I don’t deserve protection) and who suspends the constitution they are vowed to protect (right to freedom of speech denied to the NRA under penalty of jail) is your friend, you are mistaken. First our gun rights, then your whatever rights.
Hey Tom and Gene,
Both of you have great posts. Like you, Tom, I get sick over this tendency to immediately ban something just because people don’t like.
No one in their right mind is opposed to common sense regulations of guns. By that, I mean prohibiting ownership by convicted felons, those adjucated mentally ill or minors.
I also have no problem with laws and ordinances that prohibit the use of a gun in certain times and places (like discharging a firearm in a crowded urban area) or using a gun for anything other than target shooting, hunting or self defense.
But complete and total bans don’t work. I lived in the inner city of Tampa, Fl. for seven years, in a neighborhood plagued by hookers and junkies.
During that same time period, I visited relatives in New York City for a total of four weeks.
If gun control did any good, then New York City and state should be the safest places in America, while Florida, with its relatively lenient gun laws, should be the most dangerous.
But the truth is, that I heard more gunfire from my mother’s Upper West Side apartment than I heard in more than seven years in inner city Tampa.
That tells me something.
And Tom, regarding the media and guns, I work for the media, and most people have no idea the biases against guns and how stories relating to guns are handled by editors.
But that’s another post.
I guess I should correct myself on that. There does exist a bias in MUCH OF the media as opposed to all of it. Essentially those who feel that there are no law abiding gun owners, just criminals waiting to happen, you will find no stories of citizens defending themselves, just stories of the bad guy and his famous handgun. Michael Moore, Rosie O’ Donut and my personal favorite, Sylvester biggestgunyou’vegot Stalone like to go public with their angles, and many newspapers, including the Dallas one, so far as I recall, do not run ads for people selling guns. Of course, the media, as everything else, is composed of people with different points of view, some good, some not so good. Same with the police and every other walk of life. Sorry for any misunderstanding, my bad. Tom
Mr. Lyman made me think of an angle that I wanted to share. He makes the point that certain weapons are innappropriate for certain things, and this is true, boiling down to a question of responsible thinking. It is true it’s not good for people to use .50 caliber monster guns for home defense, but a little absurd since no one wants tot hat I know of. The gun owners I’ve been around in the past keep canons (me included) for historical and enjoyment purposes. We would gather with our guns, largely revolvers and muskets, canons and gattling guns and either reenact or have fun shoots where we just enjoyed using them. Reenactments, of course, involve blanks, but we do enjoy the fireballs produced by canons in the night sky.
I prowl around my woods generally carrying a black powder .44 because I like them. They are not great personal protection weapons due to some personality glitches inherant in the era they came from, such as spent percussion caps, but they are good for shooting snakes, skunks (a baby skunk nailed me once beside my house and nearly took the sight from my eye permanently) and other critters. Rabies can be a problem out here, and so can dog attacks.
For enjoyment, I like the pop and kick of a .357 because they pack a punch, and I used mine extensively in barbaric attacks against an old washing machine till it had hundreds of holes.
.357s are too powerful to carry since collateral damage is a problem, so we carry .38s instead, to make an intelligent decision.
Basicly it boils down to what you want a weapon for. We don’t need big guns for home defense, but we like to shoot them. I can’t recall any kids being killed with them (oh oh, mama, Bobby is messing with the canon again).
I know people with some very serious weapons, but they use them on wide open fields for enjoyment, not for warding off thugs. We do shoot crawdads with a .22 though since they are hell on lawn mowers.
Hey Tom,
You have nothing to apologize for. I think maybe I wasn’t too clear before, but my point was that you don’t know how right you are.
I’m a proud gun owner, but I work for an industry that is decidedly anti-gun. Or, at least, anti-gun for common people. The owners of this country’s media conglomerates don’t want their right to keep and bear arms abridged – just the masses.
But here’s a case in point for how the media handles the issue of guns. In 1994, both of my local newspapers carried the wire service story about actor Edward James Olmos and his attempts to get a concealed weapons permit in Los Angeles.
Olmos said he was being threatened by members of the Mexican Mafia after doing the film, “American Me.” However, the then-LA police chief (who’s name escapes me now) turned him down saying that he didn’t believe the threats against him were credible.
What both local papers left out of the story (I read it on the wires) was that two technical consultants for that movie were similarly threatened before they were KILLED.
(A 60 Minutes story on the Mexican Mafia in the late 1990s touched on those deaths and attempts to intimidate Olmos).
Another examples of biases against guns – My newspaper’s stylebook expressly forbids the use of the word “semi-automatic” when describing a gun. It is either automatic or not.
I can’t wait until I am away from the daily newspaper grind. One day, I will write a book about how decisions are made to cover different issues and stories, including guns.
I’ve often toyed with the idea of writing a book myself, dealing with the hysteria of those who do not want guns concealed, but would be terrified to know how many of us carry them, their irrational fear that anyone who has a firearm is a dangerous person, and the funny little issue of those said to be qualified, among other things.
I’ve heard it said so many times that only the police and military should have guns, yet what people fail to realize is that the police are people in uniform, the same as anyone else. They sometimes shoot the wrong people, have accidents, etc, just like other folks with guns, and many police are gun enthusiasts also. They also are given radios to call for backup, have body armor, and other advantages that you and I do not have. If we are assaulted, it will be with no backup, no ability to use a radio or phone, and I seriously doubt we will wear body armor.
I’ve never understood how innumerable traffic accidents can occur, but none of these zealots wishes any bans on drivers. What if we started the Cooalition Against Vehicular Violence and demanded that if you were caught drunk, driving recklessly or speeding you lost your lisence, car, and faced a manditory sentence other than sitting in a fancy diner listening to someone give a one day class in safe driving so you could scrub your ticket. Think anyone would start the Million Safe Driver March?
Unfortunately this man who now wants to be president has a hidden sword under his uniform with which he will be striking down gun owners if he is elected. Heaven help us if this pacifist and generally dishonest and story changing man becomes president.
Hey Tom,
You hit it on the head with your reference to “pacifists.” In my experience, many of the most rabid anti-gunners are that way because they are such radical pacifists that they feel using force against another, even self-defense, is morally wrong.
Don’t get me wrong – to dedicate yourself to a philosphy to the point that you’re willing to die for it takes guts. I respect that.
What I don’t respect is anyone who tries to force their religious, political or philosophical views on others through rule of law.
It’s wrong when right-wingers try to cram their views on abortion and school prayer down our throats. It’s equally wrong when certain left-wingers cram their views on guns down our throats.
I also like your reference to those who think only the military or police should own guns. I consider myself a proud liberal. I’m proud of the fact that liberals have a long history of questioning the government, of wanting to limit government power in individuals’ lives.
I’m also proud of the fact that it is liberals who are ALWAYS the first to speak out against police corruption and police brutality, or against the excesses of the military industrial complex.
So I’m always puzzled that these same liberals think that only the police and mility should have weapons.
Just my 2 cents.
You make an excellent point. More than one actually. People ASSUME that because the government is composed of elected individuals who wear suits and ties that they know what is best for us. They forget that these people often make a career of deciet and corruption (Dianne Feinstein “Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in” yet she carries one of the top most powerful revolvers of all, which I myself do not carry because it is TOO powerful, yet we are to be without guns). I have seen first hand instances of government men and women abusing power and hurting others just because they can. Case in point is the BATF raid on a small private gun shop owner who had done nothing wrong, but the uniformed hoodlums destroyed $250.00 worth of his guns, including customer weapons.
I have to ask, if our government was to send men from door to door to disaprove of items we own, be it guns, adult reading material (that has been on the ban list also) or anything else, how many Americans would allow these men to raid their houses because Big Brother felt he had the right to control their lifestyle. How many think he would stop at guns? Can you say Gestapo?
Another point you bring to my mind is that the anti gun extremists also ASUME that everyone’s lifestyle is, or should be, judged by their standards. Some people live in rich urban communities where gun use is not a viable issue. Others live in downtown neighborhoods riddled with crime where it is not safe to walk in the dark, or even the daytime. I live in the country where we keep guns to ward off predatory animals and sometimes thieves. To judge all neighborhoods by the same standard is folly. To say that no parent can teach their children to safely handle guns is falacy and demeans parents, who’s very job entails great responsibility. You can raise a kid, run a business, drive a car in town and work a job but cant handle a gun? Silly!
As you say, and very rightly, no one has the right to say “it’s my way all the way, and I’ll force you to live by MY standards!!”
Atheists do not have the right, nor christians, to force others to accept their views, gun owners or banners do not have that right, nor do other walks of life. We have had one bloody civil war over the issue of rights.
I fear greatly that another civil war might ever erupt. If passions over rights were to flare to those levels again it would be beyond imagination, the horror of it.
I agree with your points of view. I also am one not to put my entire trust in anyone just because his name is on a bumper sticker.
I made a mistake. The BATF raided the man’s shop on suspicion that he might have not properly done all of his paperwork, and they proceeded to examine all of his guns, including firearms which belonged to customers, family heirlooms (please e mail me, any anti gun person who reads this and can justify such evil tactics, I’d love to discuss YOUR family treasures with you!) toss the weapons into cans and destroy ONE QUARTER MILLION dollars in stock. I wrote $250.00 but feel very compelled to correct that figure. No matter how you slice it, that was madness, pure and simple.
I have a challenge for the anit gun community: We in the pro gun part of the world never have a shortage of stories of armed citizens defending homes, families, cops, etc. with our guns, yet those who feel we are criminals for owning weapons claim that tasers, stun guns, pepper spray, and words can stop an attacker. I might be able to hand pepper spray a point here and there, but I’d really really like to hear some stories about robberies, thefts, carjacking, rapes or other crimes being thwarted by words. Matter of fact, I’d like to hear of a few instances where police made it in time to catch a criminal. These things seem to be in short supply.
Hey Gene,
In many places, (New York City for one) you can’t even carry pepper spray, mace, a stun gun or a taser without a permit.
If you use them, you’ll be going to the same place as the mugger or rapist you just fended off.
Just one more example of the anti-gun stupidity.
For those who may read this and have the courage to take a little dose of truth, I spent some time looking over materials by one of the Gun Ban proponent’s heros, Josh sugarman.
As always, entire books could be written on the errors, falsehoods and straw grasping of Sugerpie’s work, but I found a few points outstanding:
One of Sugarman’s suppositions is that Sameul Colt started a gun craze in a time which was relatively peaceful and people did not wnt guns. He points the finger at Colt for using etchings on guns to trick a gullible public into buying them, resulting in armed cowboys and ex confederate soldiers, a basic killing ground in post war times.
What sugarman skirts around is the fact that revolvers were well along in design and sales, but Mr. Colt streamlined the art, selling his first famous revolvers to the Texas Rangers. I have one, a huge five pound gun that fires impressive rounds which I’ve used for reenacting. The writings of my ancestors show that Indian attacks, robberies and frontier dangers made a revolver something like a credit card-you did not leave home without one. My ancestor Felix carried a gun and had trouble constantly with Indian thieves and ranchers trying to kidnap his daughter. Sugarman is either lying or badly misled. Guns were used by the good guys then also and were indespensable. It was written “those who own Colt’s revolvers cannot be persuaded to part with them at any price”.
Suggarman goes on to claim that with the help of NRA gun nuts, who are branded far and wide as fanatics, women have been sold on the fictional idea that they need guns to protect themselves.
Women, so the story goes, have their guns taken away and used on them.
Let us digress here for a moment; it is a fact that many women are smaller and weaker than men. It is also a fact that rapists are generally men (please point out a female rapist in the news if you will) who are bigger and tougher, often on drugs, and damn dedicated to their art. May I ask any reader to tell me a better way for a women to defend herself than a gun??? Lets us digress further:
1. Tasers-good for ONE ATTACKER AT A TIME and who would guarantee that a rapist will come alone??
2. Pepper spray, as you point out, illegal in New York, and in Texas I heard a mexican comment “we eat stuff hotter than that.” Great for making an attacker mad as you dial 911.
Stun guns-come in ranges from small to large. Smalls lose juice within five seconds and must be recharged (“scuse me mister rapist as I plug in me trusty zapper”). High powered stun guns will do harm, but require an attacker to be UPON THE VICTIM AND ELECTOCUTE THE VICTIM AS WELL.
4. Saws-English police suggested keeping a hand saw as a defense weapon. Must I go into the stupidity of this??
5. MARTIAL ARTS-My personal favorite. As a rule, thugs have long records including violence, fighting, murder, etc. Drug induced attitude problems, shall we say, are the norm. To put it simply, would we as men pit our wives, ordinary ladies with kids, against one or more thugs in hand to hand combat and bet their lives on her winning? Be honest. If you would, divorce her because she is better off without you.
Sugarman also points out that concealed carry license holders commit crimes, including gun crime. I will not dispute that. I will however questionthe idea that a man who wnts to be a criminal will waste his time legalizing gun ownership.
Finally, although I could go on for hours, Sugarman points out the supposed falacy of gun owners effectively using guns to protect home and property, pointing out the poor marksmanship and the mishandling of guns by users.
Essentially, it is pretty obvious that no one goes out and buys a new Caddilac, hits the interstate and learns to drive the first time. It is blatantly obvious that careful thought and learning to use a gun makes it more affective, as opposed to buying, loading, then setting the gun aside and not using it.
Sugarman has many issues, but the bottom line is, would you gamble your personal safety, your wife, your kids, against armed and dangerous inturders? On what? Baseball bats, words, hand to hand combat? Would you watch your wife raped, your house robbed, your kids terrorized, maybe murdered as you hide your head in the sand to be a pacifist, or would you meet force with force and use the one tool which has the power to make a difference?
In regard to children, there is one thing which makes a responsible person out of an otherwise ill mannered idiot: Education.
It’s sad that Sugarman and his fellows pedal these falacies, even sadder that so many believe them.
Hey Tom,
Great posts. I especially like the reference to martial arts as a means of self defense.
It never fails that when I encounter some anti-gunner, they will say “If you’re so afraid, why don’t you take kerrotty?”
First, I correct that person’s Japanese. It’s pronounced kah-rah-tay.
Second, I ask that person about his or her experience in a martial art. Usually, that person has none, or quit after only a couple of months.
Third, I bring up my experience in martial arts. It will be 30 years in November. I hold black belts in three arts that award them (1st dan, Tae Kwon Do; 2nd dan, Arnis; 3rd dan, Tang Soo Do. I learned the latter from two of former champion Chuck Norris’ teachers). I’ve also qualified as an instructor in several Chinese arts, which do not award black belts.
Lastly, I point out to said idiot that “The Matrix” was not a documentary. It was fiction. Knowing a martial art does not enable someone to dodge bullets and take on hoards of armed men.
It would be so funny if it wasn’t so sad talking to these people.
That’s an erea where negative media sources do alot of damage. They make martial arts look easy and stylish, while the actors doing it are not proficient, as a rule, and have rehearsed every detail and planned it all.
Even if martials were viable as an option, which in some cases they certainly are, a pregnant woman, old person, disabled person, average man or woman, or a young person would not be able to affectively use them. What Gun Ban yoyos fail to understand is that a gun is the only indomitable force that will stop hostile advances, period.
I’d like to see pornography banned, personally, but I’ve never heard of naked girls killing anybody for looking at them. Including those with killer bodies, ha. I’m not starting any coalitions though, because I respect the rights of others.
Here’s food for thought: A little personal doctoring, by me, of the opening page of the Center For Prevention of Handgun Violence, aimed at something less expensive than guns, more readily available than guns, that kids have more of than guns, and kills more people than guns. My changes are in bold. Read on:
“the United States leads the world in ALCAHOL RELATED violence of all types. Homicides, suicides, unintentional eaths. Most of this violence involves the ABUSE OF ALCAHOL.”
Examples: Drunk driving accidents kill children, maim innocent people and are readily seen on highways and in the news all the time. Every weekend I see handfuls of those split barriers on highway devisions ploughed into by drivers who lost it as they passed.
You can buy a bottle of booze for less than ten dollars, a case of beer for less than you can buy ammunition. Kids routinely get alcahol, either on their own or from someone who buys. DUI is one of the most common, if not THE most common offense.
Let us skip down a bit: “The call to ban ALCAHOL ABUSE is not inspired by a generalized hatred of ALCAHOL. It is a response to the blood price that our nation has paidfor the explosive growth of the ACAHOL ABUSE PROBLEM over the past generation.”
First off, don’t waste my time yelling plagiarism, I did this to illustrate a point. Second, alcahol covers more ground than bullets any day of the week, and you don’t have background checks or waiting periods, limits or any other hodgepodge. Before you say “alcahol abuse is illegal” I must say oh yes, and so is FIREARM ABUSE, so is rape, so is murder, burglary, and all other crime, always have been. When has making something illegal stopped it from being abused? Does a sign saying “No Weapons Allowed” reeeeeeeeally stop a criminal? Then why not a sign which says “No rape, carjacking, burglary or murder permitted on this premises”??
Everyone, including me, likes a stiff drink now and then for whatever reason and no one, including me, wants a ban on the sauce. But if you want to ban stuff for being an accessory to violence, dont just pick gun owners, BAN IT ALL! Ciggarettes, booze, cars, knives, small dogs, cottonballs, potato rinds………..
It’s been a while since I saw the movie “Enough” but I remember how it went and at the time it was hard to stay still in my seat.
Basicly a woman is married to a control freak who cheats on her among other things, and when she confronts him he informs her that it’s his right to cheat and if she takes any action he will kill her because she belongs to him.
Of course she makes her escape with her daughter, and things get ugly. Friends go with her into her house, unarmed and as I watched I could count the times a firearm would have kept them from serious danger. Of course mister deranged husband had one!
The interesting and truly sad part of this idiot movie is that the woman ends up getting into husband’s apartment, disposing of his guns and after one month of martial arts training she royally kicks his butt and kill him.
Of course the message is obvious, that with a little punchie kickie training she could stand against her bigger, stronger husband, whooping him.
I wonder how many women would be willing to bet their lives on the same scheme. Hey, it works in the movies so it must be true!!
Hey Tom,
HHHHAAAAAAALLLLLLEEEEEELLLLLLLUUUUUJJJJAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Testify Brother!
There’s a lot more to learning a martial art than you see in the movies. It’s not a matter of taking a few lessons and you’re instantly ready to take on hordes of armed men.
As I’ve said before, I’ve trained and taught for nearly 30 years. But if someone’s trying to climb in my bedroom window in the middle of the night, I’m not going to kung fu him. I’m going to see how fast I can empty a magazine or cylinder into his ass.
Hand to hand combat is what I use when I don’t have access to a piece.
One last comment on the subject of guns and martial arts: History shows that any culture that bans or severely restricts private ownership of weapons will also severely restrict access to martial arts training. Consider these examples.
Kung Fu – A great many of the existing styles today, particularly Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Yau Kung Mun, White Eyebrow, various types of Preying Mantis, Choy Li Fut, were created during the Ch’ing Dynasty in China.
It was during this time that China was ruled by a foreign power, the Manchus. Not only was the ownership of a weapon illegal by native Chinese, so was the study of martial arts.
The above-listed arts were developed by peasants and renegade shaolin monks so the common people could defend themselves and eventually overthrow the Manchus.
Karate – Developed in Okinawa after the Japanese conquered the Ryu Kyu Islands. The Japanese forbade peasants from owning weapons or practicing martial arts. Punishment was usually death by crucifixion.
Tae Kwon Do – Developed by Gen. Choi Hong Hi, an active member of several revolutionary movements to drive the Japanese from Korea in the early 20th Century.
Jujitsu, yawara, kenpo, aikijutsu – arts developed during Japan’s feudal era. The study of any of these arts by members of the peasant classes was punished by death, usually crucifixion.
Capoeira – Developed by Angolans brought to the New World as slaves. In some cases in Brazil, these slaves were able to overthrow their masters and live among the Indians, or create “Free Towns.”
In America, the practice of drumming, singing and dancing by slaves was prohibitted in many pre-Civil War communities. Why? Because the southern slave-owners knew that they were practicing fighting, concealed as a dance.
Medeaval Europe – Ownership of weapons or practicing the use of arms was prohibited by law and punishable by death.
South Africa – Under Apartheid, Zulus were prohibited from owning weapons, even spears and sticks, or practicing the fighting arts of their ancestors. They only fell to European Rule because the Europeans had superior firepower.
USSR – Until well into the 1980s, citizens could only practice sport forms of boxing, wrestling and judo (or it’s Soviet cousin, Sambo) since those were all Olympic sports.
Karate was illegal in the Soviet Union, as was, SUPRISE! the private ownership of firearms.
U.S. Federal Prisons – Not only will owning a weapon get you thrown in the hole, so will practice of any martial art other than western boxing. I personally met a Franciscan nun/peace activist who was disciplined for practicing her Tai Chi in a prison exercise yard.
What is truly sad about the gun ban movement is that these things you mention and gun control have one common drive and result: the only people in control are the rich, famous and powerful. The sad part is that there are millions of men and women who buy into the government and organization fed lie that crime and accident will drop if we get rid o dem guns. These uninformed people do not realize that the Feinsteins, Shumers, Plosis, and others want guns banned while they themselves own firearms of various descriptions. Joyce Brothers lives in new york and her husband is a licensee and gun owner. She claims guns are owned by men who have to compensate for small penises. She should not make that public, I suspect, for his sake.
The rich and powerful crave money and CONTROL. They want to have a dictatorship in which they can set the rules, build the perfect society, like Hitler, of their own making, and dictate every move of those below them, making essential slaves.
Those who are afraid of guns and hate them are vulnerable to the brainwashing tactics of “get rid of the guns by force and society will be so much prettier, since anyone who owns a gun is a criminal anyway”. They ignore articles, e mails, or any other education that shows them how millions of OTHER Americans own guns, have them around their kids, and never have a problem.
They play on the people’s fear telling the garbage about how an armed citizen on the bus or in the store with them is a danger to them, about how the NRA wants every man woman and child armed to the teeth so they can kill and maim for fun, and they blame every gun owner (Josh Sugarmann has the nerve to write “every handgun is aimed at you” as if we are all madmen waiting to slaughter for fun. So many are willing to believe it and they don’t want to hear anything else.
Fortunately there are millions of people with common sense who know that a little education and a proper mental attitude are all it takes to make a gun into something positive. One accident and the anti gun community screams for bans and blood, even though accidents can be remedied by common sense. Essentially, one idiot lets his uneducated child get a gun and shoot somebody and we ALL killed the child and need our guns removed.
Of course they also ignore the fact that cigarettes, drunk drivers, pools, electricity, etc. claim lives every year.
I once told the wife in a store “here I sit with my licensed gun and hundreds of people around me. Not one of them fears me or notices me. If they all knew I had my gun, even though I’m jus here to shop, do you know how terrifed and angry many of them would be? And for no reason!”
I believe gun ban people are respobnsible for the 9 11 deaths and every time a woman is attacked and raped, a house robbed, or anyone is a victim and cannot fight back because guns are illegal.
Too bad these people cannot realize that bans don’t work. Gun bans harm the innocent.
Such people as Dianne Feinstein, who carries a .357 magnum but decalres that if she could make every man and woman in this country turn in their guns she would do it.
Such people as Stalone, who made tens of millions of dollars playing macho man roles, then decalred that Americans live in the dark ages, need our laws suspended and our homes raided in order to take away weapons, including from those who simply collect antiques.
Such people as Michale douglas, Dustin Hoffman and the queen herself, Rosie O’Donnel, who has guards watching her kids but feels that ours should just take the risk when they go to school.
Such people as that clown now running for the presidency who claims to be a hunter, yet votes for removal of gun owners rights every time he gets the chance.
These high dollar clowns dont care if average americans die from murder and robbery on the way through town late at night because to them we are expendable. Arrogant morons they are, who feel that we are beneth them like the step mother in Cindarella. These people are not our friends, just slugs abusing their popularity.
I must compliment Bruce Willis, who sees gun ownership as the right of decent people and who feels that he would rather see Joe Average go into the white house without even knowing much about politics as opposed to some political puppet who makes his life out of lying his ass off to you and me. Pardon me for appearing to bash the wealthy. I will correct myself for seeming to stereotype them all.
Excuse me, but what is wrong with what Tom said? Can you give us some examples, and cite some authoritative sources, or are you just talking out of your ass?
My advice – Read “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms” in “Abbey’s Road” by Edward Abbey. No one does a better job of pointing out the elitism inherent in gun control.
Jumping in late here. I’m undecided on this issue, and I’m just going to point out a couple of things I noticed.
Rob: the difference between requiring gun owners to have some training in gun use before buying a gun and requiring parents to be trained before raising children is that it’s possible to judge gun proficiency with some level of objectivity. Not so with child rearing–a Christian fundamentalist would have vastly different views on appropriate child rearing than mine. Whereas judging whether or not someone can using a gun is a more objective and less value-dependent proposition.
Do you oppose driver’s licenses? It’s the same idea when it comes to guns (though we can argue on whether or not guns should be regulated to the same degree.)
Hey Linnett,
Without getting into too many of the problems and potential abuses that requiring licenses would cause, let me just say this: The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. If you need a permit or license to engage in a certain behavior, then it is no longer a right, it is a privilege.
Sadly, we are living in an oppressive time when we need permits to engage in many behaviors that were once considered rights. Just look at the abuses suffered by protestors during the Bush Regime, especially by those during the Repuke convention in NYC. The last I checked, NYC was still part of America and the Constitution guaranteed those demonstrators the right to peaceably assembly in any public street or park in the city.
One other remark I’d like to make on the elitism inherent in gun control.
I just read the Rolling Stone article on Michael Moore and found out he travels with a bodyguard. There are also bodyguards for his wife and daughter.
I’ll bet my next paycheck that those bodyguards are armed.
I like Michael Moore. “Roger and Me” is one of my favorite movies, and I loved “Fahrenheit 911.” I consider Moore a true American hero in many respects, especially in exposing the greed in corporate America and drawing attention to the downsizing/outsourcing that has been crippling this country since the Reagan Regime.
But I think he’s dead wrong on gun ownership, and I think he’s a stinking hypocrite telling others they have no right to keep and bear arms when he can afford to hire armed guards to protect his family.
Also, he has no right calling himself a pacifist, as I’ve heard him do on several occasions. I’m no pacifist myself, but I respect those few, true pacifists, like Ghandi, the Amish, MLK. True pacificism argues that all violence is wrong, whether you commit it yourself, or through a proxy like an armed bodyguard.
And I doubt very seriously that Moore’s bodyguard will sit me down for a calm, rational discussion if I were to pull a gun on him.