Tara Haelle (courtesy pbs.com)

“Nearly one in ten people in the U.S. are angry and armed – and 1.5% of them are carrying their guns in public. They appear a little more likely to have some kind of mental illness or personality disorder, but that’s not what makes them a risk to the public. Instead, it’s their history of angry outbursts, impulsivity, breaking or smashing things in anger, losing their temper or getting into physical fights. And right now, only three states have any kind of law that enables law enforcement to take away these individuals’ guns.” – Tara Haelle, Seize Guns From Angry People — And Reduce Firearm Violence? [at forbes.com]

93 Responses to Quote of the Day: Oh Haelle No!

  1. I haven’t read the rest of the article, but his statement is true, and we should be careful about throwing the rights of others under the bus to save our own.

    • The position is made and supported based on the statistical claim that in some states the death by firearm toll is greater than the number of deaths by motor vehicle, in this case TN. I found that amazing in itself. Well of course I had to look into the facts. Turns out that the vast majority are suicides (405 assault vs 1017 suicide) and that’s the case for gun control? I wonder how many of the vehicular related deaths are suicide? I know, more guns more suicide…..we need to get John Lott on this one.

      • Much in the same way that they include in their statistics a 17 year old drug dealer being shot by a 19 year old drug dealer as an example of “child gun violence,” apparently being angry with yourself, i.e., suicide, counts for them here, too.

  2. This appears to be a new angle of attack on the Second Amendment. Now guns should be taken from “angry” people. And who is angry? Everyone at sometime in their lives.

    • And certainly anyone with a gun…why else would someone HAVE a gun?

      -You must be angry if you have gun.
      -Angry People should not have guns.

      **Take away guns from everyone because they would not have guns if they weren’t angry.

      It’s tautology in action. They are EXPERT at this particular fallacy.

      • When I was on the debate team back in college, I used to use this example in responding to a circular argument/tautology set up by my opponents: “It’s like saying I like to drink beer because I go to the University of Tennessee, and I go to the University of Tennessee because I like to like to drink beer.”

  3. Um, how about no? That someone is capable of going into a public place and start killing people is a pretty solid indicator of mental illness, because neurotypical people DO NOT DO THAT.

  4. If you’re committing a crime without having a Les Miserables class excuse (e.g. child is starving at home and this is your only remaining option to get food for them) there is something wrong with your mind.

    Thanks for projecting, er, playing; next.

  5. “Most people who commit crimes don’t have a serious mental disorder, and most people who have a mental disorder aren’t violent”

    You’re true by inclusion there. but we’re talking about people who commit violent crimes, and if you look exclusively at that subset, most of those have different wiring that allows them to be that way.

    • William Aprill has talked about this.

      It may (or may not) be completely in the as-born wiring, but it sure seems to be wired / reinforced along the way. What Aprill has said is that those used to using violence to get their way will continue to do so.

      It seems like common sense, but the way he frames it is very interesting. First, start with the definition of ‘violence:’ “use or threat of force to get a desired outcome.”

      Then, he has compared it to “any other economic model,” in that if it WORKS, it will continue to be used.

      So, it would seem reasonable to conclude that propensity to violence has at least a component of learned, sociological antecedents. Violent criminals at some point in their lives have gotten what they wanted from violent behavior.

      It becomes a feedback loop. Early violence may not be ‘serious.’ It may even be defensive. Who knows.

      The real point is that the problems our society faces with criminal violence are far, far, far more complicated than a 30 second sound bite or blog post by a Pop Psychologist trying to make political points about gun control.

  6. Link not working, article is here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2015/04/08/seize-guns-from-angry-people-and-reduce-firearm-violence/

    Let’s see, the article is heavy on the usual suspects from Harvard and Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, and concludes:

    “Behavioral risk-based approaches to firearms restriction, such as expanding the definition of gun-prohibited persons to include those with violent misdemeanor convictions and multiple DUI convictions, could be a more effective public health policy to prevent gun violence in the population.”

    The usual conclusions by the usual suspects, with Bloomberg’s name stamped on it. Does this really deserve more comment?

    • How often is it necessary to repeat that the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” does not include any mention of or authorization for any government agency to compile. maintain or enforce a list of persons the government itself has determined are not to be allowed to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

        • It means to have the proper equipment to carry out the task at hand in the case of pre-20th century language not meaning the same as the way regulated is used today.

          Also the “well-regulated” clause is subordinated to the second clause of shall not be infringed. Anyone with basic literacy knowledge should know that and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or has an agenda.

          Look up the Federalist papers of the Founders and you will not find one of them support arms being regulated under government authority knowing how it can be abused by tyrants. Looks like they were right with how neutered the 2nd is today!!!!

  7. Instead, it’s their history of angry outbursts, impulsivity, breaking or smashing things in anger, losing their temper or getting into physical fights. And right now, only three states have any kind of law that enables law enforcement to take away these individuals’ guns.

    So these people as described are not mentally ill? So they must be 8 year olds then. 8 year olds can’t lawfully carry in most states if any. So there is no problem.

  8. “People act on the basis of what they believe to be true, and they might be likely to discriminate against people with mental illness, treating them with scorn and supporting policies that take away their civil liberties.”

    Like keeping and bearing arms? Naw.. not those civil liberties. Gun grabbers cant have it everywhich way. No matter how much they get paid to try.

    • Better yet:

      Everyone at some point or another has sexual urges and no outlet for their urge. These people therefore should not have computers because they could use their computers to access child pornography to satisfy their urge.

  9. Take away guns because people are not emotionless robots and we never know who is going to snap? Then lets take away knives, bats, hammers, swords, axes, cars. Hell. Lets just put everyone in a straight jacket and lock ourselves in isolated padded rooms while we are at it. Then we don’t have to ever worry about anyone being angry. No thanks. I’ll keep my guns to stop that person that snaps and becomes violent because THAT could save just one life.

    • Along the same lines … every man could be a rapist, right? Does that justify castrating every man or somehow restraining them another way?

  10. “(excluding those who carry guns as part of their job).”

    Oh. Like police in South Carolina? Got it.

  11. Any facts to back up those 10% and 1.5% figures, miss? Oh right: antis don’t need facts. Feelings > facts. My mistake.

  12. So if all these gun owners are armed and angry where is the vast number of killings at?

    Show me the body count!

    • Well if you really want to see it bodycount is playing at the Rockstar mayhem festival this year, can’t go wrong with some Ice-T

  13. The fashion police wants to seize your hideous dress Tara, because it’s a menace to the public’s sensibilities. There are children being dangerously exposed to your hippy-hipster interpretation of winning. Go to the nearest police station and ask about their trash for cash program, where every piece of dangerous clothing can be exchanged for a $5 coupon to your nearest Piggly Wiggly.

  14. Hey Tara Haelle,
    what is it called when you make sweeping, unfounded and vicious generalizations about a group of people that are somehow different from you?

    Oh, that’s right, it’s called bigotry. You are a filthy bigot. You should be drummed right out of journalism as the vapid fool you are. Shame on you.

  15. Hey she was my TA for a Freshman writing class in college at UT! Good writing teacher and a nice person . . . bad politics. Let’s be careful about relying on ad hominem args because someone holds a position we don’t disagree with.

    • No need for adhominems. Just tell the truth.

      She prostitutes her position of power to push a political position by actively distorting, manipulating and massaging statistics to create a predetermined result.

      She is not a “nice” person. She is dishonest, manipulative, without honor or integrity.

      She actively promotes the violation of the most important of civil rights, the ripping away of the right to defend ones life and body from the violation if being raped, robbed and murdered because they might be “angry” but have not actually been charged with a crime.

      She is the apologist and defender of all governments that have used the excuse of “public safety” to disarm the populace leaving them defenseless to those that commit mass murder, whether by an individual, or by the government themselves

      She might not technically be evil, but evil is the results of her dishonesty and manipulations.

      • She clearly is on the road to taking away Rahm Emmanuel’s gun rights. No one I’ve ever met is more prone to violent outbursts. Perhaps this is the sensible example that put Tara Haelle on the wrong track? Understandable.

      • + 1,000,000 to ThomasR’s comment.

        Is a mafia boss a nice person if he/she teaches writing classes at the local college and is smiling at you while one of his/her hired thugs is hunting you down to extract some sort of “tribute” from you?

    • Calling her a bigot is not an ad hominem attack. Calling her a bigot is a fact.

      Ad hominem defined by Merriam Webster:

      1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

      2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

      Example of an Ad Hominem Attack: “…that’s not what makes them a risk to the public. Instead, it’s their history of angry outbursts, impulsivity, breaking or smashing things in anger, losing their temper or getting into physical fights.”

      Tara Haelle prattling on about how 10% of gun owners are angry violent risks to the public is complete horse shit and a total ad hominem attack against all gun owners. She can cloak it in false pretense all she wants. It’s no different than simply calling 10% of gun owners assholes.

      Bigot as defined by Merriam Webster:

      :a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

      Example of a person treating a group with intolerance: Tara Haelle’s generalization that 10% of us are violent and untrustworthy.

      She is a bigot. Sorry she was your snuggle buddy in college. She should be ejected from journalism. Just another leftist ideologue masquerading as a journalist.

  16. Which 3 states have laws that let LEO’s take guns from “angry” people? Are we talking about NY, NJ and California where handgun ownership is “may” issue and permits can be take away for no reason with no real due process? Those states?

  17. Ok, TTAG, I have a confession. I’m angry. I’m angry that California has so many gun control laws, and that taxes are so high. I’m pissed off at drivers who do 58 mph in the fast lane. In a 65 zone. Dude, move over to the right. I think it’s ridiculous that a large portion of our nation is dumb enough to think that a deceitful and arrogant person such as Hillary Rodham Clinton is a legitimate presidential candidate. I’m upset that California pumps billions of gallons of freshwater to save Delta Smelt, yet want to fine taxpayers $500 for taking long showers. I’m embarrassed that Obama is our president, and for the multiple scandals in his administration. To anyone with an ounce of political savvy, the ability to see through a lie, or an IQ above 75, this world is a maddening place.

    Yet somehow I have had virtually unobstructed access to firearms for nearly 20 years without an incident. I’ve handled weapons of war like the M249 SAW and assault rifles like the M16A2 and dozens of AR-15s. I’ve been locked and loaded with high capacity assault clips. Surely a “former” Marine 0311 and police officer must be a ticking time bomb.

    And you know what? I’ve managed just fine. The ability to control my impulses and emotions, like in every reasonably mature person, has kept me out of trouble. I don’t have any sick desires to murder people with knives, guns, or cars. In fact, I have a great moral aversion to murder, and desire to have murderers face justice.

    You know what’s even more weird? The CCW permit holders I met have these same crazy ability to control their emotions in a calm and rational manner. Literally none of them have “gone postal.” And they aren’t the exception to the rule. Nationally, I cannot find a more responsible and law-abiding group than concealed carry permit holders, who have arrest rates much lower than that of police officers. The permit carry group is even less likely than police to shoot the wrong person(s) by mistake, or to miss their target(s) in a shooting.

    So why pick on CCW holders and responsibly armed Americans? It’s almost as if there are people who have no idea what they are talking about.

    • Very well said. Thank-you for that.

      I will offer one correction (or addition, really), however.

      ” It’s almost as if there are people who have no idea what they are talking about.”

      There’s that. There’s also that “there are people willingly trying to mislead others.”

      The war on gun owners in general and gun carriers in particular is premised by the reading/listening audience not knowing any better.

      Many people simply are too busy or too apathetic to research “The Truth About Guns.” Such people can be easily manipulated by those that sugar-coat the false message in ways deliberately designed to obfuscate the truth.

    • Great post.

      The law abiding open carry group seems to manage their anger well enough even without a license. I carried a concealed handgun for years without a license (pre-2005 in Ohio). I carried for years with a license. I carried and carry openly without license; handgun and long gun. Somehow, I haven’t used a firearm in anger. It never even crossed my mind to do so.

  18. “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;” Bill of Rights – 5th amendment.

    • Get with the program Jans … don’t you know that “due process of law” includes a legislature passing a law?!?!?!? That’s right. If your legislature passes a law tomorrow that requires women to be naked in public, by God they must be naked or face prosecution … and such a law does not violate the rights of women because the legislature passed it. Am I right?!?!? And such a law really, really, especially satisfies “due process of law” if the courts uphold the law after legal challenges.

      /end_sarcasm

  19. “…Those are the findings of a new study using data collected from almost 6,000 people in the early 2000s …”

    Hmmm, a NEW study using OLD data. Yeah, sounds good to me.

    Perhaps the more recent studies that show CCW owners are less likely than the general public to commit a violent crime were not available to Ms. Haelle. Guess the internet stopped working on the day she wrote that dribble – ummm…I mean article

    • I’m in an analytical writing class. I was told I should use peer reviewed data no more than five years old.

      I guess Ms. Haelle doesn’t feel bound by current standards of research integrity.

      Or bound by any standards of integrity, for that matter.

      • “…I guess Ms. Haelle doesn’t feel bound by current standards of research integrity. …”

        I’d venture to say not only does she not follow that standard but purposely selects data that supports her outcome.

        Are any of us surprised? Aaaaaah, nope.

  20. If an “angry person” is to dangerous to own a gun, then they are two dangerous to be on the streets. You should start rounding up all of the “angry people” and put them in jail then.

    In fact, you sound a bit angry about a few things…

  21. “You know what you should do?”

    She clearly knows best. I say we let her call the shots, because her understanding of the working of society is obviously a lot more vast than we simpletons.

    It’d be best if we had a central authority that wiped all of our noses, that would really be better. We simpletons just cannot be held accountable to any actions so we need big brother to act for us, because greater good.

  22. Encouraging people to repress emotion is a bad idea, it is okay and natural to feel angry. Sometimes it’s even okay to direct that anger towards someone else. Such as in the defense of self and others, it’s just not okay to direct anger towards others otherwise. One of the problems we have today is that it is popular to repress people, and their emotion responses.

  23. If you want to “seize” (interesting word choice) something from people who are prone to angry outbursts, maybe you should start with alcohol. And then tell them don’t go out and get more.

    Then, because we obviously can’t stop people from getting alcohol, let’s just ban the alcohol outright.

    “But wait!” gasp the cultural elite while clutching their glasses of Syrah in horror. “The vast majority of people who drink alcohol do so responsibly! Banning it would just punish the law-abiding, and drunks would just get it illegally!”

    Hmmmmmm.

  24. Let’s see, 1.5% of one tenth of the population…..we’ll round to 300 million people in the US….and that’s 450,000 people. Yes, let’s trample the rights of millions for less than half a million ‘potential’ aggressors.
    Be afraid, be very very afraid.

  25. I am pretty disappointed that Forbes has chosen to publish this nonsense instead of the normally well researched and balanced articles. This is straight up anti-gun propaganda from a contributor who claims to “offer straight talk on science, medicine, health and vaccines.” Surely, Forbes has fallen victim to the “click bait” and “gotta have content” needs of online magazines.

    One, statistic mentioned worth discussing. Of the 300,00 gun deaths in the past 10 years how many were homicides committed by legal gun owners? How many weren’t justified? 1%? Less?

    • Of those 300,000 homicides in the last 10 years or so, about 200,000 were suicides. Of the remaining 100,000 homicides, the overwhelming majority of those happened while violent criminals were engaged in criminal activity against other violent criminals engaged in criminal activity — and violent criminals were the murder victims. Of the remaining few thousand homicides, many of those were domestic violence murders — murders that the attacking partner could have carried out just as easily and effectively with a myriad number of alternate weapons.

      What you will find is that something like one or two people per state per year suddenly “crack” and proceed to murder one or more people for no apparently understandable/justifiable reason. And I am talking about people with no previous criminal activity/arrests and no obvious mental illness. Ms. Haelle’s notion that thousands — millions — of people are ticking time bombs walking around is not based in reality.

  26. Seems like an awful lot of assumptions being made. The facts though ,are that every year there are about 100,000 firearm related injuries. That’s intentional, accidental, self-inflicted, people that had it coming, fatal, minor, the whole gamut. There’s what, 315,000,000 people in this country? (give or take a few tens of thousands of Americans-In-Waiting arriving every day.) So that means the chances of getting shot are 1 in 3,150 all things being equal. The odds are even better if you avoid certain behaviors(buying drugs at 3AM).

    If my math is wrong, please correct but I can’t see how the odds could get worse. Certainly not the 1 in 10 implied in the article.

  27. I can’t count the number of laptops, cell phones, and other electronic devices I have smashed when they quit working properly. But the key issue is: THEY WERE MY RIZZLE-FRIZZIN’ DEVICES! Sure, I have anger issues, always have. But I also have enough self control, and sense of personal responsibility to stop myself when the repercussions of my anger would be too severe. Yes, it was a concern of mine when I got my CHL, but it has not been an issue… even when that guy turned into my brand new car at the stoplight. I yelled and swore a bit, then calmed down… and no one got shot.

  28. The last I checked it was not a crime to walk around pissed off, armed or otherwise. I can walk around pissed off (especially after reading this) and still maintain self control. As long I cause no harm to your person or property, then leave me alone and STFU Haelle. Sorry about your feelings, but they don’t count. Actions do.

  29. This is from Ms. Haelle’s bio,

    I previously taught high school and often think of my journalism as a form of teaching, by helping others understand science and medical research and by debunking misinformation about vaccines, chemicals and other misunderstood topics.

    And there you have it. Ms. Haelle is simply another example of someone who declares herself to be one of our “betters” … out to debunk our “misinformation” and correct our “misunderstanding” of firearms and public health and safety.

    In other words we are nothing more than toddlers who cannot possibly survive without the intervention of her ilk. Excuse me while I go and vomit.

  30. If there’s anger, it’s coming from the ranks of gun-controllers who are incensed that their attempts at coercive lifestyle change have failed. Projecting one’s own anxiety and anger onto others is a common lamentation for people who have just seen their most sacred beliefs trashed by the very people they most hate. Reading this woman’s article, it’s pretty clear that she’d welcome a “Department Of Pre-Crime”. Hell, she’s almost there right now. Another happy little fascist, telling the rest of us how we should live.

  31. 1.5% of almost “1 in 10” is approximately 1 in 1000.
    In a small town of 5000 you would expect to find 5 of these problem people.

    I guarantee you that in any small town there are WAY more than 5 people with whom around you should not mess…and yet we all seem to make it home safely every night.

    It’s amazing how liberals are afraid of everything in the world except for the one thing they should fear: tyranny.

  32. Excuse me while I puke in my mouth a little, watching this poor young lady being whored out for the latest example of cynical progressive manipulation of The Narrative, using The Social Justice scam…

    Like the faux GamerGate scandal…

    Here we have the silly solipsism that says since I’m afraid, you must be bad/angry/dangerous, and therefore what I FEL is my reality, or should I say, THE REALITY if we must race/sex/flavor of the month oppressed subsegment as required…

    This is how Feminizim v3.0 and the current crop of civil rightz AnarkoNazis have applied the ridiculous pomo, failed Foucaultian nonsense that evolved out of the Franfurt school of Marxism as Critical Theory:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

    Applied instead, real world by nice but empty headed special snow flakes, instead as victim mentality writ large, as mass antisocial pathological delusions…directed at those who simply disagree on the facts, to create the bad guy, thecOther, to make the circular reasonijg complete…

    • Look, lets just cut to the chase….
      Where’s my Yellow Star, and Restricted Zone for gun owners, Hallae?

  33. She tells a lot of lies in this article. Let’s. start with the one about states having no means of removing guns from these people, or keep them from carrying guns, supposedly because they haven’t committed felonies….yet.

    In most states, you need a permit to carry a handgun. A felony isn’t the only bar to obtaining such permit. In Texas, a class A or B conviction will bar you for five years. A first offense DUI is a class B, so you’re busted there. A second offense DUI within a 10 year span gets you labeled as chemically dependant, and you’re ineligible to carry. You can get that label via “other evidence”, too, so that standard is pretty elastic.

    Even a simple class C misdemeanor disorderly conduct conviction, the kind you get for public fighting, for example, within the prior 5 years will bar you from lawfully carrying.

    I could go on, but anyone who’s prone to such lies, or averse to such fact checking, isn’t going to listen, anyway.

    • 24 States have permissive open carry: you don’t need any permit/license/etc for open carry. So, at least in those 24 (a majority of the states that allow open carry of any kind), there are no further chances for the government to make arbitrary infringements on your right to bear arms. Except, of course, police harassment.

  34. So… reading the article from a clinical perspective, I’m wondering…

    Are they saying that we really only need restrictions on those who are (repeatedly) criminally violent and that it isn’t necessary to restrict non-violent felons or those with non-violent mental illnesses? That’s certainly the result that seems to be suggested even by their suspect data.

    I’d certainly be willing to engage in that conversation.

  35. Maybe I don’t live in the same universe…. The people I know who CCW are not breaking things in a rage, are not having angry out bursts, or any of the other things listed. They are the most cool headed, logical thinking individuals I know. We don’t want to kill or harm anyone! We are are some of the most generous, kind, polite people you will ever meet. We would rather walk away from arguments and potentially violent situations. It’s not because we are cowards, but rather the opposite. We are intelligent adults that know violence isn’t a proper way to solve an argument. My advice to anyone who hates CCW/Open Carry is to actually talk to one. Even after talking like adults about the issue, you may find that you agree on other issues and even make a friend.

  36. Wow reporting on this particular study is absolute garbage; headlines contradict articles, a huge mishmash of tidbits sprinkled through the articles with no clear indication as to what the study actually says AND the study itself is behind a paywall.

    It would be interesting (but not $6 for 2 days interesting) to see if they even say what percentage of the general population “self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior”, perhaps compare it to some non-self-report based stat of how often people exhibit such behavior. It might just be that people who own guns are more likely to be self-aware enough to know that they exhibit this kind of behavior. It could also be that this kind of behavior is less common amongst gun owners than non-gun owners; none of that kind of info is in the Abstract of the study, which seems to focus entirely on being a gun control as public health measure deal.

  37. Oh, so she is a teacher? At college?

    Never mind what I said about foolish young lady.

    Tara’s part of the Progressive Fascizm project under way now to seize guns.
    Never mind the Constitution, its just a piece of paper, dont you know?

    For this current generation of Marxist Elite, Hallae and her kind knows whats best for the little people, and you can be sure all the dirty tricks of the current crop of social justice warriors is on the table and being used, now.

    Mock her, for her silly solipsism and irrational analysis.
    And punch back twice as hard, with the facts.
    For students on her campus I recommend FIRE.

    https://www.thefire.org/

  38. “Be ye ANGRY and sin not…” Ephesians 4:26. I’m angry but it’s OK. The world is falling apart.

  39. Once again the pro gun makes a big mistake!!! WHY!, do we publish the words of the idiot giving her publicity, respect, and creditability far beyond what she deserves, and would get anywhere where else? She is the winner!! You are stupid for publishing her!

  40. I read the article and it included the actual number of the 1.5% of “angry” gun carrying Americans. Using that number I determined that 1 in 10 was acually 28,800,000 people. If you assume that every gun related homicide (I guessed at 11,000) was committed by one of these 10%, it would mean 0.04% of “angry” Americans with guns kill. Of course by eliminating drug/gang related deaths, I bet that number would be more like 0.01% or one out of 10,000 “angry” Americans with guns kill with them. And someone is complaining?

  41. She is probably one of those people that equates shooting paper to a violent act. Well is throwing a javelin in the Olympics a violent act? No? But it’s a weapon of war! Unless there is a human or animal targeted it is not a violent act. It is just an act.

  42. Freedom is a risky proposition. Stop being a fascist. Pull up your big girl panties and get over it. Your fear does not trump my freedom.

  43. I’m far more concerned with the 170 million leftists in this country who would gladly oppress and kill their fellow Americans because a fascist government said so.

    • Actually, I beleve the number is only about 20% claiming to be Progressive. And I rather suspect only a small percentage of them will be really willing to resort to violence if push came to shove.

      That doesn’t mean we can underestimate their threat, though. It’s still an ideology that needs to be thoroughly destroyed.

Leave a Reply

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