I’ve never been shot. And yet here I am, prattling on about guns, gun control and freedom. OK, my father’s family was pretty much wiped out in the Holocaust. But that was, what, sixty-eight years ago? What’s important now are the victims of today’s gun violence. Specifically the ones who blame guns and gun control for their injuries or the injuries or death of their loved ones. They’re important because . . . they’re pathetic. Yes I’m going there . . .

Whether the gun control industry’s trotting out the victim of a failed assassination, a gang banger’s bereaved parents or the relatives of children slaughtered at Sandy Hook, it’s all about pathos: a direct appeal to emotion. One that bypasses and/or overwhelms reason. Truth be told, these pro-disarmament victims are like car accident survivors trying to set automotive safety standards. But then, in some ways, so am I. Bottom line: does suffering create credibility? Equally, we know that guns save life. So how do you sell a lack of suffering?

82 Responses to Question of the Day: Should We Listen to Victims of “Gun Violence”?

  1. Being a family member of a victim of violence does not instantly make you an subject expert. It’s makes you are emotionally biased expert.

    • Have you noticed courts do not let victims of crimes be on juries. Not only for the crime they are the victim of, but usually any criminal trial. The reason is obvious, if not look at Nancy Grace who thinks anyone who is detained by the police should be hung at once.

    • I’d actually go so far as to say: If you’ve been a victim of gun violence and not prevailed against it, you are *more likely* to be counted as proof of what not to do. You may be the *least* qualified to talk about how to prevent it.

    • Funny enough, I was mugged by 4 “youths” in college (Robert Farago – right at Meeting and Benefit next to the RISD offices!) and if anything, it steeled my resolve to never get my ass nearly-kicked again.

      I wouldn’t say it makes me “an expert” on mugging. Maybe an expert on swinging wildly after my glasses were knocked off and yelling “f-ck you, motherf-cker!” reeeallly loudly.

    • It is not the victims fault that they are trotted out to promote victim disarmament. It is the fault of the MSM. The old media became a virtual oligopoly on what information the public was allowed to get some time between the start of the FDR administration and the McCarthy era.

      There are two effective things we can do to counter it: build the new media, that TTAG is part of, and continue to discredit the MSM by showing others how much their information is filtered and control to further the statist agenda.

      • I respectfully disagree. It is absolutely the victim’s decision to advocate for change, or not; just as some parents of Sandy Hook victims have campaigned to not have stricter gun laws.

  2. No. We shouldn’t. They want to be victims. They were not smart enough to wake up from their naive fantasy world.

    They want to lay down, cry, and whine. Not stand up and make a difference for themselves and possibly other. No, I will not listen and they can crawl under a rock and die.

  3. When someone is in a car accident we don’t make them an expert in car safety.

    Not to turn a blind eye to the suffering a gunshot victim has been through, but taking a bullet does not make you anything but a victim. You are biased from that point on.

    Putting their testimony in the public eye is just another form of bloody shirt waving.

    • These days, the easiest way to sell a political idea seems to be an emotional appeal rather than a logical appeal (No Vulcans here). If you’re going to claim that persons who lost relatives to gun violence shouldn’t make emotional claims seeking gun safety legislation, are you also going to stop with the “gun grabber” rhetoric? How about all the “if only the victim of that terrible crime had been carrying a weapon – they would have successfully defended themselves” arguments? These are emotional arguments – just like the ones the gun violence victims are making.

      The First Amendment isn’t only for Second Amendment enthusiasts. You’ve got every right to use your First Amendment rights to counter their claims (including the right to tell them, or me, to shut up). However, it’s a bit over the top to claim that victims of gun violence should stay out of the public eye, while also claiming the right of Second Amendment enthusiasts to make emotional arguments in favor of gun ownership.

      • Never said they had to stay out of the public eye, but they are routinely called out as having some kind of moral authority or put forth as “experts” on gun violence.

        A victim is a victim. A lot of people are victimized in many ways. I’ve been a victim of identity theft. I can tell you what a horrible experience that is and what a mess it has been to deal with. I have made a point of learning about how to recover and to protect myself since then. However, what I have learned was inspired by being a victim. Just being a victim did not make me an authority.

        There is an emotional side to the argument, but there has to be more than just emotion. The gun rights advocates all too often try pure fact based arguments and get frustrated when it doesn’t work. However, we also find it frustrating when the opposition uses emotional appeal without regards for the facts.

        In the end, that’s why I have a problem. There ARE victims of gun violence who are pro-gun. They are NOT the ones being pushed in front of the camera. It’s all a matter of convenience for the anti-gunners and to be honest there is an air of exploitation about it as well.

  4. Fair is fair; by constantly reminding us about your family ties to the Holocaust you are trying to invoke the same pathos. Same means attempting to achieve different ends.

    I personally believe in presenting the facts and not trying to undermine victims; however pathetic you may feel they are. If you put someone on the defensive you are not going to be able to have a rational discussion. Calling them pathetic achieves nothing. Yes, a gun MAY have saved a life, but people have the right to grieve. I don’t agree with political usage of their emotions, but I’m not going to pretend to know what it’s like to be in their shoes.

    • I kept looking for a flaw in your argument; hey, it’s a means of testing, and that’s the way I do it.

      I can’t find a single flaw in your argument.

    • +10,000. I don’t agree with the targets of their grief but we shouldn’t mock or belittle them for their loss. The best way to turn people like this around is not to shame them but to firmly redirect their anger and loss to where it belongs–the piece(s) of flotsam that took their loved one(s) away and those who would empower them. Guide them to our side knowing that we live in a violent horrible world with violent horrible people and the only rational response is to defend oneself.

      Now if the victims of crime (let’s be honest here and call it what it is) continue to be impervious to logic and rationality and believe that their emotions make them entitled to stamp out the rights of others for political gain, then let the chips fall where they may. I already washed my hands with the parents of Newtown trying to do the same and they will not be the last to wave the bloody shirt.

      • Interesting factoid: In the last few weeks there has been a spate of serious woundings and killings using edged instruments (i.e., knives, scissors). There has been absolutely NO bloody shirt waving in any of the media or on Weibo. Survivors have been portrayed as survivors, not experts. Survivor grief has always been directed at the perp, not the weapon. Make of that what you will.

    • “I personally believe in presenting the facts . . . Calling them pathetic achieves nothing.”
      But what if they are in fact pathetic? Ignoring that fact achieves nothing, particularly where the other side which is presenting them as pathetic and cashing in on that fact.

      Unless you are a child, being weak and pathetic is not a personal matter. Weakness is a sin against all those who depend on you.

  5. Of course we should listen. And sympathize. Then gently, but firmly disagree.

    There are plenty of “gun violence” victims who still support the Second Amendment. How come no one listens to them?

    • Yes. Sympathy is the proper response. Their suffering is real, but their message is suspect.

      “Gun violence” is an Orwellian nonsense term, and the fact that they’re using it — or allowing themselves to be used by those who do — shows that they’re not seeing the situation clearly. (Though to be fair, detached clarity is hardly a reasonable thing to expect of anyone who is grieving.)

      So should we listen to them? Yes, and no. We can sympathize with their suffering and disagree with their message. And despise, expose, and belittle the totalitarian organizations and shameless control freaks who are taking advantage of these vulnerable people to advance an anti-rights agenda.

      As you said, Rokurota, there are plenty of “gun violence” victims who support the Second Amendment — but we never hear from them. Probably because they’re more inclined to grieve privately, but ultimately because the despicable bloody shirt-wavers and tragedy whores in the disarmament industry and the news media have nothing to gain from them.

  6. No (in a political sense). We don’t listen to car accident victims. Why should we listen to people advocating to remove a right?

    • Respectfully adding to your idea…do we really not listen to car wreck victims? Sure we do.

      Do we not want to know what they were doing to get themselves in that situation?
      Do we not want to help the family grieve when they lose someone to such a thing?
      Do we not want to know how to prevent these types of things happening again and again?

      We have police reports, eyewitness reports, media reports, government reports, personal accounts and personal experience with this exact thing.

      It doesn’t mean that their accounts should drive policy, but yes we do listen.

  7. There are people who have been shot, or whose loved ones have been, who think gun control is stupid. Suzanna Hupp lost her parents when the psycho drove his truck into the Luby’s in Kileen and slaughtered 20 other people. Somehow certain politicians and media outlets studiously ignore her. Then there are the Sandy Hook parents who opposed gun control. They got shut down by the same crowd.

    Years ago I remember some national female reporter interviewing a female cop, who’d been shot, from her hospital bed, trying to get the cop to call for some gun control. The lady cop would have none of it and basically said gun control was a bunch of crap, and only disarmed the good guys. It didn’t take long for the interview to end with a “Back to you, Katie.”

    Personally having had bullets whizzing over my head some years back somehow makes me want a gun. You know, for the obvious reasons. The thing is, even if there weren’t gun crime, many of the same people would be calling for civilian disarmament. “What in the world do you need a gun for? You’re safe. You’re more likely to hurt yourself.” They just want control, which your guns prevent, and any pretext will do.

  8. I am a victim of gun violence so I do think that while it does not make me an expert, it at least give me a right to have a voice.

    My story was back in Ireland in the 1980s. I was working a teenager working as a clerk in a convenience store when a man came to the window and produced a revolver and demanded cash. I refused and took off to lock myself in the managers office and call police.

    It was then that I heard the shot but I kept running. Afterwards, I discovered that the 3-layer bullet proof glass really did work. The first layer shattered (taking the force) and the bullet became lodged in the second layer.

    It was worth noting that at the time, hand gun ownership in Ireland was strictly outlawed but guns were freely available to criminals via the black market. Clear evidence how ineffective gun control is.

    My wife is also the victim of gun violence. In her case a gun was held to her head during a robbery in a gas station in San Diego.

    Our collective experience is what empowers us to be gun owners. We initially took a gun class simply to change the gun from a bad memory to a good memory. Now we are gun owners both for defense and sport.

    Being gun owners allows us to tip the scale back towards neutral and THAT should be our message to victims of gun violence.

    • “I am a victim of gun violence so I do think that while it does not make me an expert, it at least give me a right to have a voice.”

      You have a voice simply by virtue of being an adult citizen of (presumably) the U.S. While the question was posed as “Should we listen to,” the question really should be “Should we listen to them over others?”

      You have a voice, and so do I. Our voices are (should be) equal in weight. But many people who have been victims (or those that want to use those people to their own ends) think that they should be given more weight because of what they’ve been through, even though often that’s a result of simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If someone walks down a dark alley late at night in a bad part of town and gets mugged or worse, that does not make them an expert on gun violence. At best, what it makes them is an expert on not walking down that particular alley at that particular time of night in that particular part of town.

      The people injured or killed in Aurora or at Virginia Tech have no new knowledge about gun violence from that incident, except maybe that theatre seats and classroom doors make ineffective shields. Should we listen to them? Sure. Just like we listen to those who haven’t been a victim of gun violence. No more, and no less.

  9. Why don’t they ever blame the dude or gal pulling the trigger or the parents leaving a loaded fire arm within a child’s reach?? What happened to accountability and responsibility?

  10. Isn’t it obvious why blaming guns is the instant and persistent focus of victims of violence? The families and those surviving violence cannot bring themselves to turn their pain, their wrath, on those most responsible for violence, the violent people themselves and, in cases of obvious known mental illness, the families that indulged, hid, or ignored the untreated family member. But no. That’s too emotional. Those people might hate back. Blame the gun, or pipe, knife, or whatever.

    People will do anything to avoid confrontation with other people, accusing people, holding actual people responsible. Since the gun confiscation financiers have their own agenda, fear of the masses, fear of the people they’ve pushed around with money, people they’ve betrayed as politicians, they fund outlets through which victim’s families can obsess on the gun, not the villain, not the enablers of untreated psychotics. This isn’t going to change, BTW. It’s built into the system.

    • ropingdown/11Sept13@19:41,

      +1000! Decades ago I read a Neal Knox column about the deodand & what you just wrote is exactly what he was referring to, the transference of blame/responsibility for evil/evil act(s) FROM the person who committed it/them TO the object used in said evil act/s. Funny how an ancient pagan practice is ‘religiously’ used by those who claim to be the exemplars of reason, enlightenment, & ‘progress’, i.e., the Left.

      Cassandra (of Troy)

  11. Look, I personally have never been a victim of gun violence and I hope that I never am or put in a position that I am forced to defend my life or the life of my family. My heart goes out to those who have been victims, but let’s be honest, 99% of the new laws this administration has proposed would have had zero effect in preventing the types of gun crimes that they claim they are seeking to stop. To date, from where I am sitting, the so called “common sense gun laws” this administration is pursing simply lack common sense and more importantly would serve no purpose other than to infringe upon law abiding citizen’s second amendment rights.

  12. If Justice Is Blind we should honor that precept
    Victims have been among us for millions of years, Victimhood is a newer and key part of the Social Justice Movement (ie Communism)
    Victimhood should be shunned

  13. I understand people will be emotional when they are victimized. I have a couple of problems, First, the only voices we ever seem to hear are the ones who focus on “get rid of evil gunz, boo hoo”. There are never the voices who mention the other factors that put the bad guy on the path to being a gun user. Second, equally important are gun owners who have been the savior of their own life (or others). These people are ignored, or mocked questioned, ridiculed on the off chance they ARE asked to speak

  14. ok, first, you have selection bias. Have you heard of the Aurora victims or Columbine students who wish they had been armed? No, because who is going to give them a giant platform and check? But they’re there and have testified. Out of any pool of thirty people I can find a range of opinions, pick the one that suits me, and hand them a check.

    Its natural to grasp at anything when a tragedy happens. ” gee if i had not stopped for gas id be dead with my brother. ”

    The victims are just being used as props. If it makes them feel better, whatever works. It’s the people who are making the victims into yet another victim that I reserve my loathing for.

  15. I’ve been the target of some violence a few times in my life, sometimes the assailant was successful, sometimes not. Once was, in fact, at the point of a gun.

    As a result of these events I decided that I was going to become at least well educated if not something of an expert on the subject of violence, how it happens, how to prevent it, and how to handle if if prevention proves impossible.

    The violent events didn’t make me an expert, they made me realize how little I actually knew and I was silent for quite some time until I had some knowledge tucked away.

  16. We should listen, sure. We’re not John Morse; we listen to what people have to say.

    But give their opinions extra weight because of their victim status? No. What knowledge have they gained by being shot? That it hurts? Everyone already knows that.

  17. If someone’s sole qualification is “victim of gun crime” then I will give them the same credence as a heart attack victim claiming to be qualified to perform cardiac surgery.

  18. Sure, I’ll listen to them. Why not? I’ll even converse.

    Outside of the subject of this blog, my other interests include caving and canyoneering. Earlier this year a friend I’ve been out with multiple times suffered an 80-foot fall and was fortunate to survive it. Was it callous of me that my first instinct, after finding out he was going to live, was to learn everything I could about what kind of rappel anchor he set up and how it failed? Nope. Just practical.

    I’m not going to quit rappelling because my friend was a victim of “gravity violence.” And I’m not likely to change my position on firearms after talking to a victim of “gun violence.” As with my friend’s rappelling accident, there may be things I could learn from talking to a victim of “gun violence” that could help me be safer, more aware or more cautious. Plus I have the opportunity to represent myself as a responsible gun owner. Or to offer comfort as a fellow human being.

    What’s the rationale in not listening? To continue treating the subject of firearms freedom as a team sport where we all have to choose sides? Perhaps the thought of not listening strikes me as too close to embracing fear–of confrontation, of embarrassment, of letting go of current beliefs. That’s a game I don’t like to play. Embracing fears (even small ones, subconsciously) draws invisible boundaries around your life experiences.

  19. Lots of good points. Perhaps it’s my mood but this argument seems to me no different than why we ignore all the other anti’s. The enemy of freedom is the enemy of the free.

    Consider this: Progressive statists push a victim mentality on everyone, it’s how they gain control, in conjunction with entitlement. Poor you, you’re a victim, here, lets have government do something for you. The very concept of personal accountability, personal defense, personally doing anything at all is rejected because the progressives are collectivists, and they can’t realize their dream of having total power over everyone if people keep doing things for and by themselves.

    Disarmament is simply one paver on a road they are building, but it is an essential one.

    These are already people who don’t or can’t understand that life is both unfair and dangerous. They always think that there is some collectivist statist answer to anything they see as a problem but never any accountability or responsibility of theirs personally.

    It stands to reason that when such people actually do become victims of something, in this case crime, they expect government to ‘do something’ about it. Usurping rights doesn’t bother them because they are collectivist statists who don’t think you need rights, or really even have any that don’t flow from the government. Actually defending themselves and their loved ones is out because that is a personal initiative and personal initiative is always bad, this, and everything else is the purview of the state.

    Deep down this is why they can’t understand that a gun free zone is a victimization zone; they’re emotionally immature and so stunted in their thinking that they’ve never moved past having a mommy and daddy who could always take control and make everything right again. Now mommy and daddy are the government and whatever the government does to protect them must be working because the state is infallible, omnipotent and omniscient. Never mind if it doesn’t actually work, it must be working because the government did it. 2+2=5.

    The only difference between the religion and collectivist statists is their understanding of where the power flows from. No matter what your stance on religion is, this is informative:

    With religion, there is an omnipotent, omniscient and benign god who provides everything, takes care of everything and will judge and punish you if you’re wicked.

    With collectivist statism there is an omnipotent, omniscient benign government who provides everything, takes care of everything and will judge and punish you if you are wicked.
    The drive that is sometimes called a ‘calling’ from god is precisely how the collectivist statist feels about the state and their drive to make it more powerful. Both operate on faith rather than evidence and both are irrational in their regard because both come from the same powerful emotional pool as love for mother and father comes from.

    When you malign god, the religious often become irrationally angry. . This is how collectivist statists feel about government, because both are simply proxies for the care of a parent in childhood, it’s as if you’d insulted their mother.

    I’m sure I’ve offended several people and I apologize because it wasn’t my intention. I make no claims about any religion or those who practice them, so long as it’s not infringing on my rights.
    When it comes to statists and collectivists however there is no choice but to fight them every step of the way. They’re ‘religion’ requires every single person to submit to their ‘god’. Just as I’d fight back if someone were to attempt to convert me by force I must fight against the statists, for this is what they are doing, attempting to convert us by force.

    I said all of to get to this: We should listen to victims of violence, they can teach us much. We should not listen to collectivists and statists, they’re pleas should always be rejected by anyone who values his freedom.

    • You are exactly right! Those of us who believe we have the Right to defend ourselves, our Families and those who are being subjected to violence they are not capable of defending themselves against, pose a threat to the advance of the Statist agenda. They want us, collectively, to be entirely dependent on and abjectly subject to The State. They use emotionalism to play on the fears of the weak. The Statists must subjugate those who act independently and with self-reliance.
      To answer RF’s question, it is a difficult sell because those who grasp the concept of “a lack of suffering” are acting from a mindset of independence and self-reliance, and those we are trying to sell that concept to are acting from a mindset of fear, weakness and dependence. It’s selling apples to someone who only understands oranges. Like someone once said, “you can’t get there from here.”.
      I have sympathy for those who suffer violence, but I recognize that violence and death are as much a part of life as anything else…who in this world of violence and death can be seriously surprised by the fact that violence and death happens every second of every day? Only those who refuse to believe that violence and death are a part of life…and they, my friends, are the weak, fearful and dependent.
      BTW- I took no offense to anything you said, Ardent,

      • Thanks Derry, and you’re spot on with your observation that it’s the inability to accept death that drives much of that sort of thinking. Every death isn’t tragic, most aren’t for that matter. They ought to be expected parts of living. This inability to accept that on a long enough timeline everyone’s chance of survival is reduced to zero gives rise to more problems than just civilian disarmament and to methods of thinking that are contrary to liberty.

        I’m also glad you took no offence, religion is a third rail of sorts in discourse, but I simply can’t explain the statist mind without reference to it.

        • And Chaos. An inability to accept (or prepare) for Chaos. Chaos can only be reacted to. And what makes them so uncomfortable is actually the fact that they CANT prevent and protect themselves. They’ve set themselves up as total victims, and in that situation I’d be scared too. Yet, what they don’t understand is the very object they despise, is the very object that would alleviate some of their unease. Hair of the dog that bit you maybe…..

        • Very profound analysis, Ardent.

          Yes, Statism is a religion, and their god is government. And they want to forcefully convert all of us. Anything else, any freedom, is evil if it gets in the way of their god (Government) having complete control, so they must strongly oppose it.

  20. Matt in Fl,
    Feel free to use that line for I am an expert in smartass remarks. Or so says my parents, friends, former teachers, bosses or anybody that knows me.

  21. Being a victim can never be claimed as an “accomplishment”.

    However, proactively avoiding or demonstrably preventing ones own victimization can be.

  22. Once these people are shown to be the fools that they are, they remove the video. If they feel strongly enough about their emotional argument (No logic or real data to back it up) they should leave it up for all to be amused by.

  23. This suggests that their anti-American, anti-human rights opinions are somehow made more valid after having been a victim of a psychopath.

    So no.

  24. I have been the victim of gun violence. To keep this short, I was shot in the back twice with a .45 ACP revolver as part of a planned murder/robbery attempt.

    I have never blamed the gun for the actions of a disturbed young man. He went to prison, I got a week’s vacation in the ICU.

    Does that make me an expert on violence? Not necessarily. It means I have a bit more information than the next guy, but I don’t have all the answers (though I’ve been told I talk like I know everything).

  25. No, not when it comes to any argument that begins and ends with them advocating my disarmament. Otherwise, yammer away. I’m not listening.

  26. Arachnophobes for the fair treatment of arachnids!

    Sound silly? Well that’s the reality, Hoplophobes trying to decide gun policies.

  27. It depends. If such a victim is having a personal conversation with me, you bet I’ll listen, so I can offer them my condolences if nothing else.

    If they’re using their status as a victim to push a civilian disarmament agenda, then no….any more than I give credence to someone telling me that I should never have a single drink because their loved one was killed by a drunk driver.

  28. Well. My grandfathers were in WWII, and My grandmother was a polish WWII survivor. One of the first things Hitler did on his agenda was disarm the people. He did it fast. My grandmother, in later years, sat their shaking her head at the TV. What? we asked. She said, “My Hitler would be proud. What he did almost overnight, America is doing much slower and much smarter”

    Survivors know. All around the world there’s an increase of violence (and usually horrific on a MASS scale) when firearms are confiscated and banned. It is truly sad what happens to some peoples families, whether its a gun crime, car crash, knife violence. And that PTSD can cause some strange reasoning or lack thereof. But if they knew the rest of their families were actually safer in America because we can protect ourselves…and knew the history of the world both past and present…..they wouldn’t cry foul towards the object. They would celebrate it.

    I’ll end with this. Seatbelts mainly keep people safe. But sometimes they go horribly wrong and end in the opposite — death. But the percentage is low. Are we getting rid of seatbelts? telling people not to use them? No. But percentage sounds cold and harsh. That family member that just had a loved one die, doesn’t get percentages, because they’re stricken with grief. But another crash could happen, and a seatbelt could SAVE another loved one.
    Same with Guns. Guns save lives too. On a small scale, and a mass scale. They’re even better than seatbelts. Because, they can be utilized adeptly by something with a brain, a soul, and honor. And in those capable hands, a gun is a tool to protect the innocent from criminals….and tyrants.

  29. Of ourse we should listen, both to the “guns did this” fools and the “I gonna get a gun” faction. Shucks, it’s only polite.

    However, we should not take anything they say as gospel.

    Oh, I’ve taken lead myself, and shot a home invader — for whatever it’s worth.

    • You shot a home intruder with a crossbow, Russ. I think we need to convene a panel and see if it’s appropriate for you to weigh in on this subject.(At this point I would put one of those yellow smiley faces to show I’m joshing, but i don’t have the technical skills to pull it off)

      And, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t your taking of the lead happen as an accident? If so, that’s not really gun violence. Although MAD and MAIG probably count any incident, accident or otherwise, where there was even a gun in the same time zone as the event.(Again, yellow smiley face)

  30. Should we listen to victims of “Gun Violence”?

    There are victims at both ends of a gun. Not always is the person being shot the victim, and we call those defensive gun uses.

    For those who are on the business end of a gun, or those who have had family at that end, I would say to listen. Look at all the stories on this site where families are “waving the bloody shirt” in the news and ask yourself – “Did anyone from the People of the Gun support them in their grief?” The answer would probably be “No”.

    Grief and Tragedy work both ways, for the grabbers and ourselves, the only difference being how one uses it. While those who yearn to take away our freedoms jump onto a soapbox and begin to wave the bloody shirts, the people of the gun must work on a more personal level. We can’t pounce on someone who is grieving over a loved one like the media can, they’re emotional and not thinking straight; The media can take advantage of this to spread a story – but we can use this time to show ourselves as the good and caring people that we (mostly) are.

    And those who are victims of the act of taking a life in self defense? Why would we not listen to them, after all they’ve experienced – and survived – something that most of us can only imagine when we train. To discount experience is to show yourself a fool.

    Now if you excuse me, my cat just threw up on my disassembled M&P9….

    • “There are victims at both ends of a gun. Not always is the person being shot the victim, and we call those defensive gun uses.”

      The Zimmerman prosecutors call those murders.

  31. When you say ” I’m a victim of…” I hear ” I failed to avoid…”.

    Then again i don’t tend to listen to anyone who labels themselves. Giving yourself a label is an automatic red flag that said person thinks they know more about something than they really do and deserves attention because of it.

    Effective public speakers say their peace and move on.

    MLK didn’t start his speeches with ” I’m black…”
    Ghandi didn’t start his with ” I’m oppressed…”
    Jesus didn’t start his with ” I’m the son of God…”

  32. My cousins were at Sandy Hook the day of the shooting, and could very well have become victims (though they did not).

    I have never once mentioned this when discussing gun control with someone. Arguments should be based on their veracity, probative value and content- not on the person who is making the argument.

  33. I agree with the post in that being a victim of a crime does not make you an expert on how to solve the problem. However I can’t help myself in noting this it’s not “gun violence” it’s gun violence without the quotation marks. No need for Robert to be needlessly condescending to these people.

  34. About time you got off the PC wagon Robert, and called a spade a spade.
    Trotting out parents or relatives of victims time after time is pathetic.
    To try and use the dead to make a point
    Yes they hurt, we all feel hurt for victims of random vioence,
    Ive been called alot of things but being PC isnt one of them.
    Thats just another societal sign of todays bullshit generation.

  35. I’m sure Robert was using “pathetic” as in it’s true literal meaning of “persuasion by appealing through pity or sadness” not as a derogatory statement as it is usually used or taken to mean. If this has been pointed out already, sorry…I just didn’t have time to read all 50+ responses yet. He probably did it on purpose anyway to generate more “pathos” in readers’ responses, so its all good. Just keepin’ it real…um…yo.

  36. “How do you sell a lack of suffering?” Easy. You sell health over illness. Wellness is a most desirable goal, and illness, pain and a poor well-being are pure misery. Some become used to this, and dwell there for life. Others get sick of it and change their lifestyle to strive for greater wellness. Diabetics can become more well in spite of their disease. All sorts of ailments can be improved by the choice to become more well.

    When it comes to the armed citizen, one is making a choice not to become a victim of violence or the system.

  37. NO!!

    Being exposed to something does not therefore make you an expert on that thing. I’ve spent a lot of time in hospitals, that doesn’t make me an expert on medical procedures. I’ll leave out the fact that “gun violence” falls under the same category as “unicorns” – that category being “Shit that doesn’t actually exist”….

  38. “So how do you sell a lack of suffering?”

    Same emotional appeal. Get survivors of horrific crime attempts that defended themselves with a gun. Gut 911 tapes of people dieing before the police arrive. Not saying this should be used instead of logical argument, but it will help many people connect to the message that don’t now.

    Don’t know if this has been said; don’t have time to read the many comments today (unfortunately).

  39. I made the mistake of stating this: “And why exactly do I care what Mr. xxxxxx wants in terms of new laws? He got bit by a dog and now he’s an expert in animal control policy?” on a news article last year about a man who got bit by a dog and then was quoted extensively in newspapers in our local area about how “those types” of dogs should be banned.

    To say I got ripped a new a@@hole for saying that doesn’t even cover it. A lot of people see zero wrong with attributing “expert” status to someone who was a victim of something.

    It’s ridiculous.

  40. Should the policy recommendations of someone who’d been brutally raped be accepted as valid &/or sane if said victim’s ‘solution’ was similar to that of a victim of ‘gun violence’? Try substituting rape/sexual assault terms for firearms ones in the arguments typically used by the anti-2A/pro-thug/pro-dictatorship cult & see how “reasonable” & “common sense” they sound, then imagine misandrist orgs like N.O.W./similar being designated to draft/implement policies to address rape/sexual assault. I’ve done such previously w/ cultists during discussions of ‘gun control’ & the evasive, tortured, (& frequently QUITE filthy) responses from them were/are simply hilarious to behold as well as being very instructive to ‘moderate’ onlookers about the mentality/genuine motives of the cult.

    Cassandra (of Troy)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *