Defense of self, family is a personal duty

[Superfly]

Link

<snip>

The question "why do you choose to carry a firearm?" has haunted me.

One thing that makes me different from some of those men is that I carry a gun. I do so because I truly believe that preserving the safety and well-being of my wife, my children and myself is my duty.

<snip>

[el_gato]

1. and?

[Superfly]

2. Draw your own conclusions.

This is an opinion piece.

B

[iverglas]

11. whoa

Does that mean you're expecting people to express opinions about the opinion expressed in the "opinion piece"??

Why quelle surprise ... so would I!



(I'd even expect people to express opinions about a fact situation brought to their attention for the evident purpose of soliciting their opinions about that fact situation. But I just do not expect people to "express opinions" about whether "X is a good thing" when the issue under discussions is what the facts concerning X are. ... Person A: "It's raining, even though the weather forecast was for snow and the television says the sun is shining." Person B: "I just looked out my window, and no, it isn't raining, it's snowing and the sun is shining." Person C: "Rain is good! Snow is bad!" Now, whose statement is an opinion? And whose statement is entirely irrelevant to the issue under discussion -- which is the *facts*: whether and how it might be precipitating? And if I were involved in the discussion of whether it is precipitating and how, whose statement would I find pointless? Just an opinion, you say? Nope. Not in the context, not at all. Now, if someone just said "It's raining", however, well, I might take that as solicitation of an opinion about rain ... .)

.

[MrBenchley]

25. Who'd have guessed choir director was a high risk occupation?

Maybe this guy ought to consider a less dangerous career...

[CO Liberal]

3. Which Is Why I Have Dogs and Good Locks On My Doors

:-)

[Superfly]

4. Cool!

I rely on a Smith and Wesson Model 27 and firearms training.

Brian

[bowens43]

5. You would be better off with dogs

and good locks.

[Superfly]

6. So far, I have all three

although my dog would probably lick a crook to death.

And, I feel I am better off having a deadly means of protecting me, my family, and my home.

Brian

[oneighty]

19. dog lick crook to death?

no need for gun.

180

[-..__...]

22. According to my lease...

I can't have any dogs in my apartment, and I highly doubt my pet parrot is going to stop or warn me of an intruder. (he hides in his hutch if a moth flys by his cage :).

Dogs and locks have a limited benifit. Dogs and locks have a limited benefit. A firearm, and proper training, fills the niche that dogs, locks and dialing 911 can't adequately cover.

[chesley]

30. What do you do

after the burglar shoots your dog, kicks in the door that you had the good locks on, rips out your phone line, and knee-caps you on the way to stealing your 5-year old TV set? Locks are a passive defense. Dogs can be active, but are very vulnerable.

[blondeatlast]

8. Removed by poster; read later response.

[RoeBear]

12. What would you do if...

...on your way to work someone jumped in your car and said "drive to the wilderness"?

[Spentastic]

13. If they had a gun

What would you do? If someone truly wishes to victimise you, you're daffy ducked. No gun in the world will save you.

[RoeBear]

16. I'd...

...wait til they were distracted.

[iverglas]

24. you know something?

"I'd... ...wait til they were distracted."

That is EXACTLY how I saved my life after I was abducted (in a car with no interior door handles and closed windows), was driven around deserted back roads for some time (long enough for an assailant to disarm me in close quarters while he wasn't at all distracted), unsuccessfully tried to attract attention after stopping (leaning on horn) and to break out (plastic sandals vs. car window glass) and fight back (trapped in front seat of car with determined assailant bigger then me), and was choked and sexually assaulted.

The abductor/assailant then decided that I should go with him for "a walk in the woods" at the bottom of the deserted quarry where we were. (Anybody remember the song, I paraphrase: There's five girls goin' to the graveyard, only four of 'em coming back? That's the first thing I thought of.) I allowed as how this was a wonderful idea, and how we could even cool off in the little pond. I said that I just needed to take my purse, because I'd be lost without my cigarettes -- trying to stall, distract ... . He told me to put my shoes back on and then looked away -- he was distracted -- as I turned to reach for shoes and purse ... and I ran. And ran and ran, bare feet on gravel uphill, falling and losing my glasses and running blind. He obviously panicked and sped past me and away, although I'd feared he would try to hit me with the car and was prepared to dodge.

And ... if he'd had, say, a handgun? What do we all think the outcome would have been? The instant I stepped out of the car (who wants blood in the car?), or the instant I started to run. Bang bang, do we think?

I wasn't aware that I was being abducted from the first moment, having got into the car voluntarily in the company of a male friend who left the car long before any problem became apparent (and I even had no idea that I wasn't able to get out of the car). He was aware that I was being abducted; he had planned it and he was doing it. People who do these things plan them. He would hardly have been about to wait for ME to pull out MY handgun once I realized what was going on -- whether that had been in the first instant of our contact or later -- any more than someone carjacking any of us would be likely to do.

We can avoid harm, much of the time, by denying others the opportunity to do us harm. Don't get into strange cars. Don't drive in unlocked cars. Don't walk in parks where people are shooting. It is ALWAYS safer to avoid harm than by not being in situations where it could happen than by trying to prevent it happening once the situation has arisen. If those situations CAN'T be avoided -- and since we don't live in never-never-land, sometimes they can't be avoided -- it is foolish at best, most of the time, to think that we can beat the people trying to harm us at their own game.

The use of this completely FALSE paradigm for how harm happens, and how harm can be avoided -- that well-armed folks will be able to escape harm better than unarmed folks in the vast majority of situations in which someone is out to do something that s/he shouldn't be doing -- is disingenuous at best, and dangerous to those who fall for or adopt it at worst.

If I'd had a handgun in the situation I found myself in, the odds are very strong, if not virtually perfect, that **I** would be the dead one right now.

I'm not so foolish as to think that I could have prevented that happening, because I'm sensible enough to realize that I would not have had the opportunity to prevent it, once I was in the situation.

And I'm not so devoid of self-worth that I perceive myself as a "loser" because of what happened and must devote large chunks of my time and energy and thoughts to making sure that nobody ever gets the best of me like that again. I'm alive, the odds of anyone killing me in a situation that I could have prevented by arming myself are INFINITESIMAL, and I'm quite capable of sustaining the loss of my purse or stereo, or anything else anyone might want to take from me -- including my "honour" -- without perceiving myself as a loser or allowing the need not to be a loser to consume my life ... and endanger everyone around me.

(Whether or not people with that perception, and need, arm themselves with firearms, they can still be dangerous folks to be around, by the way. Somebody with that much of a need to prove him/herself is unfortunately unlikely to employ reasonable strategies to avoid situations in which s/he might be able to prove that s/he isn't a loser.)

How much better if we were all "armed" with strategies to avoid and cope with situations in which we might be harmed, with the understanding that life is never 100% "safe" and that it is not our fault if people who seek to harm us succeed, and with ways of coping with our feelings if that does happen so that we are not consumed by self-blame and the need to vindicate ourselves in our own or the world's eyes.

.

[Spoonman]

18. I have to disagree

"If someone truly wishes to victimise you, you're daffy ducked."

No two circumstances are ever the same, and no plan is perfect. Therefore, how can we assume certain defeat without taking into consideration your individual preparation for such an event?

The man who attempted to rob my lifelong best friend truly wished to victimize him.

The thief was hiding behind a dumpster, waiting for my friend to come home at the same time he arrived every day.
The would be robber stepped out and butt-stroked my friend with a twelve-gauge shotgun, knocking him to the ground.
As my friends head began to clear, he realized the robber was trying to take his Rolex of his wrist. My friend reached to the small of his back, pulled his Glock 17 out and shot the man point blank in the chest.

"No gun in the world will save you."

I beg to differ, because without a gun my best friend might have ended up like the suspected two other victims this person was assumed to have robbed then killed in the same area.

Your only daffy ducked if you chose to lay down and take it without fighting.

I for one refuse to accept the defeat before the fight attitude.

[Spentastic]

21. So the robbers mistake

Was butt stroking (oo er missus!) instead of shooting your friend in the back of the head?

Actually, this is a pretty decent example of self defense using a weapon, but would a taser/stu gun have acheived the same? Killing someone must weigh pretty heavily even if the guy was a criminal.

[Spoonman]

36. The mistake

was the attempt in committing the crime.
Stun guns and taser guns are not always effective. Many people simply shrug these off and continue the attack.
No, the appropriate reaction was to stop the attack without questioning the effectiveness of the means.
A 115 grain 9mm JHP to the sternum "stopped" it period.
My friend will tell you "it was either him or me, and I'm not loosing any sleep over it".
While this may sound callus to some, I glad he's around to say those words.

[chesley]

31. A gun won't save you

A gun and the willingness to use it on a perp definitely will.

[CO Liberal]

14. I Drive With My Doors Locked

So no one can jump in. Then I'd call 911 on my cell phone.

[RoeBear]

17. That reminds me of...

...a news story a few years ago. Some bad guys tossed their victim in the trunk of his car and drove off with him. One of the bad guys decided they better pull over and check to see if the guy has a cell phone. They opened up the trunk and the guy had a gun pulled on them.

[CO Liberal]

20. That Would Never Happen To Me

Like I said before, I drive with the doors locked. And since most of my daily commute is on the interstate at 75 MPH, there's little chance for someone running up to my door and opening it. Finally, I drive a Chevy S-10 pickup with a cap on the back. Hard to hide a hostage in something as wide open as that.......

[blondeatlast]

7. I would never I would never have a gun because I wouldn't be able

to shoot to kill another human being. I have been told by a cop that if you aren't prepared to use dealy force, the gun would be used against you.

'Nuff said, IMHO.

You will never convince the anti-guns like me to your side, I will never convince you to mine. Why try?

[slackmaster]

9. The cop was right

I have no problem with your attitude as long as you don't interfere with my choices for self-defense.

[DonP]

10. That's a personal choice, and I respect your choice on that basis

... but then you also have to accept the corrollary (sp?) that if you are not prepared to use deadly force to protect your family or yourself then you have to accept the fact that you or your family may have to die for that principle.

You can take every reasonable precaution, have dogs, good locks, a cell phone and an active neighborhood watch and still wind up victimized.

It's something all of us dread and fear, but in the extreme your cop friend was right, if you don't feel you can pull the trigger you probably shouldn't have a weapon in your house.

See the recent thread by Liberal Historian (?) on their choice on this issue following an armed robbery. Very insightful stuff.

The problem many of us have is when people decide their point of view is smarter, more enlightened or just more moral than ours is and decide to take our personal choice away from us by law. No one is ever going to force you to own or carry a gun, but by the same token please don't try and force your point of view on us and deny the rest of us that choice.

Just my .02

Don

[iverglas]

15. nah

"The problem many of us have is when people decide their point of view is smarter, more enlightened or just more moral than ours is and decide to take our personal choice away from us by law."

What "point of view" is that? You've been talking about someone's stated inability to use deadly force against someone else -- "if you don't feel you can pull the trigger you probably shouldn't have a weapon in your house". I don't see that as really a "point of view", do you?

But let's say that we call it that. You must then be understood to be saying that "people decide" that their inability to use deadly force against someone else "is smarter, more enlightened or just more moral than ours is and decide to take our personal choice away from us by law".

Who has ever said that?

Even if we assume that YOU are assuming that this inability is based on a "point of view" -- say, "hurting people is wrong" -- who has ever said that s/he is therefore "smarter, more enlightened or just more moral than" somene else and decided on that basis "to take <their> personal choice away from <them> by law"??

Why do you choose to misrepresent the REASONS why people advocate limiting access to firearms?

"No one is ever going to force you to own or carry a gun, but by the same token please don't try and force your point of view on us and deny the rest of us that choice."

Hey. No one is ever going to force me to beat my dog. So by the same token, should I not try to "force my point of view" on you and deny you that "choice"?

Duh. Simplistic, dumb and a complete failure to address the real issues, you think? Yeah.

.

[Romulus]

26. speechless

Post:
"No one is ever going to force you to own or carry a gun, but by the same token please don't try and force your point of view on us and deny the rest of us that choice."


Response:
Hey. No one is ever going to force me to beat my dog. So by the same token, should I not try to "force my point of view" on you and deny you that "choice"?


Owning firearms or getting a CCW = beating your pets

:eyes:

Duh. Simplistic, dumb and a complete failure to address the real issues, you think? Yeah.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

70. if someone wants to falsely state about me

that I have said something I never said, and meant something I never meant -- WHEN THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR THOSE FALSE ALLEGATIONS and the individual making the allegations has not even attempted to substantiate them, and those false allegations have been allowed to remain on the board -- then that individual, and whomever s/he is complaining to, is just going to have to be prepared to have the proverbial spade called what it is.

A false and scurrilous allegation made about an individual IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. Isn't that what calling someone a Republican is considered to be?? Hell, things are called "personal attacks" here even when they're TRUE. Well news flash: saying that I equated owning a firearm and beating one's pets -- A FALSE AND SCURRILOUS ALLEGATION MADE AGAINST ME, *not* an "interpretation" of what I said -- IS A PERSONAL ATTACK.

If someone wants to accuse me of breaking rules, someone is going to have to do a better job of substantiating THAT allegation than posting a link to the rules. I have received NO notification of what rule my post allegedly broke. And I challenge anyone who alleges that it broke a rule to point to the rule and the breach ... with a straight face.

Here we go. But heck, I'm willing to sanitize it up, to couch what I'm saying in generality and insinuation, since that seems to be a privileged method of communication around here.

.


"Owning firearms or getting a CCW = beating your pets"

Nope. (There are only two possible reasons for someone asserting that I said/meant what is stated here. Let's think hard now; what three possible explanations are there for the making of false statements? We'll leave aside "not having all the facts", of course, since that one isn't relevant here; that leaves the usual two. I'm not telling, of course, and I will neither confirm nor deny the correctness of any proposed answers.)

original statement: "No one is ever going to force you to own or carry a gun, but by the same token please don't try and force your point of view on us and deny the rest of us that choice."

my response: "Hey. No one is ever going to force me to beat my dog. So by the same token, should I not try to 'force my point of view' on you and deny you that 'choice'?"

Point: A statement was made that implied a general principle -- that no one should be able to PREVENT someone else from doing something that no one else may COMPEL that person to do.

I mean -- if that general principle weren't being implied, exactly what basis would there be for the statement that was made??

What exactly does "by the same token" mean??

It means that there is some common basis, some common cause, for the two statements:

- no one is ever going to force you to own or carry a gun
- don't try and force your point of view on us and deny the rest of us that choice.

What is being said is that someone who does not wish to be forced to own or carry a gun CANNOT advocate that someone else be prevented from doing so, because to do so would make the first person subject to being forced to do so, by some inescapable logic.

"BY THE SAME TOKEN" -- if it applies to one, it applies to the other. THAT IS THAT THIS MEANS.

So what is "it"?? What is it that applies to one and to the other?

All I can think of is that it is the notion that no one may be forced to do, or prevented from doing, anything (as long as it's a "choice"?).

AND THAT IS NONSENSE. And I DEMONSTRATED (ah, that reductio ad absurdum that everyone claims not to understand --what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander) that it is nonsense.

OF COURSE people may be forced to do things and prevented from doing things.

OF COURSE people may be prevented from doing things that no one else is forced to do.

You may be prevented from beating your dog even though I may not be forced to do it.
You may be prevented from crossing the street even though I may not be forced to do it.
You may be prevented from eating bald eagles even though I may not be forced to do it.

I may be prevented from driving a car even though you may not be forced to do it. I may be prevented from driving a car WHERE THERE IS JUSTIFICATION for preventing me from driving a car.

You may be prevented from owning/carrying a firearm even though I may not be forced to do it, WHERE THERE IS JUSTIFICATION for preventing you from owning/carrying a firearm.

There is no fucking BY THE SAME TOKEN about any of it. That is NONSENSE.

The criterion on which we decide WHETHER OR NOT someone may be forced to do / prevented from doing ANYTHING is **NOT** whether what s/he is wanting to do is a "personal choice".

EVERYTHING is a "personal choice". Crossing the street is a "personal choice". *I* MAY be prevented (by law and the punishment that violation of the law is subject to) from crossing the street EVEN THOUGH *you* MAY NOT be compelled to cross the street, because there is JUSTIFICATION for preventing me from crossing the street in certain circumstances.

(Does it not sound utterly ridiculous even to SAY "I may be prevented by law from crossing the street even though you may not be compelled to cross the street"? Even to IMPLY that there is some logical nexus between the two things?? Well bloody ditto for "You may be prevented by law from owning and carrying firearms even though I may not be compelled to own and carry firearms". The two facts are UNRELATED. Sheesh almighty.)

The attempt to portray "personal choice" as the be-all and end-all criterion for determining whether someone may be forced to do / prevented from doing anything is ... well, I leave it to everyone's imagination, or power of reason exercised in good faith, to finish that sentence.

AND NOW, I strongly suggest that anyone who is (1) unable to understand what I write, and/or (2) unwilling to address it in good faith, IGNORE IT. That advice would have applied well to the initial post of mine in this little sub-thread, and it applies equally well to this very post.

If you (that big ol' impersonal "you") don't understand what I've said, do not present your own misunderstanding of it as if it were truth.

If you (ditto) do not wish to acknowledge and respond to what I have said, do not misrepresent your restatement of what I did say as if it were truth.

Please.

I'd say that this should be clear and polite enough for anyone. Of course, I still maintain that those are the simplest and most basic rules of civil discourse, and specifically of democratic discourse, and that when combined with "if you (y'all, youse guys, you generic yousers, one and all of us) do not wish to state your own knowledge and disclose your own interests candidly and completely, then hush", you have virtually the complete set. But that's just me.

.

[Romulus]

73. I don't know what happened

this is maybe the third (?) time that your responses to me have been zapped. I only got to read two of those, and I never took anything in those particular posts to be an intentional personal attack.

:shrug:

I still disagreed with what you said, as I do here. Your use of certain examples A and B in this case is interpreted as commentary on your opinion of example A. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's the message that was sent.

Similar to how that other poster's screed against the "scum who attend gun shows" wasn't really a slur against people who attend gun shows. Just like criticising "scum that go to NAACP meetings" isn't really a slam against NAACP members. :eyes:

Sure, maybe the benign explanation was the point being made, but that was not the message that was put out.

[acerbic]

75. Similar to THIS WHOLE BS THREAD:

Similar to how that other poster's screed against the "scum who attend gun shows" wasn't really a slur against people who attend gun shows. Just like criticising "scum that go to NAACP meetings" isn't really a slam against NAACP members.

Similar to how weasely yapping screeds about how people who don't carry guns really don't care about their families aren't really a slam against people who don't carry guns... :eyes:

[Romulus]

76. I think you get it

:think:

[Man_in_the_Moon]

77. I dunno

isnt saying someone is 'disabled in intellect' a personal attack?

[iverglas]

82. lemme see

Isn't taking what someone said and representing it as something other than what it was, for the purpose of calling it a "personal attack", a "personal attack"?

Yeah. It is.

"isnt saying someone is 'disabled in intellect' a personal attack?"

I suppose that if someone had said that, then the question would not be moot.

Of course, what I said was:

"If you think I said that, you're sadly disabled in the intellect department."

Find where I was "saying someone is 'disabled in intellect'," would you please?

And if you can find someone who honestly, genuinely and in good faith thought I was saying that, prove that s/he is *not* disabled in the intellect department ...

Sounds like it would be a statement of fact, to me, and one that says nothing at all "bad" about anybody. There's nothing immoral or indecent about being "disabled in the intellect department", is there? Not where I come from.

.

[iverglas]

81. how about you try to remember this

Aristotle is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

That argument is VALID and SOUND. The premises are true, and they lead to the conclusion. If I say "Aristotle is a man, and all men are mortal", you may FEEL FREE to say that I have said "Aristotle is mortal".

Now we'll try this one.

Scum go to gun shows.
Therefore all people who go to gun shows are scum.

OH LOOK. It isn't at all like that "Aristotle" one. It is DUMB. It is DEMONSTRABLY DISPROVABLE.

So why would anyone in his/her right mind, with a modicum of intelligence and a shred of honesty, SAY it?

And, the real question (since NO ONE actually DID say it): WHY would anyone accuse another person on this board of having said it??????

To accuse someone of having said "All people who go to gun shows are scum" WHEN WHAT S/HE SAID WAS "Scum go to gun shows" ***IS*** a personal attack -- it is an allegation that the person being talked about is either so grossly, appallingly stupid that s/he would THINK that the fact that scum go to gun shows proves that all people who go to gun shows are scum, or so grossly, appallingly dishonest that s/he would SAY that the fact that scum go to gun shows proves that all people who go to gun shows are scum.

The plain fact is that saying "Scum go to gun shows" IS NOT SAYING "All people who go to gun shows are scum". And that fact is so plain that ... well, yer on yer own there.

If someone said "Aristotle is mortal", would anyone else jump in and say YOU HAVE SAID THAT ALL MORTALS ARE ARISTOTLE? How dim, confused, crazy or dishonest would someone have to be to say that??? Can we do the math?

You made a statement that DID NOT MAKE SENSE. The BEST WAY to demonstrate that a statement does not make sense is to take its premise and apply it to another situation where it will be OBVIOUS that it does not make sense. Nonsense. ABSURDITY.

Sometimes the most OBVIOUS nonsense statement is one that normal, sane, decent people will RECOIL FROM.

The proper response, most particularly from someone who is already averted to the technique being applied, is to either

(a) acknowledge that the initial statement was nonsense;
(b) present rational argument to establish that the initial statement was not nonsense and that what has been done is not to reduce the argument to absurdity, but to mischaracterize it by ignoring salient points, or whatever.

Did you do either of those? NO.

Accusing me of equating owning firearms with beating pets IS NOT RATIONAL ARGUMENT. I DID NOT DO THAT and there are NO grounds for representing what I did as saying that.

I equated the LOGIC of saying that if I cannot be compelled to beat my dog then you cannot be prevented from beating your dog with the LOGIC of saying that if I cannot be compelled to own a gun then you cannot be prevented from owning a gun.

I HAVE USED THE SAME ***LOGIC***. Illogic, pardon me. I have DEMONSTRATED the illogic of the "logic" by applying it to another situation and showing that it produces nonsense. ABSURDITY.

If I had used an innocuous example -- say, if I cannot be compelled to cross the street, then you cannot be prevented from crossing the street -- the ILLOGIC might not be as apparent to the casual reader. The illogic is exactly the same, but the whole point of reductio ad absurdum is to DEMONSTRATE the illogic, and so OF COURSE the example chosen will be one that best demonstrates that -- an ABSURD example.


"Sure, maybe the benign explanation was the point being made, but that was not the message that was put out."

YES IT WAS. The fact that someone/anyone, in a forum where people are supposedly able to read and write English and have learned the basic skills needed in order to discern the meaning of what they read, failed to get/acknowledge the message, or chose instead to derive some alternate and improbable message from what s/he read, is simply NOT the fault of the messenger.

.

[Romulus]

94. rest my case

The fact that someone/anyone, in a forum where people are supposedly able to read and write English and have learned the basic skills needed in order to discern the meaning of what they read, failed to get/acknowledge the message, or chose instead to derive some alternate and improbable message from what s/he read, is simply NOT the fault of the messenger.

If people aren't getting your intended message, that IS your problem.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[malkia]

55. Say what?

You call other people’s opinion “simplistic, dumb and a complete failure” and still try to pose as not “smarter, more enlightened or just more moral ” than the rest of us?
Don’t you think your response is a perfect example of the attitude he is talking about?

[Spoonman]

57. A perfect example

100%

[iverglas]

72. well, my dear

"Don’t you think your response is a perfect example of the attitude he is talking about?"

As the venerable Miss Manners would say: why do you ask?

But to satisfy your curiosity: nope. I don't think that at all. Not remotely. Not for an instant.

The assertion ... well, I could call it an insinuation, but in this case I would regard it as an assertion, just one that was ineptly made ... was indeed simplistic, dumb, and a complete failure to address actual issues.

"The problem many of us have is when people decide their point of view is smarter, more enlightened or just more moral than ours is and decide to take our personal choice away from us by law."

What exactly IS that about? Did you want to demonstrate how complex, clever and to-the-point it was by explicating it for the rest of us -- or even just me?

The reason that I propose that certain "personal choices" be taken away from people by law has nothing to do with the fact that I am smarter, more enlightened and more moral than the people in question. I'm also undoubtedly taller, older and chubbier than large numbers of them.

These are not things on which I base my public policy positions -- I do not base my public policy positions on my intelligence, enlightenment, moral-ness, height, age or body mass index. I don't actually think that ANYONE bases his/her public policy positions on ANY of those criteria.

So why the hell would ANYONE ELSE suggest that anyone does?? And why the hell would anyone identify someone else's feelings of superior intelligence, enlightenment or moral-ness as the REASONS for that person's public policy decisions?

Like I say, if that wasn't what was being done in that strange stew of a sentence, I'm open to someone telling me what was being done.

People who advocate restrictions on access to firearms HAVE REASONS for what they advocate. Those reasons ARE NOT that they are "smarter, more enlightened or just more moral" than someone/anyone/everyone else.

Now, while being "smarter, more enlightened or just more moral" than someone/anyone/everyone else would not be the reason for what they advocate, it might be a reason for their willingness to advocate what someone else might, for whatever reason, oppose ...

Why would you say (think??) that I was "pos<ing> as not “smarter, more enlightened or just more moral” than the rest of <you>"?? Where exactly did I indicate that I was doing that?

PLEASE. An ANSWER. PLEASE.

It doesn't always take a supremely smart, enlightened and moral person to recognize a dumb, simplistic failure to address an issue. And of course, even a smart, enlightened and moral person can make mistakes ... so pray tell: in what way was the statement I was addressing smart, complex and on point?

You know ... address the argument, and not the arguer. AS I DID. Ad personam argument (attacking the arguer rather than the argument, AS YOU DID, and as the person whose statement I was addressing did) is just so doomed to failure.

Why would *I* drag something as irrelevant as my intelligence, enlightenment or moral-ness into a discussion to which they are utterly and completely irrelevant??

Believe me ... I'm far too smart, enlightened and moral to do that.

HAHAHAHAHA.

.

[malkia]

86. Did I call any of your statements “simplistic, dumb and a complete failure

The way I see it, this is a forum. People come here to discus things. Everybody has an opinion. Some of the posts here may not stand to some people’s high standards, but nevertheless they may have a point.
In this case you can pick on the words but it’s a fact- people like to shape the other people’s behavior.
For some reason you don’t like guns, don’t want them and you want to make everybody else to behave like you. I don’t question your personal actions – you can live the way you like it. It’s that simple. But I expect the same from you.
You want some personal choices to be taken away from people. Why do you think that you have a right to control their lives? Who are you to set an example?
I don’t know your reasons to be anti-gun. Probably at some point of your live you had a bad experience with one. But you want to force your views on guns on the rest of us.
For me it’s like trying to ban cat ownership, because cats cause allergies. As allergic to cats I can tell you that far more people suffer from cats than from guns. Yes, we don’t die, but we suffer. But have you ever heard about the Center of Cat Control? Yet there are millions cat victims just in my state.
For some reason people can live and cope with a lot of things, but refuse to do so with others.
Yes, people are killed with guns. But others are saved with them. I may never need one to defend myself. I may not be able to pull the trigger. But I want to have the choice to do so if needed. And I think I’m old enough to decide for myself.
BTW, I’m allergic to flowers too! Do you think total ban on flowers will make my live safer?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malkia]

89. Whatever you say

Whatever you say. But lets first clear something.I don’t care if you had tigers and lions with you everywhere you go. Unless they start biting people. In this case I’ll expect you to be prosecuted. And AFTER that I’ll expect YOU to be banned from owning tigers and lions.

[Superfly]

91. "I'm far too smart, enlightened and moral to do that." -iverglas

Pardon me a second....

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

ha ha ha!!!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

Oh, that was rich! I haven't had a good laugh like that in ages! Thanks!

B

[Spoonman]

37. Welcome to DU

As you can see, there are some who will take any statement you post and break it down into something it was never meant to imply.

Those people are lacking in the ability to accept others written opinions at face value, and must attempt to re-arrange the authors thoughts to build themselves up in a vain attempt to appear superior.

There are several here that see these blantant acts as disrupting to the exchange of ideas and thoughts that I feel you presented quite well.

Once again welcome to DU

[DonP]

44. Thanks for the welcome

I've been hanging around for a couple of years and I just don't post much for those reasons.

It seems some folks are more concerned with obfuscation and treat responses like poorly written freshman term papers. "Respond by the pound and avoid the meaning."

I had a boss who used to refer to that kind of thinking as, "milking mice while you're getting stepped on by the buffalo".

I'm well past the age where I feel the need for anyone else to validate my point of view or choices in life and criticism generally runs off my back pretty easily.

Thankfully, in a free society, we also don't need anyone's permission to own the Home Defense Tool of my choosing.

Thanks again for the welcome.

Don

[blondeatlast]

87. I choose not to live in fear. That is your choice, so go with God.

I accept that I or a family mameber may die; OK, fine. But I won't dwell on it. I may get hit by a bus, eat a rancid hamburger, have a shelf of books fall over on me at my workplace (a downtown public library--more than our share of violent crime here).

I refuse to live in fear; if I fail in this, the bad guys win.

[chesley]

33. Emiliano Zapata

said, "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." The main thing, as I see it, is that you can never have perfect safety. And, even paranoids have enemies. You have to do the best you can. You are safer with a gun than without. Please, nobody link me to a study showing differently. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything, and I could link you to any number of studies showing the opposite. So logic and common sense have to be the determining factor here. If I have a gun, your chances of killing me go way, way down, even if you also have a gun

[iverglas]

40. my logic and common sense

... are better than your logic and common sense.

That's what YOU are saying, isn't it? Of course it is.

"You are safer with a gun than without. Please, nobody link me to a study showing differently. Statistics can be manipulated to prove anything, and I could link you to any number of studies showing the opposite. So logic and common sense have to be the determining factor here. If I have a gun, your chances of killing me go way, way down, even if you also have a gun."

The chances of getting on an airplane that is carrying a bomb are a billion to one.

The chances of getting on an airplane that is carrying TWO bombs are a gazillion to one.

Solution? Always be sure to take your own bomb when you travel by air.

Now *that* is logic and common sense. Or so some would undoubtedly have us believe.

"If I have a gun, your chances of killing me go way, way down, even if you also have a gun."

Actually, my chance of killing you is precisely ZERO. Even lower, probabably, since I *don't* have a gun. The chance of the huge, vast, overwhelming majority of anyone in the world, or your city, or the entire universe, killing you are about as close to zero as you can get.

"Better to die on your feet than live on your knees."

And is that a "choice" that you get to make for other people, or just yourself?

Funny how, in implementing your very own personal "choice", you just really DO increase the chances that someone else might die. Feet, knees, who gives a shit? Not them; they're DEAD.

I say: anybody who wants to live in a cave (make sure you can find one where you can stand on your feet and don't have to crawl around on your knees; I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be able to live with the shame of that) and who promises never ever to leave it, and never ever to let anyone else know where it is, can feel free to live by that silly maxim all s/he wants.

It is SILLY in this context and instance, because it does not apply. For chissakes, eh? Who here is suggesting that anyone should "live on your knees"??

Anyone who thinks that going about his/her business as s/he chooses in an open society, without interference and with guarantees that protect the freedom to do that, as almost all people in his/her society do almost all of the time, amounts to "living on your knees" because s/he isn't allowed to have a firearm on his/her person at all times really, really needs to peer over that fortified border and see how some of the rest of the world lives.

That maxim was not uttered for or about a bunch of USAmericans who live comfortable, safe, unfettered lives but who have such chips on their shoulders that they think that someone else's concerns about their own safety and comfort, and ability to go about their own business unfettered with as much safety and comfort as is reasonably possible, amount to forcing them to "live on their knees".

What those other people's concerns actually amount to is just as much refusing to "live on their knees", on their part, as demanding to be able to drag lethal weapons around in public is on the part of the people doing that. More so, I'd say.

Me, I refuse to "live on my knees" in obeisance to the whims of those who consider it their 'right' to endanger me and my fellow people. I don't wish to die, either on my feet or otherwise. And I'll take my (and others') right to life over anyone's 'right' to endanger us, thankee.

.

[MrBenchley]

23. And St. Augustine sayeth, go heeled among men

and spread the word of the Holy Gun....Its hooey to put forth among the suckers...

[LibLabUK]

27. Somewhat related question

I'm new here (long time lurker, first time poster), but I have a question for those that carry guns for self protection.

Do you wear any body armour?

If not, why not?

If the risk of violent crime is high enough to warrant carrying firearms routinely, surely it would warrant wearing some form of protection.

[Spentastic]

28. Don't be silly

You have to actually kill your attacker. It's like an added bonus societal service provided for free by the accident free law abiding gun bunnies.

Welcome to DU

[MrBenchley]

29. Welcome aboard

Actually the mere presence of the gun on the armed neurotic's person is supposed to be mystically sensed by criminals, who will fear it and flee the way they reacct to Batman's costume....

That's the CCW theory, anywho...

[demsrule4life]

62. No it is the question is he or isnt he?

[Romulus]

32. welcome, and my answers

Body armor won't help if:

you are being stabbed
you are getting beaten

It is also uncomfortable, heavy, and not easy to wear under "regular" clothes. Plus you would probably attract a lot of attention walking around with that crap on. :)

LEO's wear body armor because they are at risk of getting shot while engaging and attacking violent criminals. The length of engagement time increases your chance of getting shot. The Fed LEO's I used to wirk with never put body armor on unless they expected trouble during a search warrant service or something. The rest of the time it just sat in the corner of their offices. Even my paranoid cop brother only wears his while he's on duty.

CCW types are not trying to chase anyone down, just buy enough time to get away. That short engagement time, along with rapid retreating movement, decreases the odds of getting shot.

[MrBenchley]

34. Not so...

Body armor certainly does help prevent stabbing...

"KEVLAR® fiber, which is synonymous with bullet-resistant body armor, is used in the technology for the multi-threat body armor. These vests provide the wearer with ballistic protection for NIJ levels II, IIA and IIIA, and have surpassed the “California Ice Pick Test” using a standard ice pick and a Russell boning knife. In that test, an ice pick or boning knife is attached to a 16.2 lbs. weight and dropped from a height of five feet. The energy level—measured at 81 ft-lbs. or 110 joules—is equal to that of a tossed javelin or a golfer driving a ball 250 yards."

www.dupont.com/kevlar/pdfs/060500multithreatprdoc.pdf

"Body Armor WORKS...
"...as of January 1, 2001, a total of 2,500 "saves" have been attributed to the use of body armor.
58% of these saves were connected with felonious assaults and 42% with accidents, such as car crashes.
40% of the felonious assaults involved firearms, 12% represented cutting or slashing assaults, and 6% involved other types of assaults.""

http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml

[Romulus]

42. good info

http://www.bulletproofme.com/ProMAX-Concealable-Stab-Resistant.shtml
Regular ballistic vests offer good SLASH knife protection, but are not "knife-proof". Stab-Resistant vests offer a much higher level of protection from STABBING attacks.

Stab-Resistance does stiffen up a vest significantly, so we don't recommend it unless you have a significant knife threat.

But I'd rather not walk around with a turtle shell. :hi:


http://www.dupont.com/kevlar/pdfs/MTPpressrelease.pdf
Since traditional ballistic vests were not designed to and may not stop puncture-type or bladed weapons, a multi-threat vest is the best protection for specific assignments in corrections and law enforcement.
Vests using Kevlar® MTP™ technology are expected to be the first flexible body armor system to pass the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) stab (knife class) standard and bullet standard.

It's still going to be uncomfortable and inconvenient, and probably cost-prohibitive, after it gets approval.

Show me a t-shirt-thin body armor system, and I'll be the first here to check it out. :beer:

[MrBenchley]

45. So in other words...

The issue of personal safety is a red herring to justify the desire to tote firearms. Otherwise, the real issue is personal convenience.

[Romulus]

47. if you say so

it must be true :hi:

[MrBenchley]

63. Actually YOU said so

[Spoonman]

38. By the same token,

why even leave your house?

[MrBenchley]

39. Perhaps because some of us

aren't scared to walk around without a little metal friend?

[Spoonman]

41. I'm so happy

you are able to do so.

I almost never "carry" in my neighborhood, I don't feel like I need to.

However, I live in Houston, and there are areas that I would never go without it.
I have to go into those areas for business, and would avoid them if I could.

Some of us don't live in utopia, we live in the real world.

[MrBenchley]

43. So do YOU wear body armor?

"Some of us don't live in utopia, we live in the real world."
The real world I live in has about 90,000 Americans shot every year, (30,000 dead by gunshot) and a corrupt industry doing all it can to make those numbers climb. It also has a bunch of RKBA "enthusiasts" making demonstrably false claims in public.

[Spoonman]

46. Oh what we can do with numbers

You started with 30,000, now it's 90,000.

Yea the "corrupt industry" is doing all it can to make those numbers climb.

I'm sure they're sitting around the Winchester board room all pondering the question, how can we cause more accidents this year?

Over at Remington, the question of the day is, would billboards be an effective ad campaign to attract more of the criminal market share.

And I’m sure Storm Ruger is pondering the ever burning issue of how to make their guns more appealing to children.

Hell, Colt just announced a cash award for the employee who can design a handgun that will contribute to a 15% increase in the suicide rate.

Let’s take a peek at Smith and Wesson. Look, they have decided to modify existing models so that they discharge as soon as you touch them.

Your right, they should be thinking about the same thing Ford and Chevrolet are, which is how do we design our vehicles so that people will not drink and drive!
How do we build a vehicle that cannot be used in the commission of a crime?

This is of course describes the “real world”.

[MrBenchley]

49. And oh how some cry when faced with facts

90,000 Americans are shot every year and 30,000 of them are killed.

And as for appealing to children, the lunatics at the NRA actually put out a GUN MAGAZINE FOR KIDS. (and just so we don't have to have ANOTHER round of RKBA enthusiasts dishonestly crying out "Prove it!")









But please, go ahead and spout more silliness, spoon.

[Spoonman]

50. Funny,

I don't see one single manufactures name anywhere.

90,000 - Peddle it elsewhere!

NRA teaching gun safety to children....and that's bad in your opinion.
Promoting recreational shooting and hunting as opposed to promoting crime and drug abuse......and that's bad in your opinion.

The video game? Sony, Nintendo, Sega? When did they start manufacturing guns?

But please, go ahead and spout more silliness Mr.Benchly.

[MrBenchley]

51. Gee, if its manufacturers' names you want to see....

it's easy to oblige you.



By the way, the video game there was commissioned and licensed by Remington, the gun manufacturer.

"NRA teaching gun safety to children....and that's bad in your opinion."
Gee, there's nothing there on that poster about that foul fowl Eddie Eagle teaching anybody anything, except what a corrupt mess the gun industry is. Let's look at it again:


I'll leave the sillness to YOU, spoon. You have an abundant supply.

[Spoonman]

54. So I will assume

Eddie the Eagle teaches joint rolling 101 and liquor store robbing made easy?
What, do gun-o-phobes feel threatened by a “mascot” that teaches responsibility and safety?
If so I would recommend they seek professional help.
What is it that this symbol of moral decay represents to you?

Browning Catalogues.....big fucking deal, If I opened up Sears catalogue and posted little girls wearing nothing but their underwear I could call it kiddy porn.
I see a young boy helping, probably dad or mom, carry duck decoys, something my son, daughter, wife and I LOVE to do TOGETHER!
Another young boy wearing SAFETY GLASSESS AND HEARING PROTECTION, probably on a range instead of hanging out at some corner store with a bunch of punks. Look out, he's going to grow up to be the next son of sam, with all that parental attention.
And finally, a little boy playing with daddies empty hulls. I don't think he's going to go out and kill someone in a robbery attempt and then try to excuse his actions cause his daddy never spent any time with him.

These pictures demonstrate exactly what I'm trying to protect. If family values and family time are something the anti-RKBA oppose, I suggest they find a different soapbox, cause it makes a piss poor argument to those of use that seek to spend time with our children.

Let's just break this chain of heritage that promotes family values, and replace it with something that encourages non-family interaction.

I'll leave that sillness to YOU, Mr B. You have an abundant supply.

By the way, the video game there was commissioned and licensed by Remington, the gun manufacturer.

And what game was this, I certainly have never seen it.

[MrBenchley]

64. Better quit while you're behind, spoon...

http://www.vpc.org/eddie.htm

"Let's just break this chain of heritage that promotes family values"
What a pantload...Manson family values, perhaps...

[Spoonman]

68. Please, if I quite now it would be week before you caught up

VPC :puke: Nothing would describe it better than desperation.

That's the biggest crock of self serving lies and horseshit propaganda you have ever posted here.
The VPC lies even when the truth sounds better. I wouldn't wipe my ass with their rubbish for fear it would leave more shit than it would take off.

VPC Statement
The NRA's Eddie Eagle program falls far short of its stated goal of teaching gun safety. The primary goal of Eddie Eagle is not to teach gun safety, but instead to lure children at a young age into the gun culture in order to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry.

The Eddie Eagle program fails to warn children of the consequences of handling firearms.

So I guess the "true" goal of McGruff the crime prevention dog is to lure children at a young age into the crime culture.

Reality check, Kermit the frog wasn't advocating the eating of pork either!

My family has been hunting and shooting together longer than most can be traced back in this country, and the only "shady" person in my lineage is Judge Roy Bean. Unless you count my Great X 4 Aunt who shot two confederate soldiers for stealing her mule.

Family values are not something one can judge by the hobbies they enjoy, or the writting they post.
If you feel the urge to stereotype everyone that enjoys the shooting sports, you might want to "get to know" your opponents first, cause you don't "know" the first think about most of us.

You most certainly don't know the rich depths of my family or it's values, so don't try to judge what you don't know.

[MrBenchley]

69. Spoon, you're full of it

"The VPC lies"
Prove it, spoon. Are you saying 20-20 didn't air that program?

Eddie Eagle is a useless piece of shit. As the ABC program shows, it makes kids MORE likely to play with guns, not less so. It's Joe Camel with bullets.

"So I guess the "true" goal of McGruff the crime prevention dog"
Gee, McGruff isn't sponsored by the gun companies...nor does he pimp at gun shows.

"Reality check, Kermit the frog wasn't advocating the eating of pork either!"
Again, Kermit isn't pimping guns to kids either.

"My family has been hunting and shooting together longer than most can be traced back in this country"
BFD. Next ask me whether I give a crap.

"Family values are not something one can judge by the hobbies they enjoy, or the writting they post."
Gee, they certainly can be judged when the "writting" they post is unfailingly less than honest, tinged with hysteria, and supportive of ugly bigots like Ted Nugent.

[Spoonman]

74. Yea yea yea

The VPC are full of shit and YOU can't prove anything they publish.

Eddie Eagle instills fear in those with less a a realistic grip on reality.

Ted Nugent is a racist prick (for real)

Other than that I have no use for anymore Hooey today

[MrBenchley]

80. Guess again, spoon

"YOU can't prove anything they publish."
I can prove they were right about the crapass Eddie Eagle....

"A recent report on ABC's 20/20 program used a hidden camera while the Eddie Eagle lesson was taught to a group of young children.
Shockingly, 17 out of the 20 children just taught the lesson picked up and tried to use an unloaded gun when left unsupervised.
But as many people suspect, the NRA is less concerned about using Eddie Eagle to promote gun safety, than they are about getting their pro-gun message out to a whole new generation of American youth.
In fact, Eddie Eagle was created in 1988 as part of a NRA campaign to stop Florida from passing a law holding  parents responsible for keeping guns away from their children."

http://www.sendem.com/cs/99/cs99-18.html

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/wolffiles18.html

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/07/07/p3s1.htm

"Ted Nugent is a racist prick"
And yet you started a thread pimping for him....

[Spoonman]

95. Well, well, well

"And yet you started a thread pimping for him...."

What ever, if you want to play that game, I guess you've been pimping for Lott and the republican party. You've started multiple threads for them.

The only difference is yours were serious.


As for 20/20, find a credible source.

http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/givemeafake/pr.html

A 16-page investigation by Environmental Working Group released today shows that Stossel, a correspondent on ABC's popular 20/20 show, lied about pesticide tests on produce for a story first run in February of this year.

http://www.fastq.com/~dwaz/stossel.html

ABC 20/20's John Stossel Admits Fraud
ABC to Apologize for "20/20" Report
So much for reporter John Stossel's unconventional wisdom.
ABC News has announced it will issue a rare mea culpa on Friday's edition of for a fraudulent on-air report by Stossel on the safety of organic foods.


Yea, we should believe anything we see on TV.

[MrBenchley]

96. Spoon, you're getting even MORE desperate, and it shows

We weren't talking about that right wing shill Stossel.

[Spoonman]

97. Your the one pimping for 20/20

Talk about back peddle.

You need to make up your mind, pimp for the Democrates

Or pimp for Brady (republican) and 20/20 (right wing shill Stossel).

Your the one who posted for these two, not I.

Live with your choices.

[MrBenchley]

98. Gee, I proved that VPC was telling the truth

and that Eddie Eagle was a piece of crap.

Now go snivel about it to someone dumb enough to swallow it.

[Spoonman]

99. You proved

shit still stinks, and thats about all.

Your pimping for the right wing is classic.

[MrBenchley]

101. I proved VPC was telling the truth

and that Eddie Eagle is a piece of crap.

And it's the RKBA crowd doing all the pimping for right wing horseshit on this board..

[Spoonman]

106. Bubble burst

NO you didn't.
Keep dreaming, and maybe Santa will become reality too.

[MrBenchley]

109. I proved VPC was telling the truth

and that Eddie Eagle was a pile of crap.

[slackmaster]

115. You proved that you are a wannabe gun grabber

Benchley, suppose your fascist wet dream comes true and the USA bans handguns. Will you volunteer to be on the goon squads that will have to go door-to-door to collect them all?

Face up to reality, Benchley. There will never be a handgun ban in this country because the people won't stand for it. You're out of step with the Democratic party and most of America. Shame on you for siding with extremist organizations like the VPC. Your advocacy of draconian and impractical measures makes Democrats and sincere gun control advocates look bad.

[MrBenchley]

117. I proved that VPC is telling the truth

and that Eddie Eagle is a pile of shit.

"the USA bans handguns. Will you volunteer to be on the goon squads that will have to go door-to-door to collect them all?"
Guess that "law abiding gun owner" claim is the pile of shit we all knew it was..

"You're out of step with the Democratic party and most of America."
Not even close to true.

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/gunrpt.htm



"Shame on you for siding with extremist organizations like the VPC."
Says somebody siding with Ted Nugent and the Michigan Militia.

[slackmaster]

118. VPC = Cynical lawyers trying to make a buck off peoples' fears

And you've bought their crap hook, line, and sinker.

"Shame on you for siding with extremist organizations like the VPC."
Says somebody siding with Ted Nugent and the Michigan Militia.

You're lying again. I've never sided with Ted Nugent or the Michigan Militia.

[MrBenchley]

119. Prove it

It's the gun industry exploiting people's fears....by lying about guns making them safer.

"I've never sided with Ted Nugent or the Michigan Militia."
Yeah, surrrrrrrrre....you just peddle the same line of RKBA horseshit.

[slackmaster]

120. Repeating a lie doesn't make it any less untrue

Read us your fairy tale about how Ruger never recalled their single-action revolvers back in the '70s and '80s.

[MrBenchley]

121. Which doesn't stop the RKBA crowd from parroting the same old

which we see here EVERY damn day.

"More than 600 people, including children, have been killed or injured by unintentional discharges from Old Models. This revolver was manufactured from 1953 until 1972. It incorporated no positive safety device and is therefore extremely prone to discharge when dropped or bumped. The design of the gun was modified in 1973 to include a transfer bar safety, which prevents the gun from firing when dropped. However, by the time the gun was redesigned, 1.5 million of the original revolvers were in the hands of consumers. It was 10 years before Sturm, Ruger took any action to remedy the hazard posed by the Old Models. In 1982 the company offered to retrofit Old Models with a transfer bar safety, but only a fraction of the guns have been retrofitted. The company still distributes flyers telling owners of Old Model revolvers, "Ruger wants to give you, and install FREE, a unique new improvement." Consumers are never warned that the guns present a serious safety hazard. Despite Ruger's knowledge of the defect in the design of the Old Model, the company still refuses to issue a recall of the guns. Even though the guns are old, they still cause death and serious injury. For example, in 1990 Andrew Baxter, a minor, was shot in the abdomen when his father's Old Model unintentionally discharged. The gun was manufactured and purchased in 1968, more than 20 years prior to the accident."

http://www.prairienet.org/cchcc/gunfacts2.htm

www.consumerfed.org/Firearms.pdf v

"Gun injury and death has been the subject of civil claims for decades. In an article published June 24, 1993 entitled ``Wild West Legacy: Ruger Gun Often Fires if Dropped, but Firm Sees No Need for Recall--Company Settles Hundreds of Claims, Maintaining The Revolvers Are Safe,'' the Wall Street Journal documented 40 years of deaths and injuries in incidents with a Ruger revolver that frequently fired when accidentally dropped due to a design problem. Hundreds of cases were settled, but because neither the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission had authority over firearm defects and design, the gun was never recalled."

http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/04182002Hearing537/print.htm

[slackmaster]

125. Official-sounding bullshit is still bullshit

"...because neither the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms nor the Consumer Product Safety Commission had authority over firearm defects and design, the gun was never recalled."

Utterly untrue. The recall began in the '70s and has continued uninterrupted to this day.

Owners need only fill out some paperwork and pay for shipping to Sturm, Ruger & Co. one way. The firm will upgrade the mechanism and ship the pistol back to the owner FREE OF CHARGE. Even if you bought the gun 50 years ago the firm will honor the offer.

If that's not a "recall", then what more would they have to do to qualify according to Benchley's Law Dictionary? Since the company has only the names and addresses of people who filled out their warranty registration cards, besides notifying them (which the company has done), what more could they do?

[MrBenchley]

127. Yeah, facts are such annoying things

Especially to the RKBA crowd which consistently lacks them.

[Spoonman]

124. NORC

that Joyce Foundation horseshit was garbage the first time you posted it, and it has grown more rancid with age.

You proved NOTHING, except your ability to repeat yourself.

[MrBenchley]

126. DO let us know if you're ever near a fact, spoon

and until then just keep parroting the same old RKBA horseshit...

[jody]

48. LibLabUK, why do so many Brits carry umbrellas? Because one never

knows when it might rain and the probability of rain changes from day to day. Do you carry an umbrella on days with a high probability of rain?

In that same way, one never knows when a criminal might attack and the probability of such an attack varies among places and times. If one is forced to live or pass through an area that has a high probability of crime, we of the pro-RKBA group believe that we should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection.

People who shout that umbrellas were not designed to kill miss the point. The issue is about exercising one's inalienable right to defend self and a handgun is the most efficient and effective tool yet designed.

I use efficient to mean, "doing a thing right" and effective to mean, "doing the right thing".

Body armor is not very efficient at the moment.

[iverglas]

78. grrroooaaannn

"Because one never knows when it might rain and the probability of rain changes from day to day. Do you carry an umbrella on days with a high probability of rain?

In that same way, one never knows when a criminal might attack and the probability of such an attack varies among places and times."

Ew, weasel words, saying nothing at all after all.

Maybe someone can tell us the exact date, time of day and place when this varying probability of being the victim of a criminal attack ever even approached the probability of it raining in London.

While s/he's at it, maybe s/he could dredge up some statistics about the number of people who have been accidentally or intentionally killed by umbrellas in the UK in the last ... oh ... millennium.

And that seems to me to be, simplistic as it is, the whole little problem with jody's and her chums' position in a nutshell.

I must say I greatly appreciate the little English lesson in the above post. Who would ever have imagined that "efficient" meant "doing a thing right" and "effective" meant "doing the right thing"? I mean ... except for the fact that this isn't what they mean at all. But at least now I have a window into the workings of this apparent bot (I am unceasingly amazed and impressed with the regularity and ... efficiency ... with which all these stock phrases and rote thoughts are churned out), and I shall file it away.

"Body armor is not very efficient at the moment."

And again ... as compared to what? Forgive me if I think that might be an issue, and if I think that someone whose "personal choice" it is to do all that inalienable defending stuff might rightly be required to "inconvenience" (weigh down) HIM/HERSELF JUST A LITTLE rather than "inconvenience" (expose to a risk of death or injury, and not infrequently kill or injure) THE REST OF THE WORLD A POTENTIAL LOT.

But hey, I like the way you think. YOU should be able to achieve YOUR ends at all cost (to everyone but yourself) and regardless of any cost (to everyone but yourself). Anybody want to apply that reasoning to ... oh ... a firearms registry?

It doesn't transfer completely (like: some costs of a firearms registry are actually being borne by people whose activities make the costs necessary -- unlike the costs of ms. jody's "choice" which are only to others; and the costs incurred by other people, who actually do choose to bear those costs by electing governments and all that, are actually providing some benefits to them -- unlike the costs to them of ms. jody's "choice"), but what the hell, eh?

Being on ignore is such fun!!

.

[Spentastic]

90. Umbrellas don't kill people!

HA HA HA Iverglass! Watch as your argument is destroyed by my anecdotal evidence!Umbrellas are a hazard and should be strongly regulated.

The final, and successful, attempt was staged in London on September 7, 1978, Zhivkov's birthday.

Markov worked a double shift at the BBC. After finishing the early morning shift, he went home for rest and lunch. Returning to work by car, he drove to a parking lot on the south side of Waterloo Bridge. It was his habit to take a bus across the half-mile bridge to the BBC headquarters in the Bush House.

Having parked the car, Markov climbed the stairs to the bus stop. As he neared the queue of people waiting for the bus, he experienced a sudden stinging pain in the back of his right thigh. He turned and saw a man bending to pick up a dropped umbrella.

The man was facing away from Markov. He apologized. Markov subsequently remembered that the apology was made in a foreign accent. The man then hailed a taxi and departed. Markov later described him as heavy set and about 40 years old.

[Spoonman]

103. Yea, let's look at the costs

YOU should be able to achieve YOUR ends at all cost (to everyone but yourself) and regardless of any cost (to everyone but yourself). Anybody want to apply that reasoning to ... oh ... a firearms registry?

So what was sacrificed in let's say CANADA.
Where did they get the money for registration of those eveil crime creating guns.

There, the government made massive cuts in the crime fighting budget -- including freezing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police budget for a decade -- in order to create a massive bureaucracy to register the firearms of ordinary citizens.

Pages 21 and 22
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Why%20We%20Need%20a%20Continental%20Security%20Perimeter-mar02ff.pdf#21


A billion dollars that could have been spent on meaningful projects that achieved results.

Minister of Public Safety and Security Bob Runciman -

"The federal firearms program is a billion-dollar black hole," said
Runciman. "It's clear from the Auditor General's report that the real costs of the program could end up significantly higher than the current public estimate of $1 billion."
In her recently released report the Auditor General said: "We stopped our audit when an initial review indicated that there were significant
shortcomings in the information provided. We concluded that the information does not fairly present the cost of the program to the government."
"This is an unconscionable waste of taxpayers' money on an initiative
that focuses primarily on law-abiding citizens," Runciman said. "One can only imagine the kind of impact a billion dollars could have had if it had been used for practical measures to fight crime or fund legitimate social needs like education and health care."

Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino -

"We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides
lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these
crimes nor helped us solve any of them,"

http://www.cnw.ca/releases/January2003/03/c7191.html

Personally, I think twice before I complain about my neighbors dog, until I clean out the shit in my own back yard.

[Romulus]

105. "Toast to the Post"

Personally, I think twice before I complain about my neighbors dog, until I clean out the shit in my own back yard.

:toast:

Edited to add:http://www.cnw.ca/releases/January2003/03/c7191.html
Toronto Police Chief:The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

[Spoonman]

107. Thanks, and back at ya

:toast:

[Superfly]

108. I'm going to have to remember that one...

Personally, I think twice before I complain about my neighbors dog, until I clean out the shit in my own back yard.

Good post.

[LibLabUK]

79. Thanks to all those who welcomed me....

Jody, you said "People who shout that umbrellas were not designed to kill miss the point."

Wouldn't armour be a better fit with the umbrella metaphor, rather than a gun. An umbrella passively protects you from the rain, it doesn't attack the clouds.

The reason I asked my original question is because the original argument was that protecting oneself and one's family was one's duty. Surely, leaving armour out of the equation is dereliction of that duty.

If a criminal were to shoot or stab you before you had a chance to see or react to them, having a gun in your pocket, or whereever you carry it, would do you absolutely no good.

I saw a report some time ago about South African carjackings. The report noted that the car jackers had become wise to the fact that their intended victims were armed, and had started shooting them from a distance before stealing their car.

If this were to become the norm in the US, would carrying a firearm offer any protection?

[jody]

83. Good question re South African carjackings. I guess one could recommend

a driver get out of their car at the first sign of a possible carjacker, but that sounds like surrendering to the criminals. I don't know enough about the South African problem to comment, but I can pose one question.

Has law and order completely broken down? If that is the case, then one would hope groups of citizens would come together and defend themselves. Of course, even that's impossible if citizens are unarmed.

As to armor vs umbrellas, armor is not a very efficient solution for most citizens needs. I believe raincoats and armor may be more analogous.

Welcome to DU. Does UK mean Univ. of Kentucky or United Kingdom?

[LibLabUK]

84. I don't think that

law and order has broken down in S. Africa to the extent that vigilantes or armed convoys are really necessary.


BTW UK means United Kingdom..:)

One of the objections made by the police federation (the cop's union) to the suggestion that police officers over here should be routinely armed is that it would prompt an arms race with the criminals. Do you think that that's a valid argument to make, or do you think that there's no link between arming cops/citizens and criminals carrying?

[jody]

85. Re arms race between police and criminals, I don't believe our

experience in the US to date suggests an arms race. Note that fully automatic firearms have been readily available since the early part of the 20th century. It's true that the Thompson made for nice articles during the prohibition years, but fully automatic firearms were placed under strict licensing in the 1930s.

Full automatic arms are readily available to criminals, but they really are overkill, no pun intended. All criminals need to commit a tyical armed assault is a handgun and a revolver is ideal. I believe .38 and 9mm are among the top choices for handguns.

You might wish to browse these reports, "Firearm Use by Offenders" and "Guns Used in Crime"

[DoNotRefill]

52. Sometimes.

I wear body armor if the threat level is high enough. The reason I don't wear it constantly is because it's uncomfortable, and restricts mobility. If the threat level is low, I just carry a gun. I never wear body armor and fail to carry a gun.

[CO Liberal]

53. I Neither Wear Armor NOR Carry a Gun

Guess I'm not paranoid enough for that............

[DoNotRefill]

56. Nah...

I'd bet you're just not in a high-risk environment. I am, and have the scar tissue to prove it. If you live in a low-threat environment, Bully for you! It must be nice. Some of us don't have that luxury.

[Superfly]

58. Where do you live, Beirut?

ha, ha, ha...

[CO Liberal]

59. I Used to Live in Belleville NJ

It's the town right next to Newark. I lived there for a year, and NEVER felt the need NOR the desire to have a gun.

[Superfly]

60. I lived in Virginia Beach

...I was there for 2 months before I was carjacked and had my house broken into. Now, only after those 2 incidents, I have felt the need and the desire to have/carry a gun.

B

[Spoonman]

61. Having lived in DC

during the 400+ a year murder rate years, I carried everywhere I went.
Yes it was illegal, but I felt it was better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
I had to pull it three times in two years, but never had to shoot it.

[demsrule4life]

65. I would guess since you dont wear armor

or a gun it is a preatty safe world out there. So why the preaching about gun control if it is so safe?

[MrBenchley]

71. Gee, dems, perhaps he's not in a high risk occupation

like choir director...

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

67. It gets even lamer

Now the latest is "if you're not paranoid enough to carry a gun, why do you care about gun control?"

Oh and let's not forget that we are DOOMING the Democratic party by not reaching out to the sort of scum who clog the aisles of gun shows wearing confederate swastikas....

[Superfly]

92. "....we are DOOMING the Democratic party" -Benchly

Exactly. So why do you continue to defend your assinine position?

[MrBenchley]

93. RKBA couldn't get any lamer or less honest, fly

There's NO reason to reach out to the sort of scum who clog the aisles of gun shows wearing confederate swastikas...unless you want to become a Republican.

[slackmaster]

100. Confederate swastikas?

That's a new one on me.

Hand us another laugh.

[MrBenchley]

102. I don't doubt it

[Superfly]

104. Wow!

I didn't know that Austria was the seat of Nazism. Oh, that must be one of those "historically accurate" pieces like the VPC puts out.

B

[MrBenchley]

110. Wow, fly

maybe you ought to read some real history....

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/born.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/austria_nazism_01.shtml

[Superfly]

111. Don't even try, buddy

I was raised in Augsburg, Germany, about 50 km west of Munich, where Nazism started. Austria was annexed and oocupied by Nazi Germany prior to the invasion of Poland. Other than Hitler being born in Austria, the seat of Nazism was Munich.

B

[jody]

112. You could use the descriptive phrase “your ignorance is encyclopedic" eom

:shrug:

[Superfly]

113. Actually, I have a few other

choice phrases for him, but out of decency and pity, I choose not to say them

B

[jody]

114. You are very kind to chihuahuas. eom

[Superfly]

116. You just don't kick a dog when it's down

if you know what I mean.

[MrBenchley]

128. Might as well drag them out, fly

you sure as hell don't have anything like a fact.

[MrBenchley]

123. Sorry, the RKBA crowd has a lock on that one

along with "totally dishonest".

[MrBenchley]

122. Peddle it to someone who cares, fly

[Superfly]

129. Here's what I don't get

if you don't care, why do you post in the first place?

[MrBenchley]

130. Here's what I don't get

why does the RKBA crowd even bother to post such transparent horseshit?

Or are you going to continue to pretend, along with Fly, that there never were Nazis in Austria...or that the confederate flag isn't the right wing American equivalent of the swastika?