Dear Gun Carriers

[SecularMotion]

Here is Why We Do NOT Believe You When You Insist You Are Safe
It is because you aren't.

Not too long ago I wrote about the correlation between a state being red and the number of Wal Marts it had, along with the pattern of people having far lower levels of education, and being obese. In short, it tracks perfectly with the NRA tendency for their gun nuts to be old, white, flabby and crabby, conservative and not well educated.
And along with their obsessions with carrying guns at Wal Marts is the reported incidences of stupid accidents -- like guys shooting toilets out from under their own asses in men's rooms because their gun fell out while they were relieving themselves, and discharged. The gun carriers span the spectrum from open carry to legal concealed carry to illegal carry, and a wider variety of demographics than the NRA members -- and they are all dangerous, they all put others at risk without a legitimate reason to carry.

http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/07/dear-gun-carriers-open-and-concealed.html

[Berserker]

1. Hey look everybody

a steaming pile of shit put into words.

[a geek named Bob]

2. +1 n/t

[SecularMotion]

3. Do you live in a red state?

[gejohnston]

8. do you always buy in to classist bullshit?

not to mention anti rural and anti working class bigotry? I thought liberals were supposed to be above moronic stereotypes. Rather than a "rational discussion of politics and current events" it reads more like Mitt's speech left, some faux liberal likes to pretend he is superior to those very people who marched on Madison. Perhaps this clown actually should actually read a book, like The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.

One key to the movement's lack of popularity, Orwell argues, is its supporters. "As with the Christian religion," he writes, "the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." Then he wheels out the heavy rhetorical artillery. The typical socialist, according to Orwell, "is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years time will quite probably have made a wealthy marriage and been converted to Roman Catholicism, or, still more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job, usually a secret teetotaler, and often with vegetarian leanings … with a social position he has no intention of forfeiting. … One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England." (Think "organic food lover," "militant nonsmoker," and "environmentalist with a private jet" for a more contemporary list.)
Orwell also rails against the condescension many on the left display toward those they profess to care most about. Describing a gathering of leftists in London, he says, "every person there, male and female, bore the worst stigmata of sniffish middle-class superiority. If a real working man, a miner dirty from the pit, for instance, had suddenly walked into their midst, they would have been embarrassed, angry and disgusted; some, I should think, would have fled holding their noses."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/05/obama_and_orwell.html?fb_ref=sm_fb_like_chunky&fb_source=timeline

BTW, how is "red state defined"? Most states are varying shades of purple. Within each state, each county is various shades of purple. Some red, some blue.


Even in Wyoming, with a Dem Gov at the time, only three or four of the 23 counties were red, two were blue, the rest were purple. I'm from one of the purple ones. The two very blue counties are more rural and more gun toting than the reddest county in California.

[SecularMotion]

10. You have a problem with liberals?

[gejohnston]

14. only faux liberals that are just as bigoted

as the right. He is a bigot. His entire screed was anti rural, anti working class bigotry. His entire site is filled with it, without out anything resembling thoughtful or intelligent. Thom Hartmann, he is not.

[CokeMachine]

35. +1,000

I actually grew up in one of the blue counties in Idaho. I have no use for regoinal and or urban bigots. Thank God there are few except when it involves Guns.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

83. not

gejohnston........were you the silly person who posted the comment on my blog that ccw permittees were better trained than law enforcement because they ALL go to the range more often? Never mind THAT isn't true, or that there is no periodic proficiency requirement, or even an eye exam like there is for driving.

Sorry - but it appears the majority of the pro-gun side of the argument here relies on trying to bulldoze the argument rather than use facts or analysis.

I'm not anti-rural; I live in the country.

I've noticed however that the right wing like to claim that OTHER people have a victim mentality, but they're the ones who whine and complain about being victims the most often, including victims of all their silly made up conspiracy theories.

Next time, try ditching the oh......poor me! Faux demographic warfare crap, and grow a pair.

If you can't, I'm sure I can find you a loaner pair from the last time we did swine castrations, unless they were all fed to the cats...

[gejohnston]

112. yeah it was me

gejohnston........were you the silly person who posted the comment on my blog that ccw permittees were better trained than law enforcement because they ALL go to the range more often? Never mind THAT isn't true, or that there is no periodic proficiency requirement, or even an eye exam like there is for driving.

That is actually true, not silly at all.

I've noticed however that the right wing like to claim that OTHER people have a victim mentality, but they're the ones who whine and complain about being victims the most often, including victims of all their silly made up conspiracy theories.

So? I call it as I see it. Your blog sucks.

[glacierbay]

122. Are you the one that posts all that nonsense

at Mikeyb302000's crappy little blog, reading your post here reminds me of the one time I went to his blog about 3 weeks ago, never again.
Yes, CC permit holders are, for the most part, better shooters than the police, most LEO, with the exception of specialized units, only qualify with their weapons once or twice a year while CC permit holders go to the range much more often.

[DWC]

103. This seriously reminds me

of a certain banned, Canadian quasi-lawyer.

Style and screed are the same. Only the user name is different.

Semper Fi,

[petronius]

106. I had that same thought myself. Sorta hope it is, actually, I miss

good ol' Ivy and her lilting cry of "dog's breakfast!"

[Simo 1939_1940]

137. My life was never the same after I visited, and worked on the farm

that my father grew up on. (then owned by his brother)

Talk about hard work! Shoveling grain from a tilt-truck into a silo in 100 degree heat + 100% humidity. Mercy!

My sister and I represent the first generation of "city folk" on Dad's side - and Mom grew up in a very small town. To this day I get ill when I see BS such as that posted in the OP.

[CokeMachine]

36. Not at all.

I just have problems with bigots of all stripes. Do you??

[oneshooter]

46. Do you activly support the Brady Campaign or the VPC?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

84. defining red state

If you read the post, it EXPLAINS how red states are defined.

[gejohnston]

111. the only thing I read was

anti rural, anti working class, and racist bullshit void of any substance.

[Eleanors38]

31. He speaks!! Why don't you break routine and tell us what you think?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

85. your mistake

That is SHE, not he.

I've already told you what I think - I wrote the post that was republished here.

Or did you mean the person who posted it here?

You lack clarity with your pronouns.

[Eleanors38]

125. You're wordy.nt

[Eleanors38]

140. In the interest of accuracy,

The poster was one Secularmotion. His practice (if you have been here for any length of time) is to "google dump" (as the expression goes) with rarely a comment. I was responding to the POSTER, the customary means of initial communication.

Unless Secular is a woman, I have not made a mistake. Unless you posted under his name, my clarity is intact.

Do you wish to discuss the issues at hand, now?

[oneshooter]

141. Do you really believe that the anti's care about accuracy?

[Eleanors38]

142. No. Passion is the coin of the realm. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Check the date...

Last edited Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:25 PM - Edit history (1)

OP must be running out of recent material from Google.

[SecularMotion]

13. Why are you offended by a piece that smears white, flabby and crabby, conservatives?

[gejohnston]

17. smearing is for stupid ignorant assholes

like Rush and Mike Savage. We are supposed to be better than that.

[holdencaufield]

28. Do you also have problems with white, flabby Democrats?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. So you are a fan of smears?

Figured as much given your prior posts, but its good to have it on the record.

Your Google dump is any number of months old, poorly tries to smear rather than argue logically or convincingly.

[4th law of robotics]

45. Broad brush smears of ethnic groups

and those who are overweight would get you instabanned if it weren't about guns.

[Callisto32]

136. I thought the same thing.

But you know, those are "okay" prejudices, just like its okay for righties to call anyone in a turban a "sand nigger" when among their own.

[jeepnstein]

124. Aren't you special?

I'm a middle aged white male. I have a degree, have voted Democrat longer than you've probably been alive, and have never shot at anything that shouldn't be shot. So you just decide to lay into me with a tirade of insults? Does that make you feel better about yourself? Young folks seem to be all about their feelings these days.

[xoom]

143. Hahahahaha i cant stop laughing!!!

[Eleanors38]

150. Such economy. A classic.

[petronius]

4. This is the exact same reason why I've given up surfing, diving, bathing, and

pretty much anything involving more than a fine mist's worth of liquid water: the rash of shark attacks in recent years has convinced me that they're just not as safe as statistical analysis would suggest...

[SecularMotion]

5. You've never heard of a shark cage?

I've been lobbying the YMCA to allow me to use one in their pool. You can never be too safe.

[petronius]

6. That's what I'm saying - you can never be too safe

If alligators can get in the sewer, then a shark might end up in the pool (let alone inside a shark cage). If it's happened once - or even if I can imagine it happening - then drastic steps are clearly indicated. It's just common sense...

[ileus]

7. I carried my pistol all day without incident, 10/13/12

do explain how we're all dangerous. Fucking dumbass clueless blogger...kinda reminds me of some other bloggers we know.

[SecularMotion]

9. Any good sales at Walmart?

[gejohnston]

12. what is the difference between Wal Mart,

Target, Kmart? None. Both are big box stores that sell shit from China to the working class. How are they different than Amazon? Other than selection and snob appeal, nothing. They still sell the same shit from China, and unfairly compete against local small businesses and deprive local economies of sales taxes. The only difference is the Starbucks roundtable members can say "I got this from Amazon" and be respectable while "I got this from Wal Mart or Dollar General" will get jeers for being "low rent."

[ileus]

21. I received my complete tierod assembly in this week from Amazon

105 bucks to the complete assembly and 29 bucks for a steering stabilizer. Saved about 30 bucks over most other internet sources and free shipping.

Now to get it on the Jeep before next weekend.

[ileus]

19. I didn't see much really.

Really low on most types of AMMO for the past several weeks. I did pick up another bulk pack of 22 and some 38 for the DW's S&W.

Then went on to spend 336 bucks of groceries.

[Reasonable_Argument]

32. I went to a Walmart after work today

I was armed and yes, they have some good deals.

[CokeMachine]

37. I'm glad you are can afford to shop elsewhere.

The Bush economy must have been good for you. Good to hear someone can still afford the high end stuff.

Any good sales at Macy's?

[Callisto32]

15. Fuck that shit and the horse it rode in, in.

[SecularMotion]

16. The fact that the gunners defend white, flabby and crabby, conservatives

speaks volumes.

[gejohnston]

18. I'm white and flabby

what's your point?

[SecularMotion]

23. You sound a little crabby

[gejohnston]

24. only when I read trash

you need to find op eds that are actually logical and by people who actually know something about the issue, like current laws.

[SecularMotion]

25. Lighten up, Francis

It's Saturday night.

[gejohnston]

26. you buy the case of Red Stripe

I'll fly

[CokeMachine]

38. Your stuff sounds a little clamy -- and not very fresh either. nt

[safeinOhio]

22. Then they hate big city mayors

and can't understand how they get elected. They'd just as soon dump the urban vote from the Democratic party to get a few rural folks to drop the gun issue and they will still vote for the anti-gay guy.

[aikoaiko]

27. You do realize this blogger is talking about you.

The gun carriers span the spectrum from open carry to legal concealed carry to illegal carry, and a wider variety of demographics than the NRA members -- and they are all dangerous, they all put others at risk without a legitimate reason to carry.

SecMo can pretend this benighted blog piece is just about conservative gun carriers, but its not.

[safeinOhio]

41. That is also true, however

it is ridiculous for the people that have commented on this topic to charge discrimination on the part of those that disagree with their view that the real racism is tied to those that call for balance in gun laws. Both extremes are nuts, as far as I can see.

[Eleanors38]

33. Just give us a synopsis of Vol. 1. nt

[Callisto32]

133. Hmm, I was taking umbrage...

at someone who never met me telling me somthing about myself based upon my membership in a group. I think we have A word for that in English.....

[era veteran]

20. Could have a good discussion on carrying but this July story is bullshit

Complete prejudiced bullshit.
The 2nd Amendment is a legitimate reason to carry. The drug dealers on my street are a legitimate reason. The fact my local police force is short 150-200 patrolmen is a legitimate reason. The fact a worker across from where I work was shot to death, by a released murderer for used record store till money, $20.00 is a legitimate reason. The fact that I am too old to low run is a fantastic reason.
Catch and release is a legitimate reason.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

86. wrong o

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about carrying.

If you read the appropriate SCOTUS decisions, it stipulates that it applies ONLY to home, not carry, and it stipulates that each state has a great deal of latitude in restricting firearms, so long as they don't ban them entirely in the home.

I usually defer the specific citations to one of my co-bloggers who is a D.C. licensed attorney (among other jurisdictions), formerly with the DOJ working gun cases in DC.

The problem with your approach is that it involves taking law into your own hands, instead of opting for a civilized society where law enforcement provides the protection. Instead, we see conservatives promoting more private guns, but cutting the funding for law enforcement and for our courts. Bad choice for allocating resources.

And the pro-gunners oppose measures intended to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals in the first place.

The reality is that if someone is set on robbing you, they will, even if you're armed. It isn't terribly difficult to get the drop on someone by having their gun pointed at you ready to shoot before you can get to yours. Or having a second person behind you who plugs you before you can shoot the guy in front.

The reality is that our gun culture escalates violence, where countries with fewer firearms don't have similar problems. You can try to win a private arms race, but it is a losing proposition. And frankly most of the pro-gunners have unrealistic expectations anyway about how much good their firearm will provide them.

Catch and release is NOT a legitimate reason, but it does underline the concept of what is wrong with your approach. If you rely too much on your firearm, you don't rely enough on alternative solutions to stay safe.

I don't want to see anyone be unsafe; however the end result with our proliferation of firearms has NOT been to make us safer.

[era veteran]

91. It is your right to defend yourself in Kentucky

I am not taking the law in my own hands, I am protecting myself.
I don't put myself in a position to be robbed without suspecting out front. I can shoot my revolver in my pocket if I had too. I would never do any shooting without damn good reason.
The reality is this is a weapon owning nation and guns are part of the culture hence 14 year old girls carrying rifles on a drill team.
I am quite civilized, it is the criminals that are not. The drug house down the street has one unsolved shooting and when they were busted last the woman there, a convicted felon, PFO, still selling and caught with a weapon . The woman got 5 years but has had shock probation, had it revoked put back in jail a week and back on the street. Laughing at the courts, the police, and me.
How would you like to find a mutilated dead kitten in a bag in your yard? The police can't or won't do anything.
Civilized? Yep, when I got out of the Army 35 years ago I got rid of all my guns. Had carried enough. Circumstance in the last 4 years or so has made me reevaluate. A pity but I will not be a victim.
The courts catch and release should be reserved for pot dealers not death dealing heroin/ pill sellers.
They and their customers don't give a single shit about anyone but themselves.
Peace to us all. R

[hack89]

92. How do the police protect me?

They solve crimes after they are committed but they are not there every second of the day ensuring no harm befalls me - there are not enough cops in the world to do that.

[PavePusher]

108. The Second Amendment is very much about carrying....

"...keep and bear..."

Cite to this stipulation you claim?

I'll save you time: You won't, because you can't. It's not there. Because that is not what the Heller/McDonald cases were about. They were about only the "keep" portion. No other aspect was addressed, because no other aspect was brought before the courts.

Self-defense is not "taking the law into your own hands", and restriction of the right to self-defense is in no way, shape or form "civilized". I can only determine that you are grossly confused on the concepts. Good luck with that.

Note that the courts have determined that the police have no duty to defend you unless you are in their custody. Ipso facto, your self-defense is your own responsibility. You may shirk it if you wish; you may not interfere with mine. Good luck with that too.

[Clames]

110. So much wrong. Where to start...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT about carrying.

If you read the appropriate SCOTUS decisions, it stipulates that it applies ONLY to home, not carry, and it stipulates that each state has a great deal of latitude in restricting firearms, so long as they don't ban them entirely in the home.

The SCOTUS hasn't made that decision YET. That is a fairly obvious point you've seemed to gloss over. So no, you can't say absolutely that the 2nd Amendment is not about carrying because that decision has not been established by SCOTUS. Well, you can but that only goes as far as your opinion goes.

The problem with your approach is that it involves taking law into your own hands, instead of opting for a civilized society where law enforcement provides the protection. Instead, we see conservatives promoting more private guns, but cutting the funding for law enforcement and for our courts. Bad choice for allocating resources.

The problem with your approach is that it fails to address the simple and established fact that LEO's have no duty to protect individuals not in their custody. Anti-gunners frequently turn to the "vigilantism" aspect to support their arguments but that only proves that they don't even know the definition of the word much less how it doesn't factor into self-defense usage of a firearm.

And the pro-gunners oppose measures intended to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals in the first place.

Of course you have absolutely nothing to cite to support this irrational statement. Maybe you've forgotten who supported the NICS legislation? Maybe you'd care to cite those specific measures then explain how exactly those measures would actually be effective in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. ProTip: Assault Weapon and magazine bans did nothing in that respect.

The reality is that if someone is set on robbing you, they will, even if you're armed. It isn't terribly difficult to get the drop on someone by having their gun pointed at you ready to shoot before you can get to yours. Or having a second person behind you who plugs you before you can shoot the guy in front.

The reality here is you have an active imagination and nothing stated here has a basis in reality. In fact, several incidents have been posted here where an individual has defended themselves with their own firearm despite the criminal having the drop on them. Some cases against multiple criminals. Your point actually highlights very strongly why being armed is that much better because if someone is set on criminal action then deterrent effects such as police presence certainly cannot be relied upon by itself.

The reality is that our gun culture escalates violence, where countries with fewer firearms don't have similar problems. You can try to win a private arms race, but it is a losing proposition. And frankly most of the pro-gunners have unrealistic expectations anyway about how much good their firearm will provide them.

Gun culture does not escalate violence. Drug culture and gang culture do. Funny you talk about correlation is not indicative on one thing yet you state that countries with fewer firearms don't have similar problems like it's the sole differentiating factor. You are wrong for making that assumption because there are countries with fewer guns that have higher per capita rates of violent crime because they also suffer from rampant gang and drug problems. Anti-gunners seem to have an utter lack of understanding such dynamics and as such have unrealistic expectations of the effectiveness of the gun-control laws they advocate.

If you rely too much on your firearm, you don't rely enough on alternative solutions to stay safe.

That's only if you assume every gun owner relies on their firearm to such an extent. Many in fact use the firearm as part of a more comprehensive system which is vastly better than those who simply rely on deadbolts and police response times.

I don't want to see anyone be unsafe; however the end result with our proliferation of firearms has NOT been to make us safer.

Hasn't made anyone less safe either. That's a commonly stated fallacy of anti-gunners though. Since private gun ownership has increased at the same time there has been an overall decrease in crime it's difficult to fathom why some cling to that notion. I will not state that more guns = more safety to the general population because I know there is little evidence to support such a statement just like there is little evidence to support more guns = more crime. I can support that reasoning because the CDC found exactly the same when they reviewed dozens of studies on both sides of the debate.

[oneshooter]

113. Where does it say that Law Enforcement have a duty to protect the individual?

"where law enforcement provides the protection."

According to the SC law enforcement is required to protect you only when you are under arrest. The same court has said that Law Enforcement is only responsible for the saftey of the public as a whole, not the individual.

Please show me where they can be held responsable for your protection, when you are NOT under arrest.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

116. "for traditionally lawful purposes, SUCH AS self-defense within the home." -- that's from Heller.

How you can spin SUCH AS to mean ONLY.. is beyond me.

Heller only addressed the situation in the home, but that by no means limits the right.

*shakes head*

We used to get such a better class of anti-.



eta: Oh.. have your DC Attorney friend summarize any of the following cases for you, specifically whether police have a legal obligation to protect you.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

[Common Sense Party]

139. "We used to get such a better class of anti-."

+1,000,000

[glacierbay]

123. Hate to break this to you

but, LE isn't responsible for your personal safety unless you're in our custody, we're responsible for the general public's safety, so unless there's a cop right there when something bad happens, you're on your own.
There are thousands of incidents where CC permit holders have saved their own lives and others even though the criminal already had their gun out and were already shooting.

[GreenStormCloud]

145. Answering some of your baloney.

The reality is that if someone is set on robbing you, they will, even if you're armed. It isn't terribly difficult to get the drop on someone by having their gun pointed at you ready to shoot before you can get to yours. Or having a second person behind you who plugs you before you can shoot the guy in front.

The reality is that an attacker can't materialize out of thin air. He can't walk around with his gun out and in his hand. He has to isolate and approach you before he can deploy his weapon. In doing that he will telegraph his intention. You just have to be observant of your surroundings and know what to look for. There are lots of classes and videos on how to spot thugs and avoid them.

Yes, many criminals will try to box a victim in. That is why situational awareness is so important.

A gun isn't a magical talisman, it is a tool. You have to know how to use it, or it is next to useless. With applied knowledge it is a powerful defensive tool.

[Clames]

29. Tough. Shit.

Don't give a flip what the anti-gun activists believe. Don't give a crap about their poor mathematics and logic skills either.

[Eleanors38]

34. This post sounds suspiciously like an "import." nt

[Union Scribe]

39. Gonna post some wicked Live Journal smackdowns next?

Maybe some YouTube comments you found particularly astute?

[Reasonable_Argument]

40. Well...

Considering the number of years and frequency I've been shooting and the fact that I carry a weapon every single day. If you don't trust me to carry a weapon then I suggest you start rounding up police and ordering them to surrender their weapons for destruction en mass.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

42. OK, I'm here --- address me with your comments and/or questions

Dear Secular Motion - I decided to take a look when I saw that there was a certain amount of traffic from your site to this old post on my blog.

While I appreciate the additional viewing this is getting, and that you gave proper attribution, we do note on the left hand side that use of our material (I'm one of three current bloggers on Penigma) be with our knowledge and consent. That has been satisfied, in so far as I've figured out for myself that you reposted my material -- and you have my permission after the fact.

However, I'd like to know why you chose to repost it.

As to your commenters' notion that WalMart is just like K-mart or Target --- not so. There are some significant differences.
"Target, Kmart? None. Both are big box stores that sell shit from China to the working class."
1. Target and K-mart are publicly traded; shares are owned by a large number of people, and the companies are subject to actions and directives from the shareholders, particularly the institutional shareholders (although not as sensitive as they should be, particularly in terms of board membership, executive compensation and a few other ares). In contrast, WalMart is owned and controlled by the Walton family.

2. Neither Target nor K-mart do a large business in guns and ammo; WalMart is the single largest retailer of both in the U.S., AND has had issues with improper sales in the past. In resolving those issues, WalMart made a voluntary agreement about selling both guns and ammo on which it has reneged.

3. WalMart has the distinction of being the public location to which most gun carriers go armed on their first public excursion with a firearm. WalMart also has the singular distinction of having a firearms accident on average of approximately 1 every 2.5 weeks. A number of those involve not only property damage, but injuries to the gun owner and to innocent bystanders. This argues that those carrying, either concealed or openly, are not as safe as they'd like us to believe. It also makes WalMart different from K-Mart and Target which do NOT have that poor safety record.

4. WalMart was until not long ago one of the core members, along with the NRA in ALEC, an unregistered lobbying organization which existed solely to draft primarily state level legislation, in secret, in cooperation with exclusively conservative state legislators whom they paid - both directly and indirectly - to act on behalf of special interests AGAINST the interests of their state residents and businesses. That is engaging in a long term well funded pattern of corruption which should be objectionable to every individual.

5. I'd be happy to take on any of the commenters here on matters of fact; and for the record, I live in a rural area, I am myself firearms proficient, including in the past having a CCW permit, and - if it matters - I'm also female and well educated.

6. There is a valid issue in comparing red states and blue states; red states are consistently poorer, less educated, and compare poorly on pretty much EVERY metric. Of those people whom Romney was addressing with contempt as the 47%? The reality is that most of the 47% who rely most heavily on some form of government assistance for their survival live in red states, and include a substantial number of his supporters who would be voting against their own economic interests in supporting conservative candidates - but they do so because of a mistaken belief that the right will support their gun interests better than the left.

In practice that hasn't actually been true, Obama has expanded, not restricted gun carry for example; but it makes a good wedge issue.

7. It works, because those who are less well educated and who are more conservative do not think analytically but rather think emotionally -- as determined by a range of testing, including MRI testing which shows which parts of the brain are used. I would also refer readers here to the work of Daniel Kahneman, the nobel prize winning psychologist and 'neural-economist'.

I would argue to those here who are pro-gun that emotional reactions, particularly for those who demonstrate poor impulse control, are not the best decisions in using lethal force.

So if any of you would care to address me directly - have at it.

[ileus]

43. Should we even count people who live in red states as humans?

Since most are filthy and dumb enough to carry a gun I recommend reincarnation of the 3/5 law for gun carriers in the South.


Dear jury....

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

48. oh booo hoooo

No one suggested you lack humanity.

But there is no defense for stupidity, when it is possible to have better education. It is primarily the red states which are dragging us down in terms of global competition for educated populations, which includes work force / economic competition.

We do not become more competitive OR successful as a nation with people in poor health either. You don't have a good defense for red states being less healthy, less educated, more unemployed, and more armed, and incidentally - more often incarcerated. The reality is, the more guns in a state, the more gun violence, accident and injury there is; it does NOT make people more safe.

There is no safety in people being armed who think poorly, or who believe bizarre and factually inaccurate things either.

The greatest number of people who are ignorant in history, and science, and who fall for the most ludicrous conspiracy theories are from the south. The greatest number of people who have hostility and suspicion toward others - particularly those in demographics that include gays, blacks and latinos, women who demand equality, or people who practice religions other than Christianity - are more likely than not to act violently toward their fellow Americans in those categories.

You can be defensive all you like, but it doesn't change the numbers. And it doesn't change that politically, because of emotional thinking, you are more easily manipulated and do really poorly on anything requiring FACTS, not belief.

I like the south, I've spent a lot of time traveling in the south; but red states do a lot of things very poorly that could be done better. Having a gun doesn't make up for that, and I would argue those aren't the best people to be using or having the option to use lethal force.

Further, any society that in effect advocates for vigilante justice, where instead of law enforcement, people take the law into their own hands, is going backwards towards barbarism and brutishness and away from being civilized, which is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind, nor is it something we should embrace.

As to self defense, I suggest you review the history of the concept, and not just in the U.S., but in English common law that was the premise for it.

[PavePusher]

63. Ah, it's about "those people". Got it.

Cite to this advocation for "vigilante justice"? Where is that legal? You should take your last sentance to heart, you seem confused on the topic.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

87. not confused at all

Not at all; the states which have opted for 'shoot first' legislation amount to trying to legalize vigilante justice, particularly considering the instances where carry laws have led old crabby guys to escalate violence levels.

It's vigilante justice when people shoot instead of calling the cops where they can safely do so --- like shooting an unarmed person who is on the other side of a locked door, or shooting someone who is unarmed and leaving.

It is vigilanteism when people take the law into their own hands instead of relying on law enforcement, which includes providing enough law enforcement to get the job done. Conservatives have been reducing law enforcement, and promoting more people dealing with crime privately, including acquiring guns to do so.

I would refer you to this as an example of what I mean:

http://penigma.blogspot.com/2012/03/vigilante-shoots-vigilante-utah.html

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. It's not vigilanteeism; police are NOT required to protect you

It's pragmatism- The police aren't required to help you, per several high level court decisions. Note this one from decidedly gun-unfriendly DC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

In this case, three rape victims sued the District of Columbia for negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. They phoned the police, reporting that their house was being burglarized, and waited on the roof. Their call was incorrectly dispatched as less important than it was three minutes after they made the call, and three police cars came to the scene, three minutes after the call was dispatched. One policeman drove by without stopping, and another officer walked up to the door and knocked. Upon receiving no answer, the officers left five minutes after they had arrived. Nine minutes later, the two women called the police again and were assured they would receive assistance. This call was never dispatched and the police never came. Believing that the police had arrived and were in the house, the two women called down to the third who was being attacked. This alerted the intruders to their presence, and they then took them captive at knife-point. They were then raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for the next fourteen hours. The court noted that because the police are only under a general duty to provide services to the public at large, a special relationship must exist between the police and the individual in question for the "duty" element of negligence to be satisfied. It held that no such special relationship existed so the case was properly dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]...

And if any of these women had shot one or more of these sociopaths, would you describe them as 'vigilantes'?

Lest you think this legal principle is unique to DC, read these:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

...Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

...DeShaney v. Winnebago County was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 22, 1989. The Court held that a state government agency's failure to prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's right to liberty for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution...

I must give you credit however- you haven't quite described gun ownership for self-defense purposes as "an insult to the state"...

[PavePusher]

100. Please cite some of this "'shoot first' legislation" you refer to.

Then cite to some instances of your hypotheticals occuring in reality.

The mere existance of law enforcement does not negate the ability, right and responsibility to defend oneself. Nor does the existance of L.E. guarantee they can or will defend you. Nor does it at all indicate that you have any obligation to rely on them.

[Callisto32]

135. We can start with FL's famous version.

You can show us how this statute allows you to shoot first, or whatever the hell, in a situation where it would not be justifiable under common law.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html


I'll wait...

[Callisto32]

134. That would be ignorance you can fix with education.

Stupid is permanent.

[rrneck]

144. Elitism fit for the 1%.

A short unnecessary reply to kick this sanctimonious drivel so more can see it.

[PavePusher]

66. #3... citations, please?

Methinks you are taking a jestful internet meme as reality, with no supporting evidence for your ensuing claims.

I would argue to those here who are pro-gun that emotional reactions, particularly for those who demonstrate poor impulse control, are not the best decisions in using lethal force.

Who would that be? And you seem to be implying that you are capable of making good decisions... but the evidence for that is also lacking.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

89. not so

There is actually quite a large body of research on the differences between conservative and liberal thinking.

While I occasionally write and admin for a friend's gun blog, one of my more passionate interests is in cognition and how brain function affects decision making. Recognizing that not everyone else is a neuroscience geek, this gives a pretty good summation:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/

The two books on the topic, by Chris Mooney, which correlate a lot of complimentary but separate research make excellent reading, and tends to be supported by the separate but somewhat related work in neuro-economics as it relates to emotional decision making affects risk assessment, and how brain chemistry relates to fluctuating testosterone levels.

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2011-09/neuro-economics-this-is-what-your-brain-looks-like-when-you-trade.aspx?storyid=95653

We know quite a bit about how decision making takes place, what part is intellect, and what part is emotion.

Being conservative, which the more adamantly pro-gunners tend to be, predisposes to emotional decision making, as does your testosterone levels and expectations.

And yes, I am capable of making better decisions - see above - than someone who is more emotional by the changes to their amygdala, or from testosterone.

That makes me doubly better than you are likely to be in decision making.

[PavePusher]

109. A dodge, an argumentum ad verecundiam, and a claim of elitism....

does not an answer make.

Please address your claims in item 3.

[MicaelS]

132. Do you seriously expect to denigrate all men...

And then expect us to take anything you say seriously? Because we have testosterone, we're somehow inferior to you?

Just in case you edit you post later.

Being conservative, which the more adamantly pro-gunners tend to be, predisposes to emotional decision making, as does your testosterone levels and expectations.

And yes, I am capable of making better decisions - see above - than someone who is more emotional by the changes to their amygdala, or from testosterone.

That makes me doubly better than you are likely to be in decision making.

[2ndAmForComputers]

138. I like it when I make the difference.

At Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

not so
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=79213

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

" And yes, I am capable of making better decisions - see above - than someone who is more emotional by the changes to their amygdala, or from testosterone. "

Sexist to the max.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Oct 15, 2012, 09:11 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: I commend you for showing up to participate in the discussion and for detailed replies. If only all of our regulars were so inspired... The reason I voted to hide was the testosterone comments - they rank up there with "hysteria" remarks about women, which wouldn't fly here either. Thank you for participating in the discussion.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Don't like the TRUTH, alerter? Tough. (Besides, this post contains very interesting information.)
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: This type of unintelligible diatribe is unacceptable.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[gejohnston]

114. and?

s to your commenters' notion that WalMart is just like K-mart or Target --- not so. There are some significant differences.
"Target, Kmart? None. Both are big box stores that sell shit from China to the working class."

1. Target and K-mart are publicly traded; shares are owned by a large number of people, and the companies are subject to actions and directives from the shareholders, particularly the institutional shareholders (although not as sensitive as they should be, particularly in terms of board membership, executive compensation and a few other ares). In contrast, WalMart is owned and controlled by the Walton family.

Not really relevant, since many of the board members are the same people who are also ALEC members. BTW, Hillary Clinton was on the Wal Mart board.

2. Neither Target nor K-mart do a large business in guns and ammo; WalMart is the single largest retailer of both in the U.S., AND has had issues with improper sales in the past. In resolving those issues, WalMart made a voluntary agreement about selling both guns and ammo on which it has reneged.

So? Improper sales, have the ATF investigated and and a US Attorney filed charges against Wal Mart for violating the Gun Control Act?

3. WalMart has the distinction of being the public location to which most gun carriers go armed on their first public excursion with a firearm. WalMart also has the singular distinction of having a firearms accident on average of approximately 1 every 2.5 weeks. A number of those involve not only property damage, but injuries to the gun owner and to innocent bystanders. This argues that those carrying, either concealed or openly, are not as safe as they'd like us to believe. It also makes WalMart different from K-Mart and Target which do NOT have that poor safety record.

4. WalMart was until not long ago one of the core members, along with the NRA in ALEC, an unregistered lobbying organization which existed solely to draft primarily state level legislation, in secret, in cooperation with exclusively conservative state legislators whom they paid - both directly and indirectly - to act on behalf of special interests AGAINST the interests of their state residents and businesses. That is engaging in a long term well funded pattern of corruption which should be objectionable to every individual.

Macy's doesn't the same.

5. I'd be happy to take on any of the commenters here on matters of fact; and for the record, I live in a rural area, I am myself firearms proficient, including in the past having a CCW permit, and - if it matters - I'm also female and well educated.

6. There is a valid issue in comparing red states and blue states; red states are consistently poorer, less educated, and compare poorly on pretty much EVERY metric. Of those people whom Romney was addressing with contempt as the 47%? The reality is that most of the 47% who rely most heavily on some form of government assistance for their survival live in red states, and include a substantial number of his supporters who would be voting against their own economic interests in supporting conservative candidates - but they do so because of a mistaken belief that the right will support their gun interests better than the left.

It is a lot more than the gun issue. As Orwell observed in the UK, there is a certain amount of elitism.

In practice that hasn't actually been true, Obama has expanded, not restricted gun carry for example; but it makes a good wedge issue.

Riders on a larger bill, does not really matter. Besides, as criminologist James Wright pointed out years ago, when big city politicians complain "it's that state's fault", it really comes across as scapegoating.

7. It works, because those who are less well educated and who are more conservative do not think analytically but rather think emotionally -- as determined by a range of testing, including MRI testing which shows which parts of the brain are used. I would also refer readers here to the work of Daniel Kahneman, the nobel prize winning psychologist and 'neural-economist'.

Most if not all gun control arguments are emotional and use too many logical fallacies. I would argue that gun control is really a conservative stance popular with some liberals.

I would argue to those here who are pro-gun that emotional reactions, particularly for those who demonstrate poor impulse control, are not the best decisions in using lethal force.

I argue the anti gun are emotional reactions, since I have yet to see a good argument void of logical fallacies.

So if any of you would care to address me directly - have at it.

[4th law of robotics]

44. Why don't you correlate violent crimes to total number of legally owned guns?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

49. Because we don't track that data, and because the NRA has effectively blocked attempts to do so

However we do know that the more guns, the greater the number of incidents of gun violence.

Unlike any other civilized or developed country, we have more killings and injuring of children, more suicides by firearm - which tend more than other kinds to be impulsive rather than a considered decision. We also have an unconscionable number of murder suicides with firearms.

I'd love to see better data, and more regulation including registration, for the purpose of keeping guns legal. Because we don't require background checks on most firearms transactions, although a few states like CO require them for private sales at gun shows, we have absolutely no accountability for when firearms go from being legally owned, as they all start out, to being illegally owned.

THAT is a serious problem. If you legally buy a firearm, you should be responsible for what happens to it, including serious theft prevention, and guaranteeing that EVERY transaction which transfers that firearm to someone else guarantees that person is not a prohibited person.

Doing so would put a huge dent in illegal weapons.

[4th law of robotics]

50. "However we do know that the more guns, the greater the number of incidents of gun violence."

Here's the part where I ask for your explanation of the last few decades which have seen total guns in the US increase relative to the population while crime has decreased.

That part is shortly followed by you either ignoring that or changing the subject.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

54. Sure

Crime has decreased overall, but not because of any causal correlation to firearms.

However, firearm homicides have remained roughly steady.

In states like Wisconsin, following making gun laws much more lenient, both homicides by firearms AND non-fatal firearm injuries in particular went up.

Analysis showed that the people involved in that increase in firearm violence were domestic abusers who had taken advantage of the
greater freedom to own and carry to abuse primarily women and children --- as just one example. I suggest you do a search on Wisconsin firearms statistics and studies, looking primarily at the municipally commissioned studies.

We have far more firearms violence than any of similarly developed countries. Those numbers have not gone down as firearms increased.

I don't duck subjects, I'm not afraid of controversy, and I do my homework, basing my statements on documented facts.

We have what is and should be a problem with firearms that should be treated as a public health issue - because it is.

[PavePusher]

67. Cite your stats, please. n/t

[PavePusher]

68. Well....

Crime has decreased overall, but not because of any causal correlation to firearms.

No-one claimed a direct (or even indirect) cause-effect relationship. Nice dodge.

However, firearm homicides have remained roughly steady.

In states like Wisconsin, following making gun laws much more lenient, both homicides by firearms AND non-fatal firearm injuries in particular went up.

Analysis showed that the people involved in that increase in firearm violence were domestic abusers who had taken advantage of the
greater freedom to own and carry to abuse primarily women and children --- as just one example. I suggest you do a search on Wisconsin firearms statistics and studies, looking primarily at the municipally commissioned studies.

Citation to stats?

We have far more firearms violence than any of similarly developed countries. Those numbers have not gone down as firearms increased.

Stats?

I don't duck subjects, I'm not afraid of controversy, and I do my homework, basing my statements on documented facts.

Yes, you do, no, you aren't, and no, you don't, based on the available evidence.

We have what is and should be a problem with firearms that should be treated as a public health issue - because it is.

Only if you belive that inanimate objects "cause" events... i.e. you ascribe to animism. Interesting religion, but not congruent to reality or a rational basis for social engineering. What we have is a crime problem, and that, being actually a condition passable from one person to another, can arguably be considered a public health health issue.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

93. are you incapable of looking anything up yourself?

It should bother you to proffer such ill-informed opinions.

Let me provide you with a brief reading list

http://blog.neulaw.org/?p=3578

http://www.rit.edu/cla/cpsi/WorkingPapers/2012/2012-08.pdf

It has been well-argued by public health experts that we have a sufficiently high number of deaths and injuries from firearms that this is the approach we should take, similar to the public health focus that was made to reduce vehicular deaths by public health authorities.

Both were inanimate objects. You simply display YOUR ignorance.

Inanimate objects, such as firearms, are significant in the extent and ease with which injuries and death happen. Screwdrivers are inanimate objects, but they are rarely used to kill or intentionally injure anyone.

You have simply demonstrated your inability to think analytically; there is nothing about firearms being inanimate which precludes them being the subject of public health initiatives, or which suggests being a follower of animism.

Now I could read the research of people like this:

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/

http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=17530

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/

to list just a few.

OR, I could give credence to the low-information, low critical thinking products of what you pull out of your arse.

Clearly, the public health experts are much smarter and better informed and especially better at thinking than you are.

I'll take their side, not yours, because I have very low tolerance for stupidity

[PavePusher]

104. Hmmm, why the hostility? Yet you claim -we're- not capable of good decision-making...???

Cars, again, are inanimate objects. Car accidents are the result, overwhelmingly, of human behavior. When we mounted a campaign to change thosebehaviors, Presto!, fewer car deaths. We didn't run a campaign to reduce the number of cars in private possesion. Start a campaign to reduce criminal behavior and everyone here will support you.

By the way, screwdrivers are pretty common in crime. http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS432&biw=1280&bih=579&q=screwdriver%2C+assault&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS432&oq=screwdriver%2C+assault&gs_l=hp.3...1735.6938.0.7297.20.10.0.4.4.0.360.1907.2-2j4.6.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.wn_vBlC6RFw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=f3374622d1aa7360&bpcl=35277026

So much for your vaunted "critical thinking" ability, eh?


P.S. When you make a claim, it's your duty to support it with evidence. If you don't provide that evidence, don't whine when asked to do so. I'll note that the references you just gave either don't address the points I noted, or don't support your claims.

[4th law of robotics]

77. Hah

awesome.

Crime is up: GUNS ARE TO BLAME CORRELATION IS CAUSATION!
Crime is down: well crime is a multi-factorial trait that can't be explained by any one thing, correlation does not imply causation.

However, firearm homicides have remained roughly steady.

Or declining. But whatever.

In states like Wisconsin, following making gun laws much more lenient, both homicides by firearms AND non-fatal firearm injuries in particular went up.

CITATION NEEDED (also would this be correlation = causation?)

Analysis showed that the people involved in that increase in firearm violence were domestic abusers who had taken advantage of the
greater freedom to own and carry to abuse primarily women and children --- as just one example. I suggest you do a search on Wisconsin firearms statistics and studies, looking primarily at the municipally commissioned studies.

Ah I see you're going the "but what about the children!" route so you don't need citations.

We have far more firearms violence than any of similarly developed countries. Those numbers have not gone down as firearms increased.

Actually they have. What is interesting is that those numbers haven't gone down in countries that got more strict on gun control. Britain saw their crime rate increase as guns became less legal.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Aw, c'mon- self-contradiction in the first three sentences of a post is AWESOME!

[Trunk Monkey]

82. Colorado does NOT require a Background check for a private sale

Unless the sale happens at a gun show

[slackmaster]

47. Basic gun safety should be taught in public schools

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

52. NO, it shouldn't

Minors are a prohibited category of people for firearms.

We have other, better things we should be teaching in schools.

Notably, our own military has recommended that we put much more money and effort into early school education. As a general rule, those who read at grade level or better by 3rd grade are more likely to graduate than those who don't.

The same problems of being obese and poorly educated are such a serious problem they have affected our armed services.

http://penigma.blogspot.com/2011/01/all-work-and-no-play-make-jack-dull-boy.html

"Nearly one of every four high school graduates can't pass the basic military entrance exam, a new report shows.
Combine that with high obesity rates and a rise in criminal records, and the pool of potential military recruits is getting very shallow.

Every branch of the military is still reaching its recruitment goals, but the Pentagon's recruiting chief says he's worried. And a group of former military leaders is calling for significant changes in the educational system, calling the ineligibility rates a matter of national security.

Not Academically Ready To Serve
The military's Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery exam — known as ASVAB — is the world's most frequently used aptitude test. It includes 99 questions each potential recruit must answer. One sample: "If three plus X equals six, what is the value of X?"
The minimum passing score is 31. According to the new report by the nonprofit Education Trust, called "Shut Out of the Military," almost 25 percent of potential recruits can't reach that level."

We have much better things we should be doing with and in our schools. Having accurate sex ed would be a better use of resources instead of ignorance only sex ed, for starters.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Thank you.

You've caused a huge disruption in the force here in the gungeon. A happy snark fest pile on came to a screeching halt.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

56. My pleasure.

You're welcome.

[uppityperson]

74. Welcome to DU and this particular group.

Interesting what you write about emotions vs intellect. We are ruled by emotions, looking for facts to back them up. The less intellectual, the more emotions rule. You are doing well here. Thanks for signing up and posting.

[petronius]

55. Yes, it should. Even ignoring that students in non-gun-owning households

may encounter a firearm, a certain amount of what is supposed to be taught in elementary, jr. high, and high schools is preparation for the future - basic skills for adult life. A module on firearm safety fits right into the area of health, nutrition, sex ed, phys ed, home ec, shop, etc.

All of these are important, and belong in the curriculum - which is not to say that there isn't a problem with the delivery of the academic core which requires correction, nor that these life skills are more critical than the core topics...

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

58. This is not an appropriate subject for school

I think there is so much more that is far far more urgent for schools to be doing, that firearms should not be included.

There are plenty of organizations that provide that kind of opportunity, notably organizations like 4H for those who want it.

Better we have recess, and arts and music instruction than firearm training.

Better we fund Big Bird, given the recommendations by generals and former officials like a past Secretary of the Navy.

Romney is wrong; funding early childhood education results in less crime, better educational accomplishment, and a big jump in students graduating with actual skills.

[petronius]

60. A couple of hours at most out of the school year, that might save a life?

I'd say that's completely appropriate. And do note that 'basic gun safety' as advocated here is not really "firearm training" - no more than sex ed is instruction in the erotic arts...

Welcome to DU, by the way; hope you stick around!

[ileus]

72. Saving lives isn't in their interest...adding stats is.

[PavePusher]

71. Didn't you claim above that gun homocide and injury was a public health problem?

Oh yeah, you did.

I think you've repeatedly mentioned education as well. But now you disavow a form of education.

Make up your mind, eh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. Yes, they did: "We have what is and should be a problem with firearms that should be treated as...

a public health issue - because it is."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117279039#post54

I think we've found ourselves an 'abstinence-only' type...

[aikoaiko]

90. I suspect many anti-gunnies would like gun safety not taught at schools

because it might legitimate it to the students and lead them to engage in more shooting sports, competition, and recreation.

Its similar to the argument conservatives make about sex education in schools and overall sexual conduct.

I'd like to see it in schools.

[AtheistCrusader]

128. You know what firearms safety training consists of for children right?

“Stop. Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.”

OMG TEH HORRORZ
I love that you seem to have automatically conflated firearms SAFETY training with putting rounds in the ten ring.

[4th law of robotics]

57. There are numerous laws prohibiting children from having sex

do you believe sex-ed has no place in classrooms as these are "a prohibited category of people"?

Notably, our own military has recommended that we put much more money and effort into early school education. As a general rule, those who read at grade level or better by 3rd grade are more likely to graduate than those who don't.

You have so little faith in our teachers that you think they are capable of teaching only one subject?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

59. What?

That is a non sequitur - it does not follow.

Sex ed, age appropriate, has a place in school; they're learning about it, not having sex.

Unlike guns, the kids come into this world with reproductive organs. It is teaching them about the health and maintenance of their reproductive organs and indirectly how those interact with their brains that is covered by sex ed.

Please explain your nonsensical comment about teachers only teaching one subject. (Did you have a 'suthron' education?)

[slackmaster]

65. Who are you to say what does or does not have a place in school?

[PavePusher]

69. "they're learning about it, not having sex."

What do you think 'firearms safety training" entails?

[friendly_iconoclast]

102. "What do you think 'firearms safety training" entails?" They don't know, obviously.

But they're against it all the same...

[4th law of robotics]

75. It does follow quite logically

being condescending and insulting doesn't change that fact.

Minors are a prohibited category of people for firearms.

They are prohibited from having sex as well.

Do you see the comparison?

We have other, better things we should be teaching in schools.

This implies teaching one thing means we can't teach other things. Is math more important than spelling? Which should we teach? Aha! We can do both. Not so?

Notably, our own military has recommended that we put much more money and effort into early school education. As a general rule, those who read at grade level or better by 3rd grade are more likely to graduate than those who don't.

One hour out of a year for safety means we can't teach kids how to read.

The same problems of being obese and poorly educated are such a serious problem they have affected our armed services.

Non sequitur.

Sex ed, age appropriate, has a place in school; they're learning about it, not having sex.

You can learn about gun safety without touching a gun. Just as you can learn about sex without having it.

Unlike guns, the kids come into this world with reproductive organs. It is teaching them about the health and maintenance of their reproductive organs and indirectly how those interact with their brains that is covered by sex ed.

'

No one is required to have sex or posses a gun. It's something that may occur in your life. Ignorance makes both dangerous. Knowledge makes both safe. Do you disagree with the fact that education is preferable to ignorance?

Additionally I have yet to see a kid born with a car attached. And yet many schools offer drivers ed. Cars kill far more teens than guns in this country. Should we really be teaching them the proper usage of such tools especially since many (particularly in large cities) will never actually own one? Ignorance will keep them safe and besides, that brief period of time when they're learning about car safety will prevent them from being able to read at a third grad level which something something military preparedness.

[AtheistCrusader]

129. Age appropriate firearms safety training in this case is “Stop. Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an

adult".

So the parallel is 100% accurate.

[slackmaster]

64. One hour out of an entire school year would be a great investment and would do no harm...

...to the teaching of standard subjects.

[hack89]

73. So safety education is not an effective means of reducing deaths and violence?

why do you think that?

[4th law of robotics]

76. Ignorance = safety

Apparently that cult has gotten so deranged that they are down to arguing this basic fallacy.

Don't teach kids about X because if they know about X they won't be terrified of it. Fear and ignorance will keep them safe.

/just like we refuse to allow drivers ed in schools because teaching kids about car safety means they will get in to accidents and kill people.

[ZombieHorde]

79. I don't have a firearm now, but I had one when I was a kid.

Lots of kids have guns where I live.

I took a gun safety class, and I am really glad that I did just in case something strange happens, such as finding a firearm in a park or something.

[MicaelS]

127. I was in JROTC in High School.

I was 14 years old, and we shot .22LR single shot bolt actions rifles RIGHT INSIDE THE SCHOOL. The JROTC department had a 50 foot small bore rifle range. And in the 4 years I was there, no one was ever hurt. I was taught Guns Safety there and it has stuck with me ever since. (40 years later). So don't hand me any rhetoric about minors and firearms.

[Eleanors38]

149. Correction needed...

"Minors are a prohibited category of people for firearms"

In reality, millions of minors use firearms for hunting and target shooting, and occasionally some use guns for self-defense. And legally.

As a class project for 8th grade, I instructed fellow students in the proper way to clean a shotgun, which I brought into class. Gun safety is an eminently worthy subject for the classroom.

BTW, the teacher was a woman with great quantities of estrogen coursing through her.

[ZombieHorde]

80. I agree.

I also think we should have basic finance classes and basic parenting classes.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

94. why not offer it as an optional outside-of-school class?

I agree we should have basic finance classes -- and those are already offered and supported by any number of organizations.

Like this one:

http://www.nefe.org/

Reproduction and money are essential aspects of everyone's life.

Firearms are not.

That would seem to be the distinction between the above finance and parenting, and firearms.

Unlike comprehensive sex ed, firearm safety is much more a pro-gun offering.

Add to that the liability insurance would be prohibitive, unlike the other kinds of classes.

[petronius]

98. Rifle Club or the Skeet Team would be appropriate extra-curricular options, or electives

But a basic safety topic fits better in the life skills area, with sex ed, drug ed, nutrition, health, PE, etc. Those I think are more generally opt-out if anything.

The point would not be to teach marksmanship, but to explain the dangers of irresponsible gun use, how to behave around guns or those who have them, and how to safely handle unexpected encounters with a firearm. I wouldn't call that "pro-gun" (If it's anything like the sex ed I was subjected to it sure wouldn't be! ) but even if it was, so what? Guns exist, kids and adults occasionally come across them, and a few hours in the school year might reduce the number of avoidable accidents...

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. You don't really know what firearms safety training consists of, do you?

Add to that the liability insurance would be prohibitive, unlike the other kinds of classes.

Actually, it wouldn't- as no actual firearms are used. They consist mostly of lectures on what not to do.

Your post reminds me of the old saying:

"It's not what you don't know that trips you up, it's what you think you know that aint so..."

[ZombieHorde]

115. I don't think I would want the gun classes to be mandatory.

But I do think they should be offered in public schools.

[slackmaster]

121. A basic understanding of firearms can become essential to any person's life

Would you know what to do if you found one out in a public place? How would you handle a situation in which you saw someone who was intoxicated and handling one?

Based on your smug attitude and reliance on personal attacks, I doubt very much that you have yet acquired the level of wisdom to be a leader in either situation. Maybe you could use some basic gun safety training.

Add to that the liability insurance would be prohibitive, unlike the other kinds of classes.

Ummmm, what?

[AtheistCrusader]

130. Bullshit.

"Unlike comprehensive sex ed, firearm safety is much more a pro-gun offering. "

Complete unmitigated bullshit.

"Stop, don't touch, leave the area, tell an adult"
Yeah, boy, that sure is pro-gun.

[2on2u]

51. Real men carry an axe. n/t

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

61. ????????

Only when and where appropriate.

Geeze you guys wander off topic a lot.

[2on2u]

62. These weapons threads can get so heated at times.... a little levity can be a good thing. n/t

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

70. yes......

but when the levity makes a little more sense than your image....or perhaps I didn't see it clearly?

[2on2u]

97. That image is of a person holding the hand of a starving child, it is in every message I post, it is

my sig pic.

[rrneck]

88. This is interesting.

This appears to be an associate of our expat bloviator in Italy. Whoda thunk?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

95. gishy

Ah, and you're one of the gish gallopers.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[rrneck]

96. Ah.

Like redstatewalmartflabbycrabbyundereducatedignorant...

So what's your solution for this epidemic of firearm related accidents in big box stores?

Try and keep the list short.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

117. keep guns out of stores -- and off our street

The problem is that there are more injuries, deaths, and property damage from people carrying firearms.

There really isn't much of an upside.

Simple solution - fewer guns, less carry.

More complex solution - fix the problems with the red states - improve their health and education.

That's short - and more effective than just 'more guns' and 'more stupidity'.

[holdencaufield]

118. "improve their health and education"

"The problem is that there are more injuries, deaths, and property damage from people carrying firearms."

More than what -- more than those caused by automobile drivers? More than those caused by lawn darts? More than zero? What is your point?

"People in Blue States are healthier or better educated that people in Red States?"

Could you be any more condescending?

[rrneck]

119. Keep guns out of stores. ...

How?

[glacierbay]

126. And just how, pray tell,

do you plan to keep guns out of stores and off the streets? Are you suggesting that criminals will obey any laws forbidding the carrying of guns in stores and on the streets? Are you kidding us?
The only ones that would obey such laws are the law abiding, criminals won't, such laws will only make it easier for the criminals to prey on the law abiding.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. Why do you seem to correlate 'red/blue' divisions in concealed carry?

Do you have some permit-per-capita data to support that, on a state-by-state basis?

[Atypical Liberal]

120. The entire premise is flawed.

This is the "meat and potatoes" of the blog post:

The gun carriers span the spectrum from open carry to legal concealed carry to illegal carry, and a wider variety of demographics than the NRA members -- and they are all dangerous, they all put others at risk without a legitimate reason to carry.

The implication here is that everyone who carries a firearm is dangerous and puts others at risk.

But the truth is, people with CCW permits are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than a random sampling of the population.

[Francis Marion]

146. Education is the answer.

People need to be educated to properly and safely carry weapons.

Procedures and behaviors that work should be standardized, like that other life and death social activity - driving.

[SecularMotion]

147. Firearms should also be registered and insured like vehicles.

[Francis Marion]

148. Yes- computers, books and papers too.

So should the beer in the fridge; that stuff's really dangerous.

It's a good idea to rent and serial number our rights from the government, which is their source; amen.

[Clames]

151. Not all vehicles need to be registered and insured.

So you also feel people should be able to modify their firearms to whatever extent they can afford, like vehicles?

[4th law of robotics]

152. Limiting basic rights to only those who can afford them

It would still leave us technically free but in reality only the wealthy could afford self-defense.

That would definitely keep those proles in their place.

Brilliant!

/ah but no, the "bullets should be a thousand dollars each and we should tax guns at ever increasing rates" crowd would never push to make gun-insurance prohibitively expensive.

[gejohnston]

154. he should be sued for false advertizing

he claims to offer rational discussion. His rant is not rational. He is a bigoted asshole who bases opinions on stereotypes, and if a certain stereotype is associated with something, that is reason enough to be against it.