Inside the Twisted Mind of a Gun Grabber: Facebook Edition [Content Contest]

777e2825c8903532d40a14079feea168

By ninjaTED

One of the biggest benefits I’ve taken from my TTAG readership has been my improved philosophical understanding of the right to bear arms. I’ve always believed in the Second Amendment, but on a very superficial level. I used to think that there were no problems with universal background checks, for instance, and didn’t think that anybody really needed an assault weapon. My beliefs were based, as many anti-gun advocates’ beliefs are, on ignorance. Thanks to the posts of writers such as Dean Weingarten, Bruce Krafft, and Mike McDaniel, (not to mention Robert, Dan, Nick, and all the rest!) I’ve been able to refine and solidify my understanding of why the right to keep and bear arms is so important, and to become much more fluent in explaining this to others . . .

I’ve decided to showcase this by providing an example from that shining star of reasoned debate, Facebook. As a professional musician, many (perhaps most) of my friends, on and off Facebook, are far to the left of me when it comes to firearms. Much of the firearms related articles that scroll down my newsfeed are terribly negative, and most of the comments are likewise disparaging of the RKBA. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, but often I see something that I just can’t let go.

Here is one of the highlights of my last year of attempting to provide some balance to the force. It is a rather lengthy discussion under a post about the San Bernadino killings. The original post was the photo meme below. I think “JP” does a good job in highlighting just how far those who are against guns will go to avoid examining their own biases. (Note, the post is edited for spelling and to remove extraneous posts from other commenters, but content is unchanged for all parties. I also apologize for the length, but I think it’s worth the read.)

ninjaTED***  A few things. We don’t let ‘just anyone’ buy guns. There is a background check system in place, especially in California, where the guns were purchased. People who break laws, however, don’t care about that. AR-15’s in California are also mandated to have fixed magazines which require a tool to remove. Again, killers don’t care. 1,400 rounds is not, for many, a lot of ammunition to have on hand. I shoot trap and steel target matches, and have way more ammunition in my store. Last, all centerfire rifle ammunition will pierce standard bulletproof vests. Tacking that qualifier on is like saying “I can’t believe they sold him that loud-sound-making bullet.”

The meme was correct in saying that wackos will always be with us. When they show up, I know I’d rather have the means to try to defend myself and my loved ones than have to rely on the police, who are, best case, minutes away, and aren’t required to protect me if they are there.

KW***            I honestly wonder why a “good person” would want a gun. Guns=violence and death. By all means, let’s spread more of that around.

NT***  Well, I’m a gun owner. I’m a classically trained violinist, play in my church’s handbell choir, and sell real estate. I give to charity, not as much as I’d like to , but what I can afford. I love my family and friends, and I care about others. The last is why I became a gun owner in the first place. Because I care, I feel a need to be able to protect those I love should the unthinkable happen. Should that arise, I pray that those intent on harming my loved ones take the warning at face value, because the very last thing I would want to do is to have to shoot someone. There are millions of good people who own firearms in America, and now you know one.

JP***  I am suspicious of anyone who tells me how good he is.

NT***  Would it help if I had told you that I can be a shit? I have my bad points. I have little patience for willful stupidity and can be abrasive about it. I don’t cultivate personal and familial relationships (outside my immediate family) as much as I probably should. I sometimes lose my temper, especially when it comes to utterly self-centered, rude behavior in public. But I’ll stand by my statement that on the balance I’m a good person, as I’m sure you are.

JP***  The thing is, terrorists believe that they are good people. They believe that they are sacrificing themselves for what is right, and for their families’ well-being. They are willing to kill for their loved ones, as are you. So that kind of goodness worries me. Furthermore, even a “very good” person can be driven to an impulsive act when he loses his temper. Say for instance he loses his job, on which his family depends, and he feels that his life is no longer worth anything. If there’s a gun in his hands, and he impulsively shoots up his boss and all his co-workers, then is he still a good guy with a gun, or did he suddenly transform into a bad guy with a gun? What’s to keep you from doing that under the right circumstances, with the addition of some alcohol and fear, and the subtraction of some sleep and food?

NT***  Well, I deeply resent the comparison between me and a terrorist. Perhaps I should say, between my worldview and a terrorist’s. There is a huge difference between sacrificing oneself by standing between your loved ones and an evildoer bent on mayhem, and sacrificing yourself by strapping on explosives and murdering random innocents. Perhaps what you’re saying is that we need to fight against the kind of ideology that advocates for mass murder in the hopes of killing enough infidels to gain paradise? (As an aside, if you really think that people who do that kind of thing are good people due to some kind of cultural relativism, I’m not sure that further discussion is going to be productive, because we’re speaking totally different languages.)

To your other point, have you ever lost your temper at someone? And if so, did you pick up a nearby chair and beat that person to death, or go to the kitchen and get a carving knife and stab them, or run them over with your car? Me neither. Having a firearm doesn’t make a person any more likely to commit violence. In fact, if you talk to many gun owners, they will tell you that it makes them less likely to engage in arguments, road rage, etc., since they know what the consequences may be.

JP***  I do NOT believe that terrorists are good people. I said that that they believe that they are good people. How do you know for sure that you are right about yourself and they are wrong about themselves?

NT***  Thank you for clarifying that. I can only judge by comparing my actions with theirs. I won’t know for sure until the afterlife, but I can say that I’d be shocked if the people who saw off the heads of unbelievers, throw gays from tall buildings, and set heretics on fire were the “good guys.” I didn’t really anticipate this turning into a theological debate, but I consider my views on this to be somewhat inclusivist. C.S. Lewis said it better in “The Last Battle,” where the young Calormene soldier Emeth, who has worshiped the false god Tash, but who is otherwise righteous, finds himself in the heaven of Aslan, who says:

‘Son, thou are welcome.’ But I said, ‘Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash.’ He answered, ‘Child, all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me.’ Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, ‘Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one?’ The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, ‘It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites – I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

JP***  So you are saying that you refuse to do cruelty in the name of the a good God, right?

NT***  Well, I try to refuse to do cruelty in anybody’s name, but ok, go on…

JP***  So you agree with the commandment not to kill?

NT***  Ah, I see where this is going. The original Hebrew was more akin to “Thou shalt not commit murder.” Other kinds of manslaughter, including killing in war or as self-defense, are specifically excluded elsewhere in the Old Testament. For example, see Exodus 22:2-3 “If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

JP***  Wait. Didn’t the New Testament make all that stuff obsolete?

NT***  Now I’m starting to wonder if you’re just trolling! No, it’s not obsolete, but some of it is dated. For instance, dietary laws from the Pentateuch were included at a time when eating pork would give you trichinosis and kill you. Nowadays we know how to raise and cook pigs so as not to die. However, we still have people who may break into your house and try to kill you.

JP***  How do you know which parts of the Bible to follow?

NT***  How do you construct your personal moral code? I suspect in the same way I do, by following the dictates of upbringing, cultural norms and mores, and conscience.

JP***  So your belief that self-defensive murder is allowed is culturally relative?

NT***  Nope. I believe that the right to self-defense is a universal human right. Killing in self defense is not murder.

JP***  You believe that it is a universal human right, but not everybody believes it.

NT***  Two things. First, some believe that free speech and the right to be secure in one’s property and papers aren’t human rights, but they’re wrong, too.

Second, do you really think that if you are attacked, you don’t have the right to defend yourself?

JP***  I’m not talking about what I believe. You admitted above that one constructs one’s personal moral code, one interprets one’s holy scriptures, through the “dictates of upbringing, cultural norms and mores, and conscience.” You’re saying that the interpretation of scripture is culturally relative. I’m not sure what I believe, and I don’t know what I would do if attacked. I believe that the chances of my being attacked are quite low.

NT***  That’s what everyone thinks, until it happens. But I’ve answered several of your questions, and I’m curious; do you think you have the right to defend yourself from attack? As a corollary, do you think there are any universal human rights? And btw, it’s a separate question from “what would you do…”

JP***  I don’t know. It’s hard to define “rights.” Are they things with which our creator endows us? Or are they things that we have a social contract to respect? Until I do more research, I am not able to give an opinion on the question of whether there are universal rights. If I were attacked, things would be happening fast, and there would be a lot of detailed circumstances which would come together to make a fast decision that would use my brainstem probably more than my cortex. I hope I would have the presence of mind to turn things around. I have had at least one friend who adroitly turned a mugging into a harmless encounter. I take that as a role model. I can’t promise anybody, including myself, that I would be capable of the same thing. I am working towards it.

NT***  Well, again, it’s not what would you do. And you’re making it much more complicated than it is. If attacked, do you have the right, whatever that means to you, to defend yourself? Call it god given,naturally endowed, universally innate, or whatever, do you have that right?

JP***  I don’t know. I hope I never need to know.

NT***  Okay, make it someone else. Does any random person, attacked without provocation, have the right to try to defend himself? And take guns out of it. Both people are unarmed and of equal size.

JP***  Thank you for asking me. I hope I will be able to clarify my thinking on this. There is no way to take guns out of it. It’s not arithmetic; it’s music-making or baking bread. There is a reagent here. If we weren’t in a situation now with easy availability ot assault weapons to every extremist of every color and size, then we would not need to have this conversation. My thinking is that we all, deep down, want to meet an adversarial situation with the least possible force to neutralize it. This was my self-defense training. Nuance; don’t go from zero to sixty and escalate the thing. If you have to break his kneecaps to get away, fine, but don’t kill him unless you were realistically in fear for your life. Problem is, some people’s amygdala’s get triggered more easily than others’. So they’ll be shooting some harmless beggar who gets too close to them when crazed with hunger and fatigue. They’ll be buying multiple assault rifles when one handgun maybe would do. They’ll be running in to prevent millions of fictional baby-parts-sales when the clinic doesn’t provide abortions. They’ll be shooting up their postal co-workers when they lose their job because they fear for their financial future. Do you believe that the right to gun-ownership is unlimited? Do you adhere to a black-and-white reading of only the words “not be infringed”? Or do you agree that a militia needs to be “well-regulated”?

NT***  I apologize in advance for the length of this; you are still trying very hard not to answer my question, while simultaneously introducing several new issues. I’ll deal with them all, but it will take a minute.

Since I’m tired of trying to draw out what should be a simple yes or no on the question of “Does a person have the right to defend himself,” here is the answer. If you believe that right exists, then thinking it through to the end inevitably leads to accepting the need for armed self-defense. Otherwise, you’re paying lip service to having the right, while denying the ability. I am a big, reasonably fit person who has trained in martial arts, and can expect to defend myself from most people my size or smaller. But as part of my training, I’ve become VERY aware of how much of an advantage a weapon, ANY weapon, gives to an attacker. I’m also pushing forty, and an athletic 19 year old might eat my lunch simply due to youth. Plus, I’m not four people, and my assailants might be. And this is just me. My mother is in her late sixties. (Sorry to out you, mom.) She has shoulder problems, and would be easy pickings for anyone. Why should she be denied the most effective means of self-defense, i.e. a handgun?

If you don’t believe that right exists, I weep for the world. People who think that are giving society over to those who will not scruple to commit any violence to take what they want, when they want it. It is a cowardly and self-serving position, and I unashamedly condemn those who hold it.

“My thinking is that we all, deep down, want to meet an adversarial situation with the least possible force to neutralize it. This was my self-defense training.” That’s one way to go. I’ve been trained to stop an attack as quickly and effectively as possible, and when the attacker stops, so do I. In the moment, however, I’m not particularly worried about the health and well-being of the person who made the decision to risk my life for whatever money I may have (or whatever his reason for attack.) If he didn’t want to me to defend myself, the simple solution would have been not to attack.

“If you have to break his kneecaps to get away, fine, but don’t kill him unless you were realistically in fear for your life.” Here’s the problem with that. When you put your hands on someone in a violent manner, you’ve already endangered his life. People are killed, much more often than you’d think, by being punched in the face. Using a firearm in self-defense isn’t trying to kill someone, it’s trying to stop them from killing you, and that’s a huge difference. By saying you should wait until you’re “realistically” in fear of your life is also problematic. If a young woman is surrounded by an aggressive group of young men, who are displaying all the classic signs of a pack working itself into an attack, she’s realistically in danger of being raped and murdered. Should she have to wait until she’s already been physically attacked before defending herself?

“Problem is, some people’s amygdala’s get triggered more easily than others’. So they’ll be shooting some harmless beggar who gets too close to them when crazed with hunger and fatigue.” Perhaps, and if someone shoots a beggar who approaches and asks for change, that person should go to jail for murder, because that’s what that is.

“They’ll be buying multiple assault rifles when one handgun maybe would do.” Would do for what? Do you have more than one knife in your kitchen? Knives are dangerous, you should only have one. The thing is, different knives have different jobs, and so do guns. Handguns are what people carry for self-defense because they can’t carry long guns, which are much more effective. I have a shotgun in my closet in the bedroom because, God forbid, if someone breaks into my house, it gives me A) a great audible deterrent, because nothing says “Get out of my house” like the sound of a pump shotgun action, B) the best possibility of a one-shot stop if they ignore the shotgun scary sound, (and if they do, I can be certain they’re not there to sell me magazine subscriptions) and C) with various ammunition choices available for said shotgun, I can be reasonably sure that the shot, should I miss, won’t go through the wall of my house and endanger the rest of my closely packed neighborhood. People have so-called assault rifles (the preferred term is modern sporting rifle, btw) because: They’re fun and easy to shoot; they’re great to practice marksmanship; they’re great hunting rifles; they’re good for shooting sports; home defense; etc. etc.

“They’ll be running in to prevent millions of fictional baby-parts-sales when the clinic doesn’t provide abortions. They’ll be shooting up their postal co-workers when they lose their job because they fear for their financial future.” Well, yes, sometimes a crazy dude will get a bug up his ass and want to go murder people. This happens. It’s a thing. But I challenge anyone to give me any gun control proposal that would stop crazy dudes from getting bugs up their asses and wanting to go murder people, or would have any impact on their ability to do so. China has virtually no private ownership of firearms, but they do have mass stabbings. The largest school massacre in US history was in Bath, Michigan, and was carried out by explosive. Virginia Tech didn’t involve assault rifles, and is #2 on that terrible list. In Germany, 8 kids and 2 teachers were killed, and many more terribly disfigured, when a c.d.w.a.b.u.h.a. attacked them, no lie, with a lance and a flamethrower that he built in his garage. Firearms are tools, nothing more, and blaming the tool for the hand that wields it is poor logic.

As far as your last set of questions, no, rights are not unlimited, but they must be very carefully and minimally limited, and only when two rights come into conflict. For instance, people have the right of both not being killed and of self-defense, but when one person violently attacks another without provocation, the victim’s right to self-defense becomes predominant. Most people would consider me a second amendment absolutist. Before you ask, no, tanks and surface-to-air missiles are not okay. Any arms in common usage that can be borne by a person are. This would include modern sporting rifles, handguns, etc., but also (and everyone forgets that these are also arms,) knives, cudgels, staves, etc. I think that anyone not a danger to society should be able to carry arms without restriction, and anyone who is dangerous enough that they can’t be trusted with arms shouldn’t be trusted without a custodian.

The second amendment text is a long discussion, but briefly;

1) The prefatory clause has no power over the operant clause.

2) In the parlance of the times, militia meant every able-bodied adult, i.e., the general population.

3) Well-regulated meant well-trained or in good working order. A trained body of troops or a well built watch could be said to be “well-regulated.

4) Taken together, then, the prefatory clause, (which, btw, we remember as having no power over the operant clause anyways,) could be rephrased as “A populace well-trained in arms, being necessary to the security of a free state,” etc.

Again, sorry for taking so long, hope it helps.

JP***  I don’t accept the premise of the question, so I feel no obligation to answer it as you phrase it. It’s like the question, “when did you stop beating your wife?”

You can give me YOUR answer, but it is strange that to offer to give me THE answer. If you think that your answer is the only answer, that in itself raises other questions.

If you were a lawyer and this were a court of law, then you could compel me to answer yes or no. I don’t see this issue with that kind of black-and-white thinking, because life is not a zero-sum game, nor a simplistic equation. As a teacher, when I design a strategy to improve a child’s behavior, I take into account numerous factors: child’s age, cause of the misbehavior, child’s verbal abilities, child’s physical size, child’s temperament, child’s classmates’ needs. . . Surely you have similar nuanced decisions to make in your work?

Why do you imagine assailants and intruders at all times? Sounds, forgive me, kinda paranoid. I just don’t feel that most people hate me enough to attack me. I don’t bother to own enough expensive things that they should want to break and enter my home. If I did, I would still value my life, AND the intruder’s life, more than I value a few paltry objects. Isn’t that what we are called to do? If we claim to be good people. . . and remember, you do claim that, although I don’t make that claim about myself. Aren’t good people in favor of LIFE?

Your contention about frequent deaths from facial trauma is a red herring, but if it were relevant, where do you get the statistics on it? And if you believe those statistics, will you believe the statistics about women dead of domestic violence exacerbated by guns; children killed by other children who find the parent’s badly stored gun; a car-jacking victim now hospitalized by a “good guy” who was aiming at the thieves.

It’s strange that you consider a jail sentence to be a satisfactory result when some harmless hypothetical beggar gets erroneously shot to death. From the perspective of the beggar, if he can reflect on it from the grave, doesn’t it seem a pretty raw deal? Oh, great, my killer gets to sit in jail, to be paroled in a few years, and I don’t get to do anything ever again. Don’t you believe in prevention? I am SURE you are willing to live preventively when it comes to your health, by eating right and exercising, and making music. Can’t we do the same as a society?

About the Second Amendment.

1. Scalia is the source of your idea that the prefatory clause has no power over the operant clause. Burger, Bader-Ginsburg disagree, and so do others, as evidenced by the small step in the right direction last week here: ‪https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/b562678e-96fb-11e5…. I also find it very strange that Scalia, and you, contend that there are words in our country’s Constitution that serve no purpose. Are there any other places in the Constitution where you think somebody was just writing to fill up space on the page?

2. Yes, militia meant every able-bodied adult. Given that we have a professional military, the amendment CANNOT be read the same way any more. EITHER arm the whole populace after background checks and intensive combat training, and use that popular army, OR pay for a professional military, but don’t encourage half the populace to take on a shoddily-trained vigilante role.

3. Well-regulated: gun users nowadays are not well enough regulated or we wouldn’t be having all the accidental shootings. A real soldier doesn’t leave his gun lying around for a toddler to kill a sibling with. A real police officer would never use his service revolver to kill his wife. Right? So obviously there is something NOT well-trained and not well-regulated about the gun owners of today.

No gun control proposal can reduce the number of crazy, lonely extremists who shoot up schools and churches in the absence of a better mental health system. We have to wage peace from every angle. Mental health proposals—if we could ever get them passed anyways—are only half-useful without background checks for gun sales. I’m not going to go into every strategy that we need to implement. That’s for Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign to do. Yet, let’s you and me start by refusing guns to those on the no-fly list. . . do you support that idea? You imply that you do when you say “anyone not a danger to society should be able to carry arms without restriction. . . “ So will you lobby for it and encourage all your friends to do the same?

NT***  Thanks for taking the time to write back! Your answer was fairly lengthy, so to keep it organized, I’m going to take it bit by bit.

“I don’t accept the premise of the question, so I feel no obligation to answer it as you phrase it. It’s like the question, “when did you stop beating your wife?””

I disagree with the comparison. My question isn’t designed to make you look bad simply by asking it, but to help you realize that there are such things as basic rights, and that self-defense is one of them.

“You can give me YOUR answer, but it is strange that to offer to give me THE answer.”

In this case, it is. If people have the right to life, then they also, as a corollary, have the right to stop those who might take life away.

“Surely you have similar nuanced decisions to make in your work?”

If the problem is that my questions were too vague, consider the story at the link. We’ll be returning to it later as well. ‪

Here is a real-world, concrete example. Did the victim in this unprovoked, violent attack have the right to defend himself? Just to be clear, I am asking for a simple yes or no. The victim was an elderly man, much weaker than his young, vicious assailant. The attack was completely unprovoked, the victim chosen at random, as were at least two other victims attacked by the same assailant earlier. It ended with the death of the victim. I can’t think of any other factors that would possibly matter. So, yes or no?

“Why do you imagine assailants and intruders at all times?”

Well, I don’t, really. We’re having a conversation about self-defense, and so assailants are part of the subject matter. Since we last spoke, I haven’t really given it much thought at all. In much the same way, I don’t think often about my house burning down, but I do own a fire extinguisher.

“I just don’t feel that most people hate me enough to attack me.”

See the above link.

“I don’t bother to own enough expensive things that they should want to break and enter my home. If I did, I would still value my life, AND the intruder’s life, more than I value a few paltry objects.”

Do you have a sign in front of your house that says “No valuables?” And why would you think that the intruder, who has already broken several laws and is showing his contempt for your well-being, would have the same respect for life as you do?

“Isn’t that what we are called to do? If we claim to be good people. . . and remember, you do claim that, although I don’t make that claim about myself. Aren’t good people in favor of LIFE?”

Yes, absolutely. The very last thing I ever want is to be put into a situation where I have to defend myself with possibly lethal force. But, and it may sound arrogant, the lives of my loved ones and myself are more valuable than the criminal who has put our lives in jeopardy. Perhaps you’re not comfortable making those kind of moral judgements, but I certainly am.

“Your contention about frequent deaths from facial trauma is a red herring, but if it were relevant, where do you get the statistics on it? And if you believe those statistics, will you believe the statistics about women dead of domestic violence exacerbated by guns; children killed by other children who find the parent’s badly stored gun; a car-jacking victim now hospitalized by a “good guy” who was aiming at the thieves.”

Okay, let’s talk about statistics. I must admit that on the punch to the face thing, I don’t have numbers, but I did google “Killed by punch to the head.” Try it, it’s enlightening. I also don’t have statistics on how many women are shot to death by domestic abusers, but consider: Most men are bigger, stronger, and more violent than most women. They don’t need guns. If I could, I’d give a gun to every women who’s ever been beat up by a man just to even it out. The one about the carjacker isn’t a statistic, it’s an anecdote, and I’m not going to play the anecdotal-one-upped game, because we’d be here till the end of time. Where I do have statistics, however, is on accidental shootings of children. I posted this yesterday in the main comment thread:

“…in 2013 605 kids <14 died by drowning. 39 kids age 10-14 were shot accidentally; age 1-9 the numbers were too low to be included but were certainly less than 50. Six times more children drown every year, so where is the outrage directed against swimming pool owners as unfeeling psychos, and against the APSP (Association of Pool and Spa Professionals) as merchants of death?”

Those numbers are from the CDC. You can look up causes of death broken down by category and age. It’s really fascinating. For instance, Motor Vehicle Traffic deaths outnumber gun homicides by over 3-1. If you really want to save lives in America, start there.

“It’s strange that you consider a jail sentence to be a satisfactory result when some harmless hypothetical beggar gets erroneously shot to death.”

Well, I’m sure the situation was more nuanced than you reported. For second-degree murder, sentences are usually in the 15 years-life range. That’s more than “a few years in jail.” Would you suggest the death penalty might be appropriate?

About the Second Amendment. There’s no polite way to say it, but your understanding of it is very poor.

“1. Scalia is the source of your idea that the prefatory clause has no power over the operant clause.”

Nope, junior year English taught me that.

“Burger, Bader-Ginsburg disagree, and so do others, as evidenced by the small step in the right direction last week here: ‪https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/b562678e-96fb-11e5…. “

I read the article, and there was no mention of the militia clause. In the last two SC rulings on the 2A, both the prevailing AND dissenting opinions stated that the militia clause had no power over the rights clause. See Heller v. DC and McDonald v. Chicago.

“I also find it very strange that Scalia, and you, contend that there are words in our country’s Constitution that serve no purpose. Are there any other places in the Constitution where you think somebody was just writing to fill up space on the page?”

Another term for what the militia clause is is a ‘justifications clause.’ The first half of the Second Amendment is called the “justification clause”. Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. For example, here is a contemporaneous example from Rhode Island’s Constitution: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject…” Thus, while the militia clause is a reason, it is not the ONLY reason, and the right stands independent.

“2. Yes, militia meant every able-bodied adult. Given that we have a professional military, the amendment CANNOT be read the same way any more. EITHER arm the whole populace after background checks and intensive combat training, and use that popular army, OR pay for a professional military, but don’t encourage half the populace to take on a shoddily-trained vigilante role.”

The founding fathers had huge misgivings about standing armies, and by definition, the militia is NOT part of any professional standing army. They are separate institutions.

“3. Well-regulated: gun users nowadays are not well enough regulated or we wouldn’t be having all the accidental shootings. A real soldier doesn’t leave his gun lying around for a toddler to kill a sibling with. A real police officer would never use his service revolver to kill his wife. Right? So obviously there is something NOT well-trained and not well-regulated about the gun owners of today.”

In 2013, (the last year available,) out of a population of 316,128,839, there were 505 unintentional firearm deaths, for a rate of .16/100,000. For comparison, 3,391 drowned, 2,354 died in residential fires, and 30,208 died in falls. Accidental shootings are a very well-publicized blip. In any human endeavor, a .00016% failure rate is usually acceptable.

For more second amendment information, try ‪www.guncite.com. I’m sure you’ll think I’m trying to steer you to some ultra-gun-nutty page, but a careful reading will show several pages on the site that debunk some of the dumber pro-gun tropes. (The Nazis used gun control! AAAAARGHGHGH! …no, not really, and you can read why that’s a stretcher at guncite.) If you’re still mad that I’m using biased websites, remember that you pulled your info from Mothers Demand Action and the Brady Campaign, which we on the pro-gun side view in much the same way as you do the NRA. That’s why I haven’t linked to any NRA sites or stats, and kept all numbers quoted to the CDC.

“Yet, let’s you and me start by refusing guns to those on the no-fly list. . . do you support that idea? You imply that you do when you say “anyone not a danger to society should be able to carry arms without restriction. . . “ So will you lobby for it and encourage all your friends to do the same?”

Nope, sorry. Here’s why not.

1) The no fly list is an unconstitutional violation or the 4th and 5th amendments.

2) Being placed on the no-fly list is often a matter of error, confusion, or outright bigotry, and we don’t deny civil rights for those reasons, or at least we shouldn’t.

3) We just found out that there are 72 homeland security employees, including TSA screeners, on the list. That right there should tell you the value of it. Senator Kennedy, God rest his leftist soul, was on it.

Thanks again!

JP***  You actually don’t trust the facts that Moms Demand Action brings?

NT***  If I cited stats provided by the NRA, would you perhaps take them with a grain of salt? MDA is an activist organization with an agenda that does not include protecting the rights of Americans. While their stated goal of reducing so-called ‘gun violence’ is laudable, their outright fear of firearms blinds them to any possible good that firearms can provide. I’ve tried very hard thus far to make sure that any numbers I provide are free of source bias. You’ll never hear me quote from the NRA, Gun Owners of America, The Truth About Guns .com, The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners Action League, or the National Shooting Sports Federation without sourcing their statistics. MDA commonly gets their numbers from such sources as the Brady Campaign, Violence Prevention Center, Mayors Against illegal Guns, (which I find hilariously named,) etc. It’s like getting smoking info from Philip-Morris, who got their numbers from R.J. Reynolds.

JP***  With the difference being the money behind Philip-Morris and R.J. Reynolds and the NRA, and not behind the Moms Demanding Action, who are indeed trying to protect the rights of Americans to life as well as to gun ownership. I think it’s a triumph that we’ve kept the conversation civil for so long. I think we should quit while we are ahead. For me, if you don’t listen to moms who have lost their children, I don’t know what I can say.

NT***  Well, then, I’ll try to keep this brief. If by “the money behind… the NRA,” you mean the dues and donations of it’s over five million members, I’m not sure what the problem is. Groups like the NRA and, indeed, MDA are formed to provide a platform for their members to push for societal and legislative change that they wouldn’t be able to individually. The NRA has a dues-paying membership of around five million. MDA claims anybody who has liked their facebook page as a member, which as of today was 466,000. If money is so bad, why did a “Donate Now” window pop up on my screen when I went to the MDA website looking for membership numbers?

To your last point, losing your child is the most awful thing I can imagine. Any mother who has had to bury her child for whatever reason has my sincere sympathy. But losing a child doesn’t make someone an expert on any given subject, it only provides a totally understandable, but also totally unshakeable bias. If a mother of a child run over by a car formed a group called “Mothers Demand Action for Car Sense in America,” and began trying to ban cars that could go faster than 30 mph as Assault Cars, and vilifying the owners of such cars, and referring to the AAA as a terrorist organization, I’d say she didn’t know what she was talking about. And that’s what the gun community feels like when we hear calls to ban bullets with “incendiary tips, which are heat seeking devices” or the “shoulder thing that goes up,” or the dreaded “.30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” (All actual quotes by legislators trying to pass gun-control legislation.) I see a lot of the same ignorance on the MDA page. Let me re-iterate. Anyone who has lost their child, for whatever reason, has my profound and sincere sympathy, but that does not also confer my willingness to let them dictate policy on firearms.

So there it is. For those of you who read through to the end, thanks. For the rest of you, no problem, I know it was lengthy. I think it provides a good snapshot of how a discussion can range from Second Amendment interpretation, to self-defense philosophy, to gun-control tropes, and everywhere in between. Before I found TTAG, I wouldn’t have had the philosophical ammo (so to speak,) that I was able to bring to bear. Thanks, guys, and keep on telling The Truth About Guns.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Well… My standard answer to people this wrapped up in crazy lefty relative morality is not fit to print. It is, however, relatively short.

  2. avatar mk10108 says:

    A simpler explanation is everyone has the right to lawfully protect themselves. Any response to the negative of that statement is immoral, condones murder, rape and assault.

    1. avatar Robert W says:

      If the simple answer worked, we wouldn’t be having these problems in the first place.

      1. avatar WuzNtMe says:

        Simple answers aren’t simple enough for simple-minded people.

  3. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …wow! You controlled yourself waaaaaaaay better than I would have.

    Well done.

  4. avatar Number 6 says:

    Avoid social media. Got it.

  5. avatar Ralph says:

    @ninjaTED, you did a good job, but I must remind you of an old saying: “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”

    1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

      Don’t mud wrestle a pig; you both get filthy but the pig loves it.

  6. avatar pun&gun says:

    You did yourself a disservice by reducing morality to a culturally relative construct. Without an absolute standard of right and wrong, nothing really matters; whether you kill someone, or whether that nut gets his government to take your property and execute you.

    1. avatar ninjaTED says:

      At one point I did say that there was an absolute answer. Many values are culturally specific; in much of the world dog is considered fit for meat, and in Europe horse is often found on the menu, but either would be considered offensive to many Americans. Self-defense, however, is one of the basic, universal rights that, along with property rights, I defended in my post.

  7. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    It’s good that you make that effort to bring light to the people that believe all the lies and deceptions of the socialists. I can do that in fewer words however; shall not be infringed. That’s all they need to know, and truth is, most of them aren’t listening anyway.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      ….except that the argument (mostly) wasn’t over what the second amendment means. The one time it was, sure enough, our man did what you suggest and said, “shall not be infringed.” He was simply countered. Fortunately, our man countered the counter…but you wouldn’t have, because you would have already walked away with a smug self-satisfied “I showed HIM by saying Shall Not Be Infringed” look on your face.

      It also won’t work when the issue is whether there SHOULD be a second amendment. Sure, it says “shall not be infringed” but whether it be there at all is precisely what’s at issue.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Or to come up with an analogy. Say you’re arguing with someone who wants to legalize rape. He says “Rape should be legal.” You say, “Rape is illegal.” He’s not going to listen to you, because you aren’t explaining why rape should be illegal, you’re just pointing out that it is.

        That’s why anti gunners simply ignore people who scream “shall not be infringed” to their faces. Because they are giving arguments for changing the current situation, and you’re just telling them what it is, rather than justifying it. At most, you’ll get them to concede the 2A makes what they want illegal, so they’ll just say “let’s get rid of 2A then.”

        1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

          These people are socialists, if logic was in their playbook, they wouldn’t be socialists.

          Remember, these people are not having a discussion with you (obviously there are exceptions, but very few). They are trying to indoctrinate you, because this is how they came to the point of view they have. Compromise to them means you do what they say.

          Look how far we have gotten compromising with the socialists in congress? Same thing.

          If you guys want to try talking to them, reasoning and using logic, go for it. Report back!

      2. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        “….except that the argument (mostly) wasn’t over what the second amendment means.”

        Ok, but my point wasn’t about what it means either, but that it is. For the most part these people aren’t listening in the slightest (this did seem to be someone who was at least being polite), and for those that do listen they are resigned to ignore reality, common sense and logic and will not change their views. You are arguing with a rock.

        I don’t care what people like this think. There is only one response for these kind of people, fuck you, that’s my argument.

        “It also won’t work when the issue is whether there SHOULD be a second amendment. Sure, it says “shall not be infringed” but whether it be there at all is precisely what’s at issue.”

        Again, I was not arguing anything for or against, my point is that the second amendment is. Deal with it. And if these morons don’t like it, there is a process they are free to follow to be rid of it.

        Thus, ‘shall not be infringed’.

        If they are anti-2a and not infringing, then have at it, I do not care.

  8. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    One thing this clearly reminds of: no matter how good, relevant, or correct our argument, the old phrase “there is none so blind as he who will not see” becomes the correct way to finish. Walk away and waste no more time on that person. It is likely that only a personal encounter with violence could ever change his mind.

    1. avatar Steve in TX says:

      Sometimes the conversation you are having is not for the purpose of engaging your counterpart but instead for the listeners.

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        ^ This this so much THIS^
        That is why you continue the debate even though you won’t convince your opponent. You win a debate by convincing the AUDIENCE.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You win a debate by convincing the AUDIENCE.”

          From what I see on public sources, “the AUDIENCE” is very small (if it even exists), and winning them all would not spin the political winds in our favor.

  9. avatar Pwinky says:

    Very well done. From an “intelligent debate” standpoint your buddy got wrecked. Absolutely no ability to stay on point or avoid even the most basic logical fallacies. Your argument was measured, thorough, and well put. 5 stars, would read again.

    1. avatar Stu in AZ says:

      Absolutely. Bravo on the debate.

  10. avatar gs650g says:

    I wouldn’t waste my time with people like that. They will change their minds the hard way someday. Or maybe they won’t be able to. Either way it shows the change in logical thinking today.

  11. avatar T Michael says:

    That was simply amazing.

  12. avatar peirsonb says:

    Wow. Turns out if you read enough italicized text the regular font appears to slant the other way.

    I read it all, and is a great argument. But it’s fundamentally flawed.

    First, it is nearly impossible to change the opinion of anyone who is a die hard on any subject. “Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still.”

    Second, it’s nearly impossible to change even a fence sitters mind over the internet. You have a chance face to face, but even a mostly rational person loses a portion of that rationality behind the anonymity of the internet.

    Still a great read.

  13. avatar Scott in IA says:

    I smell a winner here.

    Great post.

  14. avatar Doran says:

    There’s a simular saying in the Bible that says never throw your Pearls Before Swine.
    I agree with one of the previous writers. I would have shut the conversation down much sooner though it was interesting to read your take on the Second Amendment and all of its nuances.
    Bottom line is even the gun grabbers are going to hope for somebody to defend them they get in a jam. I personally do not believe there any pacifist in a foxhole to steal part of a phrase or rather plagiarize part of a phrase.

  15. avatar Mr. 308 says:

    …wrong place, deleting

  16. avatar Ryan says:

    That has to be one of the most well thought out and best arguments I have read in a while, thank you.

  17. avatar Ing says:

    Wow. Great work. Calm, articulate, logical, factual, and always on point.

    This is why, in terms of personal credibility, we’re winning; our side is chock-full of people who, whether in conversations like this or just by being decent to the people they interact with on a daily basis, put the lie to the notion that guns are agents of evil.

    This part of your response really resonated with me. To my mind, it sums up the entire philosophical/moral/ethical basis of the pro-gun position:

    If you don’t believe that right [the right of self-defense against unprovoked violence] exists, I weep for the world. People who think that are giving society over to those who will not scruple to commit any violence to take what they want, when they want it. It is a cowardly and self-serving position, and I unashamedly condemn those who hold it. AMEN.

  18. avatar neiowa says:

    JP wins today’s Obama Prize for Pseudo Intellectual “Edumacation”. No doubt lives in Moms basement and owes $75000 on 6yr of liberal arts drunk college time.

  19. avatar Julio says:

    Wow! Just…wow. You have a LOT of patience, NinjaTED. I commend you for sticking with it all the way, but your conversation was falling on someone with deaf ears (or completely blinded with self-righteous arrogance). He had no problem deflecting any of your points and ignoring your questions, but constantly attacked your beliefs and values–all the while admitting that he hadn’t given it much thought and would need to do his own “research” on those scenarios. The cognitive dissonance is simply too strong with that one.

  20. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

    Nice effort. Condense your thoughts-most won’t wade through this…

  21. avatar Mk10108 says:

    We cannot say F you to anti’s. We must drive the conversation to a moral high ground. Instead of shall not be infringed, the better statement is why do you tolerate aggressive action from criminals? How would you defend your life against violent aggression?

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      You cannot force people to listen, what’s worse you cannot force people to reason. How do you “drive the conversation to a moral high ground” when you are being called nazi and fascist and evil baby killer and no one pays attention to you?

      This is exactly why we have a constitution, and why there is a second amendment in it. Such things have to be put in a contract.

    2. avatar Chris Morton says:

      What you must do is afford anti-gun cultists every opportunity to hang themselves with their own words.

      a large number of them are racists, misogynists, homophobes, anti-Semites and the like. They’re not afraid of guns. They’re afraid of Black people with guns. It’s OH so easy to walk them into the minefield of their own bigotry. In fact, as often or not, they will attempt to appeal to the bigotry they think you SHARE with them.

      When a Stradivarius plops itself into your arms, don’t be afraid to play it for all you’re worth. The audience notices. These numbskulls are like a fine violin, eager for you to play them.

  22. avatar MeRp says:

    I sincerely hope that when you said ” If a mother of a child run over by a car formed a group called “Mothers Demand Action for Car Sense in America,” and began trying to ban cars that could go faster than 30 mph as Assault Cars, and vilifying the owners of such cars, and referring to the AAA as a terrorist organization, I’d say she didn’t know what she was talking about.”
    That you included a link to: https://www.facebook.com/Moms-Against-Cars-1907474342724475/ 😉 If not, you should have. Totally, 100%.

    1. avatar ninjaTED says:

      I didn’t even know that was a thing, thanks!

      Learnin’ new stuff all the time ’round here.

  23. avatar boardsnbikes says:

    That was a long read in the internet age. A worthwhile and instructive read. However, sometimes the anti-gunner in a dialogue will not play nice.

    Just yesterday I had a conversation with an anti-gunner, arguing that Cruz would be a constitutionalist president. It quickly devolved into the his position that I would be for all guns (no matter what), slavery and taking away women’s right to vote. Any hope of logic and persuasion was lost. At that point, I channeled Kurt Schlichter: “F.U. Go amend the Constitution. Good luck with that.”

  24. avatar Stoopid1 says:

    Too long to read, and ineffective.

    A simple “flock you” would of saved time and been more effective. Idiot.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      Too long to read?

      That says something about you, and nothing about the subject.

  25. avatar Hammers says:

    HUGE MISS!!! MDA is backed by more money than the NRA. And from a single person. That’s even worth going back to tell him

  26. avatar Red in CO says:

    It’s a bit disheartening to see how many TTaG commenters would have immediately written this guy off as a lost cause and not bothered to discuss it. Keep in mind, this was Facebook. Even if the one our guy was debating won’t change his mind, how many relatively neutral folks (or those without strong opinions one way or another on guns) will see this exchange? And when they do, what will they see? The pro-gun person was intelligent, well-spoken, and very direct. The anti-gun person simply dodged the questions and tried to derail the debate with numbers tangents.

    1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

      It’s called experience, I’ve tried. Won’t waste my time on rabid slow thinking socialists who only care to rob me of my money by voting for more socialist politicians.

      If people are truly interested in learning the truth there are many places they can go, and yes lots of potg willing to learn them. And if someone comes to me with an open mind I will happily engage. But as soon as I can see that they are committed socialists I give up.

    2. avatar Ing says:

      RIGHT. In the real world, debate is a spectator sport. You don’t have to convince the guy you’re arguing against. That conversation is out there for untold numbers of other people to see, and if at least some of them read it and see that you’re the sane and smart one, you win.

      1. avatar Mr. 308 says:

        Hey if you guys want to take your shot at convincing others I say great, have at it and good luck.

        Here’s the thing though. At some point the discussion comes to an end and if you haven’t convinced your opponent, what then do you do?

        Some of us have really tired of putting this effort out there and still being overrun by mindless socialist zombies. Like I said above you cannot force people to agree with you, force them to reason nor even force them to listen. If your opponent will not even listen to you (most gun grabbers you know) then what do you do?

        The second amendment is there for a reason, there has been a debate and the debate is over.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          I never worry about convincing cravenly dishonest anti-gun cultists.

          My goal is to show them up for the liars and poltroons that they truly are. Invariably the bystanders draw the appropriate conclusions.

          Most people don’t like being lied to as though they were mentally handicapped children. When you point a finger directly at the one doing it, they tend to react badly… to him.

        2. avatar Chris says:

          “My goal is to show them up for the liars and poltroons that they truly are. Invariably the bystanders draw the appropriate conclusions.”

          This, Chris nailed it. I’m not debating to change the mind of the other person, if it happens, great, but extremely unlikely. I debate for the fence sitters watching and reading. I try to be calm and measured, and just let them look nuts. It’s an art.

        3. avatar ninjaTED says:

          By saying the debate is over, you’re ceding the field to those who don’t agree. We have the first amendment, which gives us the right to freely practice our religion; debate over. Except for those who say that refusal of service on religious or moral grounds is cause for prosecution and persecution. The fourth amendment gives us security in our property and papers; debate over. Except for warrantless wiretaps and the no-fly list. Don’t ever stop debating.

    3. avatar Rusty the Boy Robot says:

      +1

  27. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    Of course the logical next step is to offer to take JP*** to the range for a little instruction on proper gun control…

  28. avatar Chris Morton says:

    Well done. I’ve pulled anti-gun cultists through exactly the same philosophical knotholes which you have here, only I wasn’t nearly so nice about it.

    One thing (unless I missed it) which was omitted, is that if there’s no right to self-defense (nevermind armed self-defense), then that creates a de facto right to aggression. I’d have asked him, “So what you’re saying is that Adolf Eichmann had the ‘right’ to shove Ann Frank into a gas chamber, but she had no right to kick him in the crotch (nevermind shoot him) to keep from being gassed?” I suspect that he’d do some tap dancing that would put Fred and Ginger to shame.

    After a certain point, “troll” and “monster” become synonymous…

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      On this blog, “troll” is merely anyone who disagrees with your opinion. So interesting to read all the 2A defenders who want to avoid engaging anyone who disagrees with preconceived notions.

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        On this blog, as on every Internet discussion site, a troll is one who resorts to ad hominem and red herrings to compensate for lack of facts.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          So, do you recognize that the pro-gun people here mostly live in vulgar comments and ad hominem attacks, even against each other?

          Always willing to discuss pro/anti gun issues, using as many facts as I can muster. But, like “the Donald”, when hit, I hit back.

          So, for pro-gunnies, a troll is just someone who inconveniently reflects the general population on a blog. Lighting up a subject is very uncomfortable for those who love the dark.

        2. avatar BhamLyan says:

          2Asux direct comment on this thread, not a reply:
          “Easy for even gun owners to understand”

          This ad hominem attack was not in response to any previous insult from a pro-gun proponent. Like “The Donald” you don’t legitimately get to claim retaliation when you hurl the first mud ball.

          “Guns = violence and death” is not a fact.

          You are not spreading light or reflecting the general population, you are merely demonstrating the stubborn bias of your own vocal minority and doing so in an inflammatory and confrontational manner with repeated attempts to exploit emotion and claim moral superiority without any substantiation.

          That is what makes you a troll.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          Wikipedia defines “troll”: “In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.”

          None of which applies. The definition here is that a “troll” is merely someone who does not adopt the groupthink.

          My statement that “even a gunowner can understand” was a conclusion, a deduction from experience. Our definition of “ad hominem” may differ. My understanding is that such attack is a personal aspersion on a single individual, such as, “you’re an idiot”, “you’re an a…”, “you’re scum”, “your mother wears combat boots”, etc.

          Look across several postings, and you see people here using the foulest of words to respond to another person. Those are what I view as “ad hominem”.

        4. avatar ninjaTED says:

          2Asux, you are aware you’re on the internet, right? Ad hominem attacks, flaming, trolling are all things that happen here, even when we wish they didn’t. I’ve seen comments on TTAG that make me cringe, and occasionally even message RF that certain commenters need to be FLAME DELETED or even banned. To be very clear, these have all been people that, at least superficially, agree with my 2A beliefs. Civil discourse on the net is a difficult cause to champion, and I’m glad you’re taking it up. Do you often spend time on anti-gun websites calling out uncivil, rude, and hateful commenters there?

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          If I could police all the blogs so that nastiness of language were eliminated, I would do it. But my point here is that the word “troll” is used only as a conversation stopper (same as “conservatives” and gun owners accuse us of saying “racist” to stop conversations when we have nothing logical to say). Since the term “troll” is being applied to me, I am saying, “get it right, or stop using it”. I am also saying that slinging the term “troll” where it obviously does not apply is indicative of low intellectual tolerance for differing viewpoints. Can’t stop anyone from crying “troll” whenever they like, but I can point out for all to see that such persons are bankrupt of ideas.

        6. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “If I could police all the blogs”

          I’m sure you’d like to…

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          I yield to those who believe intelligent and civil discourse should be relegated to the trash heap of history; being nasty while being anonymous is too much fun.

        8. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “being nasty while being anonymous is too much fun.”

          Apparently some find it even more fun to be dishonest while being anonymous.

          Of course, some of us aren’t anonymous…

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Of course, some of us aren’t anonymous…”

          A screen name, even an actual name, is not a presence. We all cover our faces with computer screens.

        10. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “A screen name, even an actual name, is not a presence. We all cover our faces with computer screens.”

          You have a rather arcane way of admitting you were wrong…

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          Wrong about what?

        12. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Why do you persist in believing that only guns can considered deadly force?”

          Why do you persist in totally inverting the meanings of the things I say?

          The law does not require a victim faced with a particular deadly weapon to respond with the SAME deadly weapon.

          Deadly force is deadly force. If you attack me with a baseball bat, I will shoot you and the law will treat that defense as it would a defense from an attack with a gun.

        13. avatar 2Asux says:

          So, now we agree deadly force can be delivered by something other than a gun. The corollary is self-defense can be accomplished by something other than a gun.

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        That’s quite an obtuse and convoluted way of not responding to my direct responses to you.

        Needless to say, it’s characteristic of what you’ve posted here, and indeed of most anti-gun “commentary”… or rather “NON-commentary”.

        Lacking a coherent and honest position to elucidate, anti-gun cultists instead obfuscate.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          I am replying to your charge that “Trolls are monsters”. (paraphrase). Yes, I ignored everything you wrote other than that.

          I am pointing out that the charge of “troll” is the default response when pro-gunners are presented with resistance to their fossilized thinking.

          The upshot is that someone who challenges group think here is instantly labeled “troll”. Your characterization of “troll” is that they are/become monsters. My response is that someone who calls groupthink into question is not a current or budding “monster”. Nothing more.

        2. avatar ninjaTED says:

          As far as the question of whether or not you qualify as a troll, on the whole, I’d say no. Sometimes though, I’ve seen opinions or comments from you that make me wonder if you actually believe what you’re writing, or if you are just saying stuff to get a rise out of us. If that’s what’s going on, you are by definition a troll. I’d prefer to think you’re not, since if you are, it brings up a series of new questions, such as ‘how does this guy have that much free time just to screw with people?’

          No, I’d like to think you’re sincere, and as such, let me thank you for spending your time arguing with people who aren’t inclined to take you seriously. I, for one, know that it can be frustrating.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          You are correct. Sometimes I reflect the attitudes of those who get personal and nasty with me. Some statements are intended snark, “back at you”, so to speak.

        4. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “I am replying to your charge that “Trolls are monsters”.”

          Then you’re replying to something that was never said.

          A troll is not by definition a monster.

          A troll BECOMES a monster when in the course of his trolling he advocates something monstrous… like FORCED submission of innocent victims to violent beasts. Anyone who expresses more sympathy for a an attempted rapist who’s shot to death than for a woman who’s raped is by definition, a monster.

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          How does reporting a rape in progress “force” someone to submit to violence? If gun owners cannot be everywhere, all the time, do those rape victims gun owners failed to save mean gun owners are “forcing” people to submit to violence? Would not the rape (or whatever attack) have happened if a gun owner was not there to intervene?

          Gun owners value “gun rights” to a gun over innocent life taken in negligence, but do not value the life of an offender who has a right to legal due process?

        6. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “How does reporting a rape in progress “force” someone to submit to violence?”

          You don’t want her to defend HERSELF with a gun.

          You don’t want anyone ELSE who’s not a cop to defend her with a gun.

          If the cops can’t or won’t respond, she’s just supposed to lie back and “enjoy” it.

          That’s the very definition of “OHSA for rapists”.

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          “You don’t want her to defend HERSELF with a gun.”
          – Again? “Self-defense” does not translate exclusively to use of a gun. Self-defense is a natural right of humans.

          “If the cops can’t or won’t respond, she’s just supposed to lie back and “enjoy” it.”
          – No. She is supposed to fight back if she chooses. No disagreement there.

          Please, get over this idea that a person is totally helpless, without resources, doomed if they do not have a gun.

        8. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “– Again? “Self-defense” does not translate exclusively to use of a gun. Self-defense is a natural right of humans. ”
          Non-deadly force against deadly force is called suicide.

          Clearly you want the victim to die.

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          Why do you persist in believing that only guns can considered deadly force? Where do you get the idea that advocating reasonable control of firearms equates to wanting victims of criminal attacks to die?

          Use of deadly force to counter deadly force is legitimate under law (and would be with some containment of gun proliferation). I already cited quite a few forms of force, and deadly force, other than a gun.

          Gun obsession seems to blind people to obvious facts about self-defense.

  29. avatar 2asux says:

    “KW*** I honestly wonder why a “good person” would want a gun. Guns=violence and death.”

    There it is. Easy for even gun owners to understand.

    Violence and death are bad, period, end of sentence. Seeking to do violence and death is bad; simple. No one who is truly good, by any objective standard, can possibly want to do violence and death against another person. Ergo, there is no such thing as a “good guy with a gun”. If a person is truly “good”, that person would run screaming from any moment that would require doing violence and death to another human. Violence and death, bad; guns wreak violence and death, bad.

    A society should be working constantly to rehabilitate those who do violence or death to others, not trying to find more creative machines to visit violence and death on other citizens.

    But if you insist on doing violence and death, you have moral responsibility for ensuring that there are never situations where innocents are injured or killed through your actions, especially negligent and irresponsible actions. If you shirk your moral obligations, by which understanding of the language do you declare yourself “good”?

    1. avatar BhamLyan says:

      2Asux:
      “Seeking to do violence and death is bad; simple.”

      Simply wrong. Violence and death are perfectly justified in numerous situations up to and including justifiable homicide.

      “If a person is truly “good”, that person would run screaming from any moment that would require doing violence and death to another human.”

      So if you happened upon a burly thug raping an innocent woman with a knife to her throat, you would run screaming from the scene?

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        I believe it was George Carlin who coined the phrase, “Do whatever you want to the girl, just leave me alone!”

        In a society in which there are no minimum standards of human decency, satire loses all meaning and indeed becomes impossible.

        1. avatar BhamLyan says:

          Well, of course now I realize the inherent sexism in my hypothetical scenario, so for more empowerment consider if the woman cornered by the burly thug brandishing a knife intent on raping her would still be “good” if she cleared Kydex and smoked her assailant rather than screaming helplessly as 2Asux logic demands.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          BhamLyan,

          That’s what I got out of it too. 2asux basically argues that the only “good” people are people who allow themselves and others to be victims.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          Self-defense is not under attack, at least not by me. Unfettered gun ownership by untrained, undisciplined private citizens is the issue. Self-defense ≠ Gun only, Gun every time.

          Guns are inherently bad because they are designed almost exclusively to destroy (Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy?). Destroy paper, destroy animals, destroy street lights, destroy people. Such power should be parceled-out only to those who are trained, certified, and continually trained in its use for defense. So long as private citizens refuse to submit to recurring professionally certifiable training, LE and military should be the only ones allowed to use firearms. Hunting is an unnecessary sport (except for agencies controlling herds), firearms as a deterrent to an elected government is so unlikely as to be “statistically insignificant” (given two revolutions in 240 years).

          Not having a firearm is not the same as surrendering all means of self-defense. Does not require one to be a submissive victim.

        4. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Self-defense is not under attack, at least not by me.”

          EFFECTIVE self-defense is under attack, BY YOU.

          You don’t mind if a woman “defends” herself from a rapist… so long as she get beaten to a bloody pulp… and still gets raped.

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          As I have said repeatedly, POTG believe of self-defense is a gun, and nothing elseA proposition untrue on its face. How about Krav Maga? Or Savate? Or MMA? Or knives? Or dirks? Or tactical batons? Or attack dog?. Or any number of tools and weapons?

          Self-defense is not equipment limited. Equating self-defense with a singular method is linguistically weak. Sloppy use of language is a pox on our nation.

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          Unfettered gun ownership by untrained, undisciplined private citizens is the issue.

          What issue? There is no issue. The average concealed carrier is a better shot and more law abiding than trained police officers.
          http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/

          Self-defense ≠ Gun only, Gun every time.

          I agree. But liberals banned the carrying of swords, spears, and bowie knives. So guns it is. And lets admit it – guns are going to be a more effective tool than a one shot stun gun, an asp, a bat, or a chair.

          Guns are inherently bad…

          No they aren’t. Guns are metal, springs, wood, plastic, machines that have no thoughts or decisions of their own.

          Such power should be parceled-out only to those who are trained, certified, and continually trained in its use for defense. So long as private citizens refuse to submit to recurring professionally certifiable training, LE and military should be the only ones allowed to use firearms.

          See above. Concealed carriers are likely better shots and more law abiding than police/military. Maybe police/military should be trained by concealed carriers?

          Hunting is an unnecessary sport…

          All sports are unnecessary. We don’t take part in sports for their necessity or lack thereof.

          …firearms as a deterrent to an elected government is so unlikely as to be “statistically insignificant” (given two revolutions in 240 years)…

          Firearms were originally a deterrent for tyrant governments, and they worked great for King George’s criminals abroad. They were definitely “significant.”

          Not having a firearm is not the same as surrendering all means of self-defense. Does not require one to be a submissive victim.

          It does if you are an elderly person, a sick individual, or someone disabled who can’t employ krav maga, swing a sword, etc. Also, it is the best tool for self defense given it’s abilities. It is very likely an assaulting criminal will have one, why purposely disadvantage yourself?

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          “The average concealed carrier is a better shot and more law abiding than trained police officers.”
          – Citation, please (“everybody knows” won’t do)

          “All sports are unnecessary.”
          – Obviously a sport using a deadly weapon is even less necessary, so why continue to pose the risks?

          “Firearms were originally a deterrent for tyrant governments,…”
          – Yes, indeed. But no more.

          “It does if you are an elderly person, a sick individual, or someone disabled…”
          – Proof that the categories you identified absolutely cannot use any alternative method or tool?

        8. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “As I have said repeatedly, POTG believe of self-defense is a gun, and nothing elseA proposition untrue on its face. How about Krav Maga? Or Savate? Or MMA? Or knives? Or dirks? Or tactical batons? Or attack dog?. Or any number of tools and weapons?”

          Yeah, the average middle aged woman is going to use Krav Maga against a rapist with 100lb.s on her, armed with a knife. Or maybe she’ll pull out her bowie knife.

          What YOU want is to limit that fifty year old woman to methods and means that require both physical prowess and typically male strength. As I said, you don’t mind if the woman “defends” herself… so long as she gets hurt in the process… and raped.

          News flash: “Xena, Warrior Princess” was NOT a documentary.

          Racism and misogyny are core values of the anti-gun cult.

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          ICYMI –
          Effective self-defense:
          http://bearingarms.com/authorities-victim-domestic-assault-shot-in-self-defense/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

          Apparently she managed to choke her attacker while fighting to a gun. In this case the victim used two effective forms of self-defense…in the face of a machete.

        10. avatar Anonymous says:

          “The average concealed carrier is a better shot and more law abiding than trained police officers.”
          – Citation, please (“everybody knows” won’t do)

          If everybody knew except for you – It would do.
          http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/
          You should worry more about cops than concealed carriers.

          “All sports are unnecessary.”
          – Obviously a sport using a deadly weapon is even less necessary, so why continue to pose the risks?

          I’ve already addressed this with explanation. I feel for the vast majority, this needs no more discussion. People box, people play hockey, football, base jump, sky dive, shoot guns. All have risks. Necessity has absolutely nothing to do with it. The people who take part accept the risks.

          “Firearms were originally a deterrent for tyrant governments,…”
          – Yes, indeed. But no more.

          Subjective analysis based on opinion. Good work.

          “It does if you are an elderly person, a sick individual, or someone disabled…”
          – Proof that the categories you identified absolutely cannot use any alternative method or tool?

          I’ve already addressed this with explanation. I feel for the vast majority, this needs no more discussion – it was pretty obvious to me.

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Firearms were originally a deterrent for tyrant governments,…
          – Yes, indeed. But no more.

          Subjective analysis based on opinion. ”

          I always like this one. Somehow, after nearly 150 years, with all the supposed infringements and out-of-control government intrusions into the freedoms of the people in this country, somehow, somewhere, that government will eventually find the one “trigger event” that will start the apocalypse, launch the revolution. I recommend you review the circumstances of 1775 and 1860. Based on the conclusions of “conservatives”, the government has gone so fay beyond what was tolerated in those days as to make the idea of armed resistance a comic book notion. The government has not feared an armed uprising since 1876 (end of reconstruction). Partly this is due to the fact that eventually, everyone accepts or endorses the moves the government makes to improve the lives of all its citizens. Maybe the Irish revolution(s) can be instructive. Do you see a united Ireland, or do you see an Ireland where revolutionaries, with only small arms and explosives, failed to deter the British in Northern Ireland? Yes, the Republic of Ireland was a successful revolution, but it stopped six counties short of throwing the English out. Could it be that a determined, modern, disciplined army is unlikely to fall to a disorganized gang of revolutionaries?

          So, facts: according to would be revolutionaries in this country, the government has been wildly successful in reaching light years beyond what triggered revolt twice in our country. History is pro-log. After 150 years, it is bloody unlikely (to borrow a phrase) there will ever be another attempt to cast off a “tyrannical” government.

      2. avatar 2Asux says:

        If I saw someone raping a woman, I definitely would not run screaming. A silent escape to a place where I can alert authorities (who have way more capability to intervene in a violent situation) is more likely to be helpful than me stumbling around trying to “do something”. The cops will not be immediately on the scene, but I can, from “cover” develop a good description of the rapist.

        But we are dealing with gross hypotheticals. To borrow a phrase from POTG, the number of rapes is statistically insignificant compared to the millions and millions of peaceable, innocent interactions between men and women, every hour, every day. I would give as much thought to the victim of rape as POTG would give to the 500 or so deaths due negligent and irresponsible gun handling. It is useful to broadcast that thousands of women are raped everywhere every minute of the day. But we do not have thousands of rape reports every day, nor are there thousands of witnesses to rape everyday. In truth, just as gun owners do not really know what they would do in a shooting situation until it happens, neither do I know what exactly I would do if witness to whichever kind of crime.

        1. avatar Kevin says:

          Cops carry guns. Guns = violence and death. You would call the cops, bringing violence and death.

          OK, Pilate.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          You identified something that needs clarifying. When in the hands of non-professionals, guns = injury and death; bad. I do admit that there are some LE “professionals” who are simply bad guys with a badge. A modern society rejects vigilante justice, personal retribution, taking matters into your own hands. The society decides that police and courts are needed to contain the damage of bad guys. When police become the consensus decision of a society, the use of personal force is surrendered for the greater good. (if one does not like to consider the greater good, maybe one should disengage from that society)

        3. avatar Chris Morton says:

          You’re not against violence.

          You just think it should only be employed by mercenaries… and if said mercenaries do not respond with sufficient alacrity, the victims should simply die quietly.

          Gotcha.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          Relying on lawfully authorized enforcement agencies to do the jobs they are hired for is somehow unacceptable?

          We dropped vigilantism long ago. People who wish to take the law into their own hands (cop, judge, jury) are more civilized than a society with a consensus that personal law enforcement is a danger to the whole?

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          If I saw someone raping a woman, I definitely would not run screaming. A silent escape to a place where I can alert authorities (who have way more capability to intervene in a violent situation) is more likely to be helpful than me stumbling around trying to “do something”. The cops will not be immediately on the scene, but I can, from “cover” develop a good description of the rapist.

          Wow. What a coward. Rapist will be finished by the time the cops arrive and the woman can live happily ever after with her lifelong STDs if he decides to spare her life. Whatever respect I had for you before just evaporated.

          But we are dealing with gross hypotheticals. To borrow a phrase from POTG, the number of rapes is statistically insignificant compared to the millions and millions of peaceable, innocent interactions between men and women, every hour, every day. I would give as much thought to the victim of rape as POTG would give to the 500 or so deaths due negligent and irresponsible gun handling.

          Also 293 thousand rapes a year is not “gross hypotheticals.” You are comparing 500 accidental firearm deaths against 293,000 rapes/sexual assaults per year while simultaneously completely ignoring the 20,000 lives saved by firearms every year. Really weak sauce.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          We are not comparing a raw number to another raw number. If negligent firearm deaths are “statistically insignificant” against the hundreds of millions (POTG figure) of gun owners (or hundreds of millions of guns, or hundreds of millions of gun handling events), then the number of rapes committed compared to the uncountable millions of interactions between males and females is “statistically” insignificant.

          Oh, you mean a person who is raped is not an insignificant being? Really. Neither is someone dead because of negligent gun handling.

        7. avatar Anonymous says:

          Relying on lawfully authorized enforcement agencies to do the jobs they are hired for is somehow unacceptable?

          If you have to wait 10/15 minutes for them to show up – yes, absolutely.

          We dropped vigilantism long ago. People who wish to take the law into their own hands (cop, judge, jury) are more civilized than a society with a consensus that personal law enforcement is a danger to the whole?

          So if someone is drowning in a pool, are you just going to call the fire department and wait for them to arrive? Your a good samaritan. When has self defense of self and others ever… ever… Been vigilantism???

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Self-defense ≠ gun only. Except on gun blogs.

        9. avatar ninjaTED says:

          Remember above when I said that sometimes you say things that make me think you just might be trolling us? This is one of those times, but again, you profess to be serious and I’ll respond in that spirit.

          “Violence and death are bad, period, end of sentence. Seeking to do violence and death is bad; simple. No one who is truly good, by any objective standard, can possibly want to do violence and death against another person. ”

          I’ll agree with that, at least for our purposes here. The difference here is that those of us who advocate for armed self-defense don’t WANT to do violence, but realize that it is sometimes forced upon us. Which brings us to:

          “If I saw someone raping a woman, I definitely would not run screaming. A silent escape to a place where I can alert authorities (who have way more capability to intervene in a violent situation) is more likely to be helpful than me stumbling around trying to “do something”. The cops will not be immediately on the scene, but I can, from “cover” develop a good description of the rapist.”

          This I have a hard time believing. If you would really be content to silently watch a rape happen in front of you without attempting to intervene in any way other than to call the police, I’m not sure we’re able to come to any kind of meeting of the minds. You’ve said several times that self defense doesn’t need guns, so would you be open to at least yelling “stop?” How about trying to pull the guy off her? Or hit him with a stick, or actually anything. You seem to have given up on any violence, even to the point of allowing rape to happen. Please correct me if I’m wrong. You will, however, call the police, who will use whatever force is necessary to stop the rape and capture the rapist. As others have pointed out, farming out violence to authority doesn’t remove it from the world.

          A few other statements of yours I take issue with.

          “Guns are inherently bad because they are designed almost exclusively to destroy (Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy?). Destroy paper,”

          what’s wrong with that?

          “destroy animals,”

          Yes, hunters kill animals and eat them. Is it better to eat the ones raised in factory farms?

          “destroy street lights,”

          Why are you shooting street lights?

          “destroy people. Such power should be parceled-out only to those who are trained, certified, and continually trained in its use for defense. So long as private citizens refuse to submit to recurring professionally certifiable training, LE and military should be the only ones allowed to use firearms.”

          This may be the most terrifying thing you’ve ever written. Are we really going to let the State be our Big Brother, watching over all of us for our own good? Is there no room in your philosophy for self-reliance?

          “Hunting is an unnecessary sport (except for agencies controlling herds),”

          In your opinion.

          “firearms as a deterrent to an elected government is so unlikely as to be “statistically insignificant” (given two revolutions in 240 years).”

          Ask the good people of Hiroshima if nuclear weapons are “Statistically insignificant”, since they’ve only had one dropped on them since the Shogunate era unified Japan. And how do you quantify 240 years of armed citizens giving the government pause when it wants to overreach? Not all deterrence is a revolution, just as not all self-defence ends with a gunshot wound.

          “But we are dealing with gross hypotheticals. To borrow a phrase from POTG, the number of rapes is statistically insignificant compared to the millions and millions of peaceable, innocent interactions between men and women, every hour, every day. I would give as much thought to the victim of rape as POTG would give to the 500 or so deaths due negligent and irresponsible gun handling. It is useful to broadcast that thousands of women are raped everywhere every minute of the day. But we do not have thousands of rape reports every day, nor are there thousands of witnesses to rape everyday.”

          The internet is your friend here. According to FBI stats, there were 79,770 rapes in 2013. Trying to say that that is statistically insignificant because you compare it to all male-female interactions is ridiculous. If you want to try to claim it though, you have to allow us the same tools. I’d bet that for every gun owner in America, they average at least 10 interactions every day. I’m nowhere near the top, but I do dry-fire practice and practice my shotgun swing every day. Right there I’ve got a dozen manipulations. I clean my firearms on occasion, I work on my Mosin for accuracy purposes. They add up. I would imagine Jerry Michulek picks up, puts down, holsters, draws, and fires his firearms hundreds of times a day. So given that, the 500 accidental deaths fade even farther into what you like to call “statistical insignificance.”

          But you and I both know that’s not the case. Rape is a significant problem, and 500 accidental deaths per year are not insignificant. However, they do pale in comparison to the positive uses of firearms, at least in our eyes. When a police officer uses the threat of shooting to make a crazed perp put down his knife and surrender, that’s a net good for firearms. When a concealed carrier defends himself by showing his gun, that’s a positive outcome. And yes, when a lady shoots her attacker before he can rape her, we see that as a positive. You may disagree, and say that the rapist’s life was more valuable than her dignity, but we would disagree.

          “A modern society rejects vigilante justice, personal retribution, taking matters into your own hands. The society decides that police and courts are needed to contain the damage of bad guys. When police become the consensus decision of a society, the use of personal force is surrendered for the greater good. (if one does not like to consider the greater good, maybe one should disengage from that society)”

          Self-defence is neither vigilantism or retribution, although it is taking matters into your own hands. What is wrong with that, though? I can’t afford round the clock police protection, and criminals don’t bother to make reservations. Police are not there to protect you, no matter what it says on the side of their cars. To the extent that might be true, it is only through tactics and policies (like stop and frisk and community policing) that reduce the overall crime rate.The use of personal force at the moment of an attack, when police are absent, should never be surrendered.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          “This I have a hard time believing. If you would really be content to silently watch a rape happen in front of you without attempting to intervene in any way other than to call the police, I’m not sure we’re able to come to any kind of meeting of the minds. ”

          If I were content to simply watch a rape, I would not seek “cover” in order to establish a description of the attacker, nor would I risk being overheard calling 911. Rendering assistance is not restricted to direct intervention. And what assistance do I render if the attacker also takes me out? I am not trained in capturing and containing a criminal. I am a liability to whoever would depend on me to “do something” to stop the attack. When it comes down to it, I also am not responsible for protecting anyone other than myself, and I have immunity from the result of not protecting someone else (just like the cops). I will admit that after further consideration, maybe the best thing for me to do is just walk on and watch out for myself.

          I gauge the significance of rape events against all interactions because without an interaction, the rape cannot occur (rapists do not just drop out of the sky). I cannot begin to know how many non-rape interactions occur, but no one can deny the number is gigantic. I would like to think that gun owners all take time to train, maintain, practice with their guns, but inertia argues against it being as widespread as you suppose (but I have no proof). In any event, the number of gun owner interactions (daily) with their firearms cannot even approach the number of personal interactions that happen every day. So the considered populations are disparate, making smaller raw number of negligent deaths a greater proportion of interactions than do the rapes.

        11. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Relying on lawfully authorized enforcement agencies to do the jobs they are hired for is somehow unacceptable?”

          It’s not just “unacceptable”. It’s DELUSIONAL.

          “Lawfully authorized enforcement agencies” are NOT hired to provide personal protection for individuals to whom they are not assigned as bodyguards, who are not registered confidential informants, or who are not in custody. MEMORIZE:

          1. Police have no legal duty to protect individuals.
          2. Police have no legal liability when they fail to protect individuals.
          3. Police have virtually no physical ability to protect individuals to whom they have not been assigned as bodyguards or who are not in custody.

          The police don’t protect individuals. They draw chalk outlines around individuals who are unable or unwilling to protect THEMSELVES.

          If you’re not willing and able to protect YOURSELF, you’re just not going to get protected AT ALL. Anybody who tells you different is a LIAR.

        12. avatar 2Asux says:

          Police are required to intervene when a crime is in progress, which is different from being a personal body guard. There is no legal requirement for a citizen to attempt to stop any crime in progress. Intervening with a gun, and the intent to do great bodily harm with the gun is vigilantism. While law does allow private persons to intervene to protect, such an act is still taking the law into your own hands, and maybe acting as the entirety of the law. We do not live in a jungle. Laws are there to protect and punish. LE agencies are the designated agency for dealing with crime.

          The presence of LE and laws to deal with criminals acts as a deterrence (else we would be overrun with criminals), and thus a protection for me. LE has it horrible examples of incompetence, but I trust the trained force before trusting an unknown entity wielding death and destruction. Just recently we had on this blog the report of a former Marine who shot at fleeing suspects (a justifiable act?). That marine fired three shots, two into a wall and a third who knows where (the Marine doesn’t). Is that the sort of person you want me to put trust in? Well, how do I know which of you can be trusted and who cannot?

          BTW, those missed shots fired by the Marine? They could have just as easily killed an innocent bystander because the former Marine was acting as a vigilante.

        13. avatar Anonymous says:

          Oh, you mean a person who is raped is not an insignificant being? Really. Neither is someone dead because of negligent gun handling.

          293,000 rapes vs 500 accidental firearms deaths per year. I thought you were a risk mitigation advocate. Come on.

        14. avatar 2Asux says:

          Given the millions and millions of personal interactions between females and males, every day, the raw number of rapes represents an insignificant risk. The likelihood of a rape is approaching zero for any cluster of interactions; risk, nil. Casualties? Statistically insignificant. Risk of rape does not justify underwriting an insurance policy for such.

          But the fallacy you pose is that one raw number is validly comparable to another raw number. The only useful comparison is the likelihood of rape happening as a result of one of the incalculable number of male/female interactions, and the likelihood of being killed by gun negligence (shorthand). Daily personal interactions between females and males grossly out numbers the number of daily gun handling incidents (no one can argue that in society, there are great numbers of incidents where a gun owner is handling a gun in the presence of a non-gun owner, so the risk of negligent death may actually be higher.)

          In the end, with all the factors considered, rape victims are as statistically insignificant as are those killed by negligent gun owners.

        15. avatar Anonymous says:

          Self-defense ≠ gun only. Except on gun blogs.

          You are welcome to use your hands, feet, and knuckles on the criminals assaulting you armed with firearms. Good luck.

        16. avatar 2Asux says:

          How many times have we seen, on this blog, gun owners complaining about how knives are so deadly as to justify use of a gun to stop a knife attack? Can’t have it both ways. If knives are so effective that a gun is not disproportionate force, then knives are effective and efficient self-defense weapons. To mention only one alternate weapon.

        17. avatar Anonymous says:

          Intervening with a gun, and the intent to do great bodily harm with the gun is vigilantism.

          But that is exactly what the cops are going to do when they arrive. Why is it OK for them but not for others? How is self defense for yourself or others vigilantism?

          Please read more here:

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/vigilantism

          You are not avenging a crime here. You are proactively protecting those who cannot protect themselves prior to police arrival. Without your help, that person may suffer grievous bodily harm or death.

        18. avatar 2Asux says:

          To begin at the end, self-defense does not include defense of others (by definition).

          The difference between alternative weapons and guns is that guns can only destroy. Alternate weapons can be those that will kill, but are not intended, or designed for that purpose alone.

        19. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Police are required to intervene when a crime is in progress”

          No, they’re not. They have no duty to protect any individual. Nor does that individual have any recourse if they don’t.

          My grandmother was in Chicago during the 1919 race riot when the police EXPLICITLY refused to protect the Black community from White rioters… including future Mayor, Richard J. Daley

          Police protection of individuals is a LIE.

        20. avatar Anonymous says:

          Given the millions and millions of personal interactions between females and males, every day, the raw number of rapes represents an insignificant risk. The likelihood of a rape is approaching zero for any cluster of interactions; risk, nil. Casualties? Statistically insignificant. Risk of rape does not justify underwriting an insurance policy for such.

          Still selling insurance huh?

          But the fallacy you pose is that one raw number is validly comparable to another raw number. The only useful comparison is the likelihood of rape happening as a result of one of the incalculable number of male/female interactions, and the likelihood of being killed by gun negligence (shorthand). Daily personal interactions between females and males grossly out numbers the number of daily gun handling incidents…

          I disagree with your premise. Why does the occurrence of a rape depend upon an interaction? You can be walking along a sidewalk and a chloroformed cloth get pressed into your face without any interaction. You can get hit by a stray bullet from a cop or concealed carrier without any interaction. Nothing wrong with the comparison of these raw numbers. Quite simply, in a given year, there are 293,000 sexual assaults and around 500 unintentional firearm deaths. The numbers speak for themselves. Rape is grossly more likely to occur than an unintentional firearm death, regardless of interaction, or your statistical psychological rationalization.

          In the end, with all the factors considered, rape victims are as statistically insignificant as are those killed by negligent gun owners.

          Then why are you so worried about them?

    2. avatar Chris Morton says:

      “A society should be working constantly to rehabilitate those who do violence or death to others, not trying to find more creative machines to visit violence and death on other citizens.”

      I’m not a social worker, nor do I play one on TV or the internet.

      I have no duty, no training, nor indeed the desire to “rehabilitate” anyone. What I have is the desire and indeed the INALIENABLE RIGHT to do is to go about my business unmolested by violent predators. If said predators violate that right, I have the additional right to use force, and if necessary DEADLY force to protect myself from them.

      The intended victim of a robber, rapist or murderer has no duty to make their assailant a better person. They have the RIGHT to make them a SAFER person… if necessary, by delivering to them two bullets to center of mass and one to the head. If said predators, their mutant families or their “posses” don’t like that, they should take up safer pursuits than violent crime… macrame perhaps.

      1. avatar BhamLyan says:

        Several pellets of #1 or larger buckshot should also do the trick.

      2. avatar 2Asux says:

        You and your buddies value rights over life. The total insensitivity to helping people get their lives straight is in line with the complete disregard for the people killed and injured every year by irresponsible,negligent gun owners. It seems the entirety of concern of gun owners for fellow citizens is wrapped up in “I got my rights, stuff it.” “I got no responsibility for anything beyond my nose, so stuff it.” “I am complete, inviolable, and concerned with only how to get you out of my way.”

        So how valuable is the life of those you claim to be armed to protect? You can’t sell insensitivity to others as altruism.

        1. avatar Kevin says:

          “You and your buddies value rights over life.”

          Actually, I value my own life and that of my loved ones more than I value the life of a taker. If you want to be a pacifist, and cower behind a wall while your daughter is being raped – well, I don’t understand you, but I grant that you have that right.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          We both value ourselves and our families. I do not protest self-defense, or in most cases defense of others. However, I do not think the insignificant number of criminal events any one of us will encounter justifies arming anyone and everyone. A provably more disciplined and trained group of gun owners would be something to weigh thoughtfully. Rampant gun ownership by God knows who is just unconscionable.

        3. avatar Chris Morton says:

          One of MY rights is the right to live unmolested by violent predators.

          You would take that right away by forced submission to any atavistic savage who comes along.

          Feel free to practice unilateral pacifism in YOUR life.

          Of course the nice thing is, AS a unilateral pacifist, you have NO means to compel ANY action or inaction on my part.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          Thank you for proving my point that for gunnies, “self-defense” starts and ends with a gun.

          There are viable alternative weapons. Self-defense methods cover an array of instruments, of which a gun is the narrowest of choice.

          Self-defense? Absolutely. Unfettered gun ownership, no.

        5. avatar Roymond says:

          “You and your buddies value rights over life. The total insensitivity to helping people get their lives straight is in line with the complete disregard for the people killed and injured every year by irresponsible,negligent gun owners.”

          Yes, there are “irresponsible negligent gun owners”. This is why the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to make effort toward getting the militia more “well-regulated”, an authority found in Article I Section 8.

          But most anti-gunners resist another part of the Constitution on this subject, namely the matter of equality before the law. Congress cannot mandate something for one part of the militia without mandating for all of it, and that means that if we want gun owners to be less negligent and irresponsible (as we should) we can’t just require gun owners to get the training to be responsible and non-negligent with guns (arms), we have to require ALL the militia — all of us — to get that training (just as if we want to provide mental health correctives to reduce gun violence, we have to provide it to everyone — as we should).

          BTW, most people live “in complete disregard” of the deaths among us, regardless of the cause. It’s easy to single out one instrument of death, but as the illustration asked, where are the militants against public swimming pools? Additionally, where are the militants against the manufacture of meat products, the irresponsible and negligent use of which also causes death? That latter item points to the real issue with guns: as with anything else, the only thin we can do rationally is insist on product safety, just as we do with the processing of meat. We do not seek to ban meat (or swimming pools) because some people misuse or negligently and/or irresponsibly abuse them, rather we seek to make sure that they are made with the best safety features reasonably available (and sometimes unreasonably) [This is why Hillary’s lie about the protection of gun manufacturers is especially annoying; anyone who has read the law knows it only grants gun makers the same protection all manufacturers have.]).

          We disregard the death around us for a simple reason: we would go crazy with grief and depression if we didn’t. It doesn’t mean we are uncaring, it means we are sane; we reserve our caring for what impacts us. And what impacts many gun owners is that there is a real and present segment of society who pose a threat to the safety and well-being of the rest of us, and do it intentionally, so we respond by being prepared while hoping against hope that we never encounter the need to employ our preparations (just as we hope we’ll never need the fire extinguisher or even the smoke detector meant to alert us to the need for that extinguisher).

          Most gun owners will spend their lives being prepared and never ever face the need to make use of that preparation. In my case, I have faced the need, and have protected myself against assault and children against abuse — and since I know for a fact that only the presence of my gun preserved the wholeness and safety of innocents in those situations I can and do rationally demand that no one interfere with my ability to extend or employ such protection in the future, because to do so is to look back and say that it were better that I had been injured or killed, that those children have been molested.

          You see, in a few hands, guns mean violence and death. But in most hands, guns mean protection and safety. The rational person seeks to address the one without limiting in any way whatsoever the other.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          I like your deduction that the entire militia should be well and repeatedly trained. However, requiring the militia to be “well regulated” (disciplined and trained), would be mandatory, and definitely considered an infringement on the absolute RTKBA, with no mandatory rules or regulations, of any kind.

        7. avatar BhamLyan says:

          2Asux, it is telling how you always attempt to force the discussion away from guns in regard to a positive topic like self-defense (“What part of self-defense, using a weapon other than a gun, is do difficult to understand”), but then try to ignore everything aside from guns in regard to a negative topic like violence, accusing pro-gun proponents of deflection when we point out the larger perspective of more harmful instruments that people negligently use.

          What part of violence or negligence, using a weapon other than a gun, is so difficult to understand?

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Almost all of the alternative defensive weapons cannot harm bystanders blocks away through reckless use or missing the intended target. I am not a pacifist. The first rule of a gunfight is to not be there. The first rule of self-defense is to not be where self-defense is required. Once attacked, however, violence in return is the only option (assuming the victim could not flee before or during the attack).

          I don’t see a conflict here. When attacked, use any weapon available to end the attack (including providing time to escape). But not a gun. A gun can visit violence and death far beyond the immediate attacker.

        9. avatar BhamLyan says:

          A gun can also immediately end a confrontation without the actual need for violence as the threat of lethal force in merely brandishing a firearm often (but not always) causes assailants to flee without a single shot fired, as seen in the vast majority of defensive gun uses. We rarely need to squeeze the trigger in our lawful defense, making firearms the single most effective tool for self-defense.

          Forcing less effective self-defense measures by eliminating firearms through full scale confiscation, as you have previously advocated, inflicts more violence on victims defending themselves, requiring them to stab, punch, kick, or spray their way out of a confrontation because pulling out your oleoresin capsicum hardly ever triggers flight of your attacker.

          Do not try to hide behind a facade of respect for unarmed self-defense. We all know from your constant antagonism that you simply hate guns and will say anything to advance the objective of civilian disarmament.

          You exploit the leniency of TTAG moderators in a way that would and has gotten many of us banned from Moms Demand Action and other anti-gun forums.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          Gun confiscation is a last resort. If nothing else will prevent “good guys” from becoming mass murderers, then society has the advantage of coercion. So far, the only solutions I have seen from most commenters is that nothing is to be done, in any way to try to put an end to these random shootings (I acknowledge that some have recommended “Eddie Eagle” in schools, but they are rare). Or maybe people are willing to discuss methods so long as they can keep their guns (how is it that with a declining crime rate, people still insist they need guns for safety?)

          All laws exist to control behavior of the public. Gun laws are no different.

        11. avatar Roymond says:

          “(how is it that with a declining crime rate, people still insist they need guns for safety?)”

          I was a lifeguard for seven years during which drowning rates and totals fell steadily, but no one ever asserted that meant we no longer needed lifeguards.

        12. avatar 2Asux says:

          Almost every hotel and motel with a swimming pool has no lifeguard on duty, or even on the premises. Drownings in hotel and motel swimming pools have risen not a bit. The presence of a lifeguard at a pool does not significantly influence the drowning rate in the nation. (but I welcome the presence of a lifeguard in case the really rare near-drowning takes place, because I am not equipped to safely rescue someone from drowning).

        13. avatar Anonymous says:

          You and your buddies value rights over life.

          Excellent. I’m glad you finally put this together. Rights and freedoms are more important than life. “Rights” were hard earned with the sacrifice of many lives.

        14. avatar 2Asux says:

          Not a bad theory. Nicely stated.

          But “rights” to the exclusion of life is a bit extreme, not?

          However, no “right” is absolute. Your right to have a gun ends when your stray bullet impacts my belongings or my flesh. You are the potential “aggressor”, not the person minding their own business, with no ability to threaten you. The “aggressor” has responsibility to do everything possible to ensure they do not negligently take the life of another (which cannot be restored, unlike gun rights).

        15. avatar Anonymous says:

          The total insensitivity to helping people get their lives straight is in line with the complete disregard for the people killed and injured every year by irresponsible,negligent gun owners.

          But not the 55,000 to 80,000 or so lives defended with firearms every year, huh?

        16. avatar 2Asux says:

          You got me. Every life “saved” by a gun owner justifies the loss of innocent life by a gun owner. And in your numbers, the thousands and thousands “saved” far outweigh the unnecessary death of only a few hundred because life is tough stuff, eh?

        17. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “There are viable alternative weapons. Self-defense methods cover an array of instruments, of which a gun is the narrowest of choice.”

          And I’m going to defend myself from someone armed with a gun… or somebody who 6″ taller and 100lb.s heavier with WHAT? A sword? A morningstar? A fairy wand?

          What you are advocating is a world ruled by large, strong men, armed with cutting weapons and clubs.

          We tried that. It was called “the Dark Ages”…

        18. avatar 2Asux says:

          “We tried that. It was called “the Dark Ages”…”

          And millions running around with guns is “the Enlightenment?”

        19. avatar Anonymous says:

          However, no “right” is absolute. Your right to have a gun ends when your stray bullet impacts my belongings or my flesh.

          It is the right to “keep and bear arms” – not the right to “shoot 2Asux or his belongings.”

        20. avatar 2Asux says:

          “It is the right to “keep and bear arms” – not the right to shoot 2aSux or his belongings.”

          Then keep your guns, bear your guns; don’t use them because I don’t want to be your victim of negligence.

        21. avatar Anonymous says:

          You got me. Every life “saved” by a gun owner justifies the loss of innocent life by a gun owner Criminal intent on harming people who doesn’t care about laws and certainly not gun control laws.

          Fixed it for you.

          And in your numbers, the thousands and thousands “saved” far outweigh the unnecessary death of only a few hundred because life is tough stuff, eh?

          Why not? Definitely is logically sound.

        22. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “And millions running around with guns is “the Enlightenment?””

          PRECISELY.

          With guns, I don’t have to pretend that Bull Conner will “protect” me.

          With guns, a woman doesn’t have to pretend that Tony Abbate… or Drew Peterson will “protect” her.

        23. avatar 2Asux says:

          You (and “she”) can achieve the same result with weapons other than a gun.

        24. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “You (and “she”) can achieve the same result with weapons other than a gun.”

          Not bloody likely… but then that’s not what you really want anyway.

          You want the woman to be beaten to a bloody pulp… THEN raped.

        25. avatar 2Asux says:

          “Not bloody likely”

          Citation please. When gun lovers are looking to DGUs for justification, who spends time looking for self-defense events where a gun is not used? “Likely” requires a comparison between successful, non-gun, self-defense and unsuccessful attempts at self-defense without a gun.

        26. avatar Anonymous says:

          You (and “she”) can achieve the same result with weapons other than a gun.

          Your inability to reconcile your own conflicting opinions is showing. You say the same result can be made with a weapon other than a gun.

          Chris brings up, “What you are advocating is a world ruled by large, strong men, armed with cutting weapons and clubs.” Then you say “And millions running around with guns is “the Enlightenment?”

          So what you are advocating for no defense at all? Make up your mind and figure it out. When you invent a Star Trek phaser you can put them on stun and start handing them out. Till then, figure out what self defense means to you.

          If you are being beaten to a bloody pulp on the ground, while being shafted with STDs, would you want a concealed carrier to stop it, or would you want them to go hide and get a description of the perp???? What about when the perp is repeatedly stabbing you. When you are bleeding out on the ground… do you want the concealed carrier who hid and got a description to come and help control the bleeding, or do you want him to just call and ambulance and watch you die. Your whole concept is completely insane.

        27. avatar 2Asux says:

          My understanding is that you believe that there are no weapons other than a gun, that were ever successfully deployed against an attacker. (citation please).

          That position would be rendered ineffective if there was even one instance of a victim defeating an attack without using a gun.

          My point is that there are effective alternatives to a gun for self-defense, effective alternatives. And all I need is a single example.

          The belief that only a gun can protect a person is the reason we are constantly pushing for more common sense restrictions. There are people with guns whose thinking is too dangerous for them to be unregulated.

      3. avatar Chris Morton says:

        “You (and “she”) can achieve the same result with weapons other than a gun.”

        That’s sheer delusion, and indeed a LIE.

        If it could be achieved with other weapons, the police would be carrying them.

        Your ONLY concern is to see the attacks against the innocent succeed, and with the greatest harm to the victims.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          You still don’t see the trap, do you?

          If a gun is considered legitimate deadly force to be deployed against a knife attack, then a knife is on par with the deadliness of a gun (else you would have disparate force, and subject to legal sanctions…using more force than necessary/allowed). If a knife is deadly enough in attack to justify a response by gun fire, then a knife must be a pretty effective weapon. If a baseball bat is considered a deadly enough weapon in attack that defense by gun is legitimate/legal/justified, then a bat must be an effective deadly weapon. Else, you are employing disparate force.

          And so on.

          You cannot argue that someone attacking with a knife is not using deadly force permitting defense with a firearm, without simultaneously admitting that using a gun against a knife-wielding attacker is unjustified, and illegal.

          Self-defense is not a synonym for gun.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          You cannot argue that someone attacking with a knife is not using deadly force permitting defense with a firearm, without simultaneously admitting that using a gun against a knife-wielding attacker is unjustified, and illegal.

          Sure you can. When you discuss the pros and cons of a knife vs a gun.

          But not only that – it doesn’t matter. You can defend yourself when you reasonably perceive a threat of grievous bodily harm or death.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          Gun lover logic fails when they declare that using a gun against a knife, scissors, bat, fists, you name it is justified because any weapon can be used to kill you, then argue that all of those alternative weapons are ineffective as weapons.

          If alternative weapons are not effective in the attack, then a gun owner would go to jail for using a gun in defense because….disparate force applied. Since the law permits the use of self-defense (including a gun) against a deadly attack, even non-gun weapons must be effectively deadly. If non-gun weapons are effectively deadly, they are effective in defensive use.

    3. avatar Ing says:

      What so many people fail to understand is that violence is not not inherently evil. It’s merely a favored tactic of people who do evil things.

      A violent act doesn’t magically pollute the actor. It’s the purpose of the violence that makes it either evil and unlawful or righteous and necessary.

      You and “JP” in the article both have the mistaken assumption that when we speak of self-defense it means we want to be violent. You said, “if you insist on doing violence and death…” but you’ve got it backwards. We don’t insist; it’s only if someone else insists with evil intent that we will reluctantly resort to whatever force will most effectively stop the aggressor.

      The handful of times when I have had to use violence against others (never with any kind of weapon, thankfully), I did so only because someone else insisted on making it impossible for me to do otherwise if I valued myself and the wellbeing of my loved ones (which of course I do). If you put my life and wellbeing in the balance through aggressively violent behavior that says your desires are worth more than my life, you’ve just put your life in my hands.

      1. avatar Roymond says:

        If violence is inherently evil, then the God of the Bible and other books is evil.

    4. avatar Kendahl says:

      There are evil people in the world who will respect the persons and property of others only when forced to do so against their wills. Your words show that you would rather let them have their way than do what is necessary to thwart them. To me, that makes you an accessory before the fact in their crimes.

      I have watched videos of two attacks on police officers, one of which resulted in the officer’s death. Had I come across either incident while driving, I would have unhesitatingly aimed my automobile at the assailant, floored the accelerator pedal and run him down. By attacking the officer, he subordinated his welfare to that of the officer (and to mine.)

    5. avatar W.R. Chandler says:

      Jesus, you are serious. I thought you were joking around.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “…you are serious. I thought you were joking around.”

        Probably my fault; kinda take violence and death really serious.

        1. avatar Kendahl says:

          We do, too. The difference is how we respond to an unjustified attack on an innocent person. We believe the victim’s rights take precedence over the assailant’s. You are willing to sacrifice the victims to avoid using force against the assailant.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          No, actually. I am against using a gun against another person. As I noted in another comment, I have the same high regard for the statistically insignificant number of rape victims as gun lovers have for the 500+ killed each year by negligent, irresponsible gun owners. More people die in car accidents than are raped each year, and so on and so forth.

        3. avatar Chris Morton says:

          Which is apparently why you’d force others to passively submit to them.

          It’s not violence you abhor, merely the forceful resistance to aggression.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          Are you reading all the commentary?

          Self-defense is not exclusively restricted to a gun (except on this blog). What part of self-defense, using a weapon other than a gun, is do difficult to understand.

          While I do appreciate all those who reinforce my observation that for gun lovers self-defense starts and ends with a gun, the inability of people here to separate action from tool is just the sort of thing that, fortunately, earns you the reputation people with gun sense proposals see all too clearly.

        5. avatar Roymond says:

          “Self-defense is not exclusively restricted to a gun (except on this blog). What part of self-defense, using a weapon other than a gun, is do difficult to understand. ”

          Limiting what a person may use for self-defense is limiting that right. Saying “You may not use a gun” for self-defense is like telling a publisher “You may not use color” for publishing: it degrades the effective exercise of the right in question. And a right degraded is a right denied, just as justice delayed is justice denied.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          I do understand you thinking about removing a single method of self-defense. That, however, does not translate to elimination of “self-defense” as a concept and principle. If people here want to state opposition to common sense controls on gun usage, they should be careful not to go hyper and scream that restrictions on gun ownership somehow means giving up the natural, human and civil right of and to self-defense. To argue self-defense is eliminated if guns cannot be deployed is a classic “strawman” argument.

        7. avatar Anonymous says:

          No, actually. I am against using a gun against another person.

          Haha. If only criminals thought the same way.

          As I noted in another comment, I have the same high regard for the statistically insignificant number of rape victims as gun lovers have for the 500+ killed each year by negligent, irresponsible gun owners. More people die in car accidents than are raped each year, and so on and so forth.

          293 thousand rapes/sexual assaults each year. Greater than car accident deaths, accidental firearms deaths, falls, and many others combined.

          https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault

        8. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Self-defense is not exclusively restricted to a gun (except on this blog). What part of self-defense, using a weapon other than a gun, is do difficult to understand.”

          So what you’re saying is that you’re not against self-defense… you’re just against EFFECTIVE self-defense.

          You don’t mind somebody defending themselves from an unlawful deadly force attack… so long as the odds of them succeeding are low, and the odds of them SURVIVING only slightly less so.

          You are, like all anti-gun cultists, “OSHA for rapists”.

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          Thus the conclusion, self-defense is defined totally and absolutely, without exception, as shooting someone.

          By which research do you conclude any other weapon is ineffective in self-defense? Maybe just gut emotion?

        10. avatar Anonymous says:

          Thus the conclusion, self-defense is defined totally and absolutely, without exception, as shooting someone.

          By which research do you conclude any other weapon is ineffective in self-defense? Maybe just gut emotion?

          I support the inclusion of all methods of self defense. But I don’t support the exclusion of firearms as a method of self defense. You can use whatever you want to. Hands, knuckles, feet, Krav Maga, Kung Fu, whatever – but i’m using a firearm.

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          Firearms used in self-defense represent a threat to bystanders not possible with almost any alternate weapon. Gun owners here may not care about the threat to bystanders, but as a potential bystander, I find the risk of negligent injury unacceptable.

        12. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Thus the conclusion, self-defense is defined totally and absolutely, without exception, as shooting someone.”

          There is no EFFECTIVE defense against deadly force EXCEPT deadly force.

          There is no EFFECTIVE defense against a gun EXCEPT a GUN… unless you’re ok with hand grenades.

          Gun control, the theory that 110lb. women have a “right” to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

        13. avatar 2Asux says:

          “There is no EFFECTIVE defense against a gun EXCEPT a GUN… unless you’re ok with hand grenades.”

          Then stopping a knife attack by using a gun is de facto disproportionate force, by your own statement. If a knife cannot stop a person with a gun, the use of a gun to stop a knife attack if “overkill”. You end up saying that if someone attacks with a gun you are justified using a gun to stop them, but an attacker with a knife poses no ability to stop a person (the defender) with a gun.

          Which is it?

        14. avatar Roymond says:

          “If people here want to state opposition to common sense controls on gun usage, they should be careful not to go hyper and scream that restrictions on gun ownership somehow means giving up the natural, human and civil right of and to self-defense.”

          I have yet to hear any “common sense controls on gun usage”, because every proposal put out by anti-gunners depends on people not being criminals. Background checks don’t bother criminals any more than the law against stealing. Waiting periods don’t matter to criminals, nor any other proposal advanced by anti-gun congresscriters. Experts are pretty unanimous that not a single gun control law yet proposed would have done anything to stop bad guys from getting the guns they want.

          As for self-defense, guns are the most useful and effective items in existence for the purpose. A person can defend against an attacker three times his or her size, even against multiple attackers, better with a gun than anything. So by singling out guns one is attacking the most available and effective possible choice for self-defense. That is, in essence, attacking the right itself because it takes away all real possibility of self-defense from the majority of people.

          Justice delayed is justice denied; defense diminished is defense denied.

        15. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Then stopping a knife attack by using a gun is de facto disproportionate force, by your own statement.”

          Deadly force is deadly force.

          If somebody attacks you with a gun, you’re allowed to shoot them.
          If somebody attacks you with a knife, you’re allowed to shoot them.
          If somebody attacks you with a claw hammer, you’re allowed to shoot them.

          To hear you tell it a woman who awakes to find a rapist with a knife in her bedroom is required to use a knife instead of a gun. That’s not only NOT the law, it’s purest evil. You’re ONLY concern is to see the UNLAWFUL deadly force SUCCEED.

          You are OSHA for rapists.

        16. avatar 2Asux says:

          “If somebody attacks you with a gun, you’re allowed to shoot them.
          If somebody attacks you with a knife, you’re allowed to shoot them.
          If somebody attacks you with a claw hammer, you’re allowed to shoot them.”

          All of the weapons you list are effective deadly weapons in defense. You can’t argue that non-gun deadly weapons justify a defense by gun because those deadly weapons are deadly, then turn around and claim those weapons are not deadly enough for self-defense. Under the law, the knife, the gun, the claw hammer are considered one and the same if you are attacked by any. Therefore, those items must be considered to have the same deadly effectiveness as a gun.

        17. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Under the law, the knife, the gun, the claw hammer are considered one and the same if you are attacked by any. Therefore, those items must be considered to have the same deadly effectiveness as a gun.”

          Well, if they truly “have the same deadly effectiveness as a gun”, knifes, hammers, etc., then the acquisition of those objects should have purchase controls every bit as thorough as there are for guns.

          Yellow sheet, NICS check, etc.

          Just to go shopping at Home Depot…

        18. avatar 2Asux says:

          If you are attacked with any one of the weapons listed, you are allowed to use a gun in self-defense. Why?…..Because they represent effective killing weapons when used in an attack. If you are allowed to defend with a gun against any one of those weapons, they must be equivalent to the attacker having a gun (equivalent = effective). Therefore, such items used as weapons in defense must be alternate weapons that are equivalent to a gun. You can’t escape your own logic. If the listed items are not so effective a weapon as a gun, you would be justified in using a gun in defense.

        19. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “All of the weapons you list are effective deadly weapons in defense. You can’t argue that non-gun deadly weapons justify a defense by gun because those deadly weapons are deadly, then turn around and claim those weapons are not deadly enough for self-defense.”

          Nobody’s buying this schtick.

          It’s painfully obvious that you expect a 60 year old woman… or a man in a wheelchair to fight a 250lb. man armed with claw hammer to fight their assailant with a claw hammer.

          Again, you don’t mind any method or means… so long as the defender is likely to FAIL in his or her defense, AND by seriously injured or killed in the process.

          You’re OSHA for rapists.

        20. avatar 2Asux says:

          “You’re OSHA for rapists.”

          In the end, all non-serious thinkers revert to personal attacks.

        21. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “In the end, all non-serious thinkers revert to personal attacks.”

          Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

          Your CLEAR goal is for the victim to not just fail to defend herself, but for her to be seriously in the process.

          The denials of racism, attempts to portray all deadly weapons as EQUALLY deadly weapons, and the insistence that 110lb. women fight 210lb. men with claw hammers using claw hammers, they’re all just prima facia evidence of not just a troll, but a racist and misogynist troll.

  30. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    @NinjaTed, you’re far more patient than I. I would have “walked away” much sooner.

  31. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Racist gun control history was totally avoided.
    Historical gun confiscation of black gun owners property not discussed.
    As a black gun owner I deal with the topic very differently. My conversations are much shorter. I have wondered if the person on the receiving end had to change their underwear after our talk. (Sarcasm inserted here)

    They normally end up sounding very uncomfortable at the end of the conversation.
    I don’t yell at them nor do I curse them. I would like the conversation to last longer but I have no takers.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      I too am a Black gun owner, and a liberal one at that.

      The history of gun control in North America is the history of violent White supremacism and the efforts of its proponents to create for themselves a “safe working environment”.

      It’s interesting that I’ve been called a “nigger” every bit as often by White “liberal” anti-gunners as by neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates, ESPECIALLY when I have refused their ORDERS to submissively support invidiously racist gun controls when TOLD to.

      But hey, I guess I don’t really need a gun, because a cop… like the one who killed Akai Gurley will be there in an instant to “protect” me…

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        “Where are the examples of rules of purchasing a gun to be different, based on race?”

        The laws are ENFORCED with a racial bias. You KNOW it… and SUPPORT it.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          You are saying that gun dealers rampantly allow white folks to buy guns without a federal (and in some cases state) background check, but they require all black people (or any minority) to comply with the background check laws?
          – Citation please (and not just one isolated event somewhere in history)

          You are saying that gun dealers rampantly allow white folks to buy illegal high capacity magazines , but they require all black people (or any minority) to comply with the magazine capacity laws?
          – Citation please (and not just one isolated event somewhere in history)

          You are saying that gun dealers rampantly allow white folks to buy suppressors without going through the NFA process, but they require all black people (or any minority) to comply with the NFA laws?
          – Citation please (and not just one isolated event somewhere in history)

        2. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “You are saying that gun dealers rampantly allow white folks to buy guns without a federal (and in some cases state) background check, but they require all black people (or any minority) to comply with the background check laws?”

          No, YOU are saying that.

          I’m saying that repressive gun laws are INVARIABLY applied more harshly to Blacks (and other non-Whites) than to Whites… which is EXACTLY what you WANT.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          For purposes of discussion of guns and gun things, I do not care about all the other injustices, crimes, safety issues, or whatever extraneous outrage can be identified. When it comes to gun laws, where are the modern examples of white folks being allowed to ignore/bypass federal and state laws, while non-whites are forced to endure background checks, waiting periods, NFA process?

        4. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “For purposes of discussion of guns and gun things, I do not care about all the other injustices, crimes, safety issues, or whatever extraneous outrage can be identified.”

          “So Mrs. Lincoln, other than THAT how was the play…”

          What you want is for Black people to COMPLETELY ignore the ENTIRE history of the criminal justice system in America, and indeed what it is TODAY, in order to support a set of laws and policies crafted EXPRESSLY to disarm and control us.

          The answer is “no”.

          This is where you start hurling racial slurs because I don’t recognize your inherent “superiority” and “right” to rule over me…

    2. avatar 2Asux says:

      We have moved beyond some of our more pernicious past actions regarding restricting minorities from guns. Everything now proposed in bringing common sense to the gun problem is spread across the entire population, not just minorities. Gun safety rules apply to every gun owner, period. Any gun restriction on the table today applies to every gun owner, and potential gun owner, with no regard for race or ethnicity. Yes, white people are responsible for some horrible actions in years gone by, but that does not diminish the good that has been done since the 60s.

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        “Gun safety rules” – What ARE the 3 Laws of Gun Safety? We’ll also accept the 4 Laws, but this is not an open book test. If you have not memorized the 3 (or 4) Laws of Gun Safety, do not presume to lecture on gun safety.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          The 3, 4 or 5 “gun rules” are important, but gun owners deposit unjustifiable confidence in every other gun owner to never, never, no matter what, violate those rules (and we have 500 dead every year because the human is not fail-safe). If you do not handle a tool routinely, you forget over time how to be safe and efficient with that tool. For instance, “Don’t use a knife as a tool and cut with the blade toward you.” How many thousands of us have little scars to prove we were just so sure we would never cut ourselves? You expect bus drivers, airline pilots, doctors, EMTs to be trained, and to employ best practices every time. Those people go through annual refresher specialty and safety training. Why should Joe Dokes with a gun not be subject to the same frequency of safety and operation with a gun?

        2. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Blondes get more attention that any other hair color. Is that racist?”

          The LAW isn’t crafted to achieve that end.

          New York City’s gun laws are CRAFTED to limit gun ownership largely to wealthy, politically influential WHITE people. That’s what they were INTENDED to do. It’s what they DO. It’s what the anti-gun cult WANTS.

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          The “anti-gun cult” wants all firearms gone, from everywhere except LE and the military. That includes taking guns from the criminal element.

          If you want to discuss the “unfairness” of the wealthy benefiting from their wealth, that is a good subject, but the fact is gun laws are applied across the board, regardless of race. A law is racist if it is applied exclusively to an identifiable ethnic group. “White folks” are subject to the same gun restrictions as any other ethnic group (yes, wealthy “people of color” can get what the average person cannot).

        4. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “If you want to discuss the “unfairness” of the wealthy benefiting from their wealth, that is a good subject, but the fact is gun laws are applied across the board, regardless of race.”

          That is an unmitigated LIE.

          I have a friend who worked as a criminal defense attorney in Chicago. It was customary for Whites found with guns to be released WITH THEIR GUNS, while Blacks were arrested, charged and tried. Apart from judges, bailiffs and testifying cops, there are NO White faces in “gun court”.

          Gun laws are applied no more “impartially” than drug laws. Any claim to the contrary is a LIE.

          The philosophical core of gun control in North America is White supremacism.

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          Where are the examples of rules of purchasing a gun to be different, based on race? Where are the examples of magazine capacity limits enforced on minorities, but not white folks? Where are the examples of white folks being allowed to carry a gun on school grounds, but not minorities? Where are the examples of white folks being allowed to buy a suppressor without the NFA drill, but minorities are always required to follow the law? Where are the examples of gun dealers legally selling guns to white folks without requiring a federal background check, but only minorities are forced to comply with the law?

          The examples above are illustrative that gun laws are not racist at/to the core.

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        “We have moved beyond some of our more pernicious past actions regarding restricting minorities from guns.”

        No we haven’t. Tell everybody what it would take for a NON-criminal Black man to own and carry a gun in New York City.

        For whom is it easier to get a gun in NYC, a Black woman behind the counter at Starbucks, or Donald Trump?

        Gun control is invidiously racist… but then that’s how its supporters have always liked it.

        Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          Power and wealth always carry more influence, no matter your political views. Blondes get more attention that any other hair color. Is that racist?

          The fact that a wealthy person can get a “favor” and have a gun when a poor person cannot, is not racist. Except for the oddities you point to, the laws of gun ownership in New York apply to all races.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Power and wealth always carry more influence, no matter your political views.

          So elitism is ok? You are pro-elitism?

          Blondes get more attention that any other hair color. Is that racist?

          Yes. Everyone should have equal opportunity for attention. For things to be fair, everyone’s hair needs to be blonde.

          The fact that a wealthy person can get a “favor” and have a gun when a poor person cannot, is not racist. Except for the oddities you point to, the laws of gun ownership in New York apply to all races.

          So racism = bad; Elitism = good?

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          “So racism = bad; Elitism = good?”

          I am a realist, society allows for “elitism”. Elitism exists. Now, if you want to get rid of “elitism”, then you entered my world and we can talk about that. Social justice is the result of eliminating the extremes at both ends of the economic scale.

          Join the Bern.

        4. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “I am a realist”

          You misspelled “nihilist”…

        5. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Join the Bern.”

          Socialism produces two things: Kalashnikovs and corpses… in about equal proportions.

        6. avatar Roymond says:

          “Except for the oddities you point to, the laws of gun ownership in New York apply to all races.”

          “Apply to” is theory — it how they’re applied that counts. Frak, in the south end of this county if anyone but a white person walks into a store to buy a gun, they’re ignored like they don’t exist.

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          Now you are arguing for my side….any law that has an adverse effect on any minority person is, on its face, racist. See voter ID.

          I am arguing for your side, that just because a minority person is mistreated individually under the law, the intent and existence of the law is not racist. See voter ID.

        8. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Do you really think that if you had called 911 on your cell phone that law enforcement representatives would have informed you that they no obligation to respond, that you were on your own?”

          They don’t have to SAY anything. They have no LEGAL DUTY to respond, and no LEGAL LIABILITY if they don’t. Of course when it happened normal people didn’t HAVE cell phones. But it’s a moot point, as you KNOW. Cell phone, land line or PRC-77, they have NO duty to respond.

          And while we’re at it, friends and I have indeed been TOLD, by BOTH the Fulton, MO PD and the Callaway County Sheriff’s Department that they COULDN’T respond to death threats from a drug dealer’s “enforcer”. The Fulton PD did say that if one of us were killed, they’d spring into action. The Sheriff advised us to arm ourselves, which we did and which we made known to the thug in question. The threats stopped.

          Your only suggestion is make believe and acceptance of death.

          You’ve LIED about this coming out of the gate and continue to LIE.

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          My point is that notwithstanding no “duty” to protect, police do respond to calls of a crime in progress. People here seem to believe that SCOTUS ruled that police are not even allowed to respond to emergency calls. Like it or not, the whole of society depends for survival, the ability and likelihood that LE will respond to calls for help during the commission of a crime.

        10. avatar Roymond says:

          If society “depended on LE” for stopping crimes, there would be more than one more person-against-person crime per minute in the U.S.

          source is CDC.

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          “If society “depended on LE” for stopping crimes, there would be more than one more person-against-person crime per minute in the U.S.”

          – Did CDC have a prognostication for the crime rate if there no police patrolling the communities? I submit we are all dependent on police to deter (another word for “stop”) crime to some effect. No one can claim that their gun deters crime (granted, in an immediate attack, one might be able to deter that crime) to the point that the liklihood of any one person being subject to a crime is extremely low. Otherwise we would be required to walk about with our guns in our hands (causing quite a difficulty with going about normal day-to-day activities).

          Gun people like to declare that “more guns equals less crime”. I’ll spot you that one for the moment. If having guns is responsible for the lowering crime rate, and the crime rat is lower now than at some point in history, the likelihood of any one individual being subject to a crime, then why the need for all the guns? Maybe gun owners are not winning the battle against crime, after all.

          I thought you guys had zero faith in CDC (or any other central government agency statistics).

        12. avatar Roymond says:

          “No one can claim that their gun deters crime ”

          Absolute nonsense. My gun (more than one, actually) has deterred crime by merely being visible on my hip, and not just crime against me, either.

          And the police deterrent against crime, such as it is, is largely because they also have a gun on their hips.

          For that matter, having an “NRA Life Member” sticker on one’s house has been known to deter crime, irrespective of the presence of a gun, because the intended home invader decided the probability of a gun and a defender who knew how to use it wasn’t worth the risk (the same holds true of stickers identifying the residence as that of a law enforcement officer or of the US Marine Corps).

        13. avatar 2Asux says:

          “No one can claim that their gun deters crime ”

          “Absolute nonsense. My gun (more than one, actually) has deterred crime by merely being visible on my hip, and not just crime against me, either.”

          Do you have the number of crimes deterred documented? Like a fire station, no one can determine how many fires did not happen because a fire company was located in a particular proximity to a given number of structures.

          One can hope that somehow a criminal changed his/her mind about attacking, but there can never be any definitive count of crimes avoided because of exposed armament, decals displayed, or security system signs in the yard.

          Even the most ardent pro-gun researchers do not claim that guns alone, the presence of guns, the increasing rate of gun sales, or the existing arsenal of privately owned guns caused either a drop or rise in crime of any type.

          If, however, gun owners could definitively prove that a huge number of criminals did not do a crime because a gun owner was known to have a gun and proficient in its use, that data would strike a near-obliterating blow to appeals to sensible restrictions on gun ownership.

          But do keep trying; we might all benefit.

        14. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “My point is that notwithstanding no “duty” to protect, police do respond to calls of a crime in progress.”

          You don’t have a “point”, merely a blatant falsehood.

          Case law is FULL of examples of police NOT responding to pleas for assistance, and them being found NOT liable for that failure to respond.

          The first year I lived in Ohio, Cleveland police refused to respond to multiple 911 calls from a Black woman whose White neighbors had surrounded her home and bombarded it with rocks, bottles and fireworks… after at least one previous arson attack. Seeing “police protection” for the lie it is, she called a friend who drove to her home and shotgunned the mob. The police of course arrested HIM. Fortunately, his lawyer subpoenaed the 911 tapes… showing the police and 911 operators JOKING about the woman’s peril. He walked. And what happened to the cops? NOTHING. And what recourse did the victims have? NONE.

          But lynching and gun control go together like white sheets and hoods, DON’T they?

        15. avatar 2Asux says:

          Your example is sickening. And I know that sort of thing happens, all too often.

          There are reports of the limited immunity for police being lifted in cases of gross misconduct. Additionally, there is something called “the law of agency”. The meaning is that a person representing another must act within the scope of authority delegated by the principal. Acting outside that authority, the agent is personally responsible for any damages. There are no situations where a cop is given legal authority to act abusively, commit a crime, or otherwise use the appearance of authority to inflict damage or harm on another person. Any police agent conduct that is not an official act covered by commission is completely vulnerable to be personally sued, and the police authority cannot be used as a defense. It is surprising how few people (i.e. their lawyers) pursue “law of agency” cases against malfeasance of office. Maybe that is because there is no pot of gold at the bench. Which would be an even greater indictment of the legal system, that cases are only pursued if there is a mega-dollar pay-off.

          My experience with police is obviously not the same as yours. Maybe it is because of where I live, maybe it is because of who knows how many different variables. But if I lived in a circumstance where the law of the jungle was the norm, I could see how trust in the police would be completely absent.

          Worst of all, if my viewpoint on life was that anyone who disagreed with me was only and always a racist….how would I get out of it?

        16. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “No, I didn’t change the subject. You introduced the road rage incident, I was addressing that.”

          That’s a mighty slippery way to concede that there’s no police duty to protect.

          There were no cell phones in common use, but that’s all moot anyway. A cell phone would have done nothing besides bring the police to scene of the crime AFTER THE FACT.

          But then that’s what you WANT: a SUCCESSFUL violent crime.

        17. avatar 2Asux says:

          “That’s a mighty slippery way to concede that there’s no police duty to protect.”

          Nowhere, in any blog subject have I stated or suggested that police have a duty to protect. SCOTUS ruled otherwise, and that is the law. What I have stated is the when a crime is unfolding in front of a cop, that cop is required to take action to stop it, else there would never be an arrest at the scene of a crime (take drug deals, for examples, or hooker patrols). I have stated that if called about a crime in progress, police are more than likely to respond to the scene. You presented an example of where that did not happen. Fair enough. Cops cannot be depended upon to respond to every crime in progress. But their existence overall casts a net over the public that has a deterrent effect (imagine life if there were no police at all).

        18. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “What I have stated is the when a crime is unfolding in front of a cop, that cop is required to take action to stop it”

          No he isn’t.

          And what’s your recourse if he DOESN’T?

          That’s right, NONE.

          You’re not Bill Clinton and I’m not Kenneth Starr. You’re not half as slippery as Bubba and I’m sure not inclined to let you get away with trying to be.

          All of your obfuscations, deceptions, and attempts at disinformation buy you NOTHING here.

        19. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “See voter ID.”

          And what IS “my side”?

          If voter ID is racist, isn’t gun control, whose racist roots are INCONTROVERTIBLE, just as racist, if not moreso?

          Maybe you favor a “paper bag” test for gun ownership… and voting. Or maybe just a “literacy” test for both… in Sanskrit?

        20. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Worst of all, if my viewpoint on life was that anyone who disagreed with me was only and always a racist….how would I get out of it?”

          My “viewpoint” is that anyone who promotes historically racist policies is a racist.

          Pretty radical huh?

      3. avatar Roymond says:

        “We have moved beyond some of our more pernicious past actions regarding restricting minorities from guns. Everything now proposed in bringing common sense to the gun problem is spread across the entire population, not just minorities.”

        No, now the discrimination isn’t against a minority, but against the majority. The only change in the perniciousness is that it is a different elite wanting a different set of people disarmed.

        But do let’s extend our correction “across the entire population”: let’s put the Eddie Eagle program in every school, and hands-on safety training in the later grades — and no one allowed to opt out.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          At different times, I fully endorsed the “Eddie Eagle” program. Mandatory would be preferable, but “gun rights” people would see even that as government infringement (because they think no one should be forced to do anything).

          Question: Is there anything remotely racist about introducing “Eddie Eagle” into schools, mandatory or not?

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          (because they think no one should be forced to do anything).

          Bingo. People should be free to do what they like – so long as they are not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others.

          Read more here:
          http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freedom

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          You infringe on my right to life when you “accidentally” kill me by negligently handling a gun. My right to life trumps your right to vigilantism.

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          You infringe on my right to life when you “accidentally” kill me by negligently handling a gun. My right to life trumps your right to vigilantism.

          Deflection Defection – “Accidents” are not vigilantism. There is no “right to vigilantism”

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          Carrying a gun and using it to substitute for law is vigilantism. Killing me accidentally while being a vigilante violates my right to life.

        6. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Carrying a gun and using it to substitute for law is vigilantism.”

          Self-defense isn’t a “substitute” for the law. It IS the law, and the oldest and most fundamental one.

          I expect the police to “protect” me… the way they protected Kitty Genovese… and Amadou Diallo.

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          Self-defense isn’t the issue, using a gun for self-defense is the discussion point. While it is legal, guns have a habit of not allowing for second thoughts.

          Vigilance Committees were legal until they were not. Legal until society decided too many people made too many wrong choices, and those wrong choices could not be called back. Legal procedures (due process) replaced vigilantes. The procedures were/are not perfect, but they separate us from jungle law. The problem for gun owners is that a criminal, once arrested, has “rights”, and must be afforded “due process”, and must be proven guilty. Gun carriers bypass all that and decide guilt and punishment in an instant. It is legal, but makes a thin cover for the desire to take the law into their own hands.

          I could understand an armed person making an arrest and detaining a suspect for the police, but most “self-defense” (meaning exclusively a gun) incidents do not result in an arrest, but a serious injury or death. Let the law take its course. If the law is too clumsy, change it. If law is general is seen as an impediment, then we are at the heart of the issue.

        8. avatar Anonymous says:

          Carrying a gun and using it to substitute for law is vigilantism. Killing me accidentally while being a vigilante violates my right to life

          I think Chris pretty much summed that up.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

          Self defense of others and yourself is not “vigiliantism.”
          You are not avenging a crime here. You are proactively protecting those who cannot protect themselves prior to police arrival. Without your help, that person may suffer grievous bodily harm or death.

        9. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “I could understand an armed person making an arrest and detaining a suspect for the police, but most “self-defense” (meaning exclusively a gun) incidents do not result in an arrest, but a serious injury or death.”

          And I can find documentation of that… WHERE??? Just kidding. I know there’s no documentation to back that up.

          I’m not a cop. I don’t investigate crimes. I don’t arrest people.

          I PROTECT MYSELF and whoever else for whom I have a duty of care.

          The police have NO duty to “protect” me. They can’t be held liable if they don’t, either through non-feasance or misfeasance. That’s MY job. Any claim to the contrary is a LIE.

          That having been said, the last time I defended myself with a firearm, no shots were fired and nobody was shot, much less killed. Of course he may have wrecked his engine when he saw the semi-automatic rifle I was pointing at him, stopped trying to run us off the interstate and took off going about 100mph. Needless to say, you’d rather that we be run off the road and carjacked… or WORSE.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          Do you really think that if you had called 911 on your cell phone that law enforcement representatives would have informed you that they no obligation to respond, that you were on your own?

        11. avatar Roymond says:

          “Do you really think that if you had called 911 on your cell phone that law enforcement representatives would have informed you that they no obligation to respond, that you were on your own?”

          No, I expect that they will put me in the queue and get to me when they manage.

          Besides which, you are changing the subject, which is the duty to protect. The police have none, period. They do not, and cannot, protect us from crime, they only respond once crime has happened.

        12. avatar 2Asux says:

          No, I didn’t change the subject. You introduced the road rage incident, I was addressing that.

        13. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I fully endorsed the “Eddie Eagle” program. Mandatory would be preferable, but “gun rights” people would see even that as government infringement (because they think no one should be forced to do anything).”

          You couldn’t *possibly* be more WRONG on that.

          Propose a law requiring school children to be taught when very young, never to touch a gun (the four rules), and in middle school – high school, how to safely handle them, and you will find *overwhelming* support from conservatives for that law.

          The Progressives will never go for that, they cannot allow children to see firearms in society normalized, it interferes with their effort to portray guns the way you yourself see them, 2Asux, as far to dangerous to be allowed for the citizens.

        14. avatar 2Asux says:

          You have two things going here, both interesting subjects.

          Pro-gun people would support mandatory Eddie Eagle programs.
          – Pro-gun people would object because the program is “mandatory”. Eddie Eagle would serve as the first step to mandatory training that guns are bad, all the time, people with guns are bad, only bad things happen when people have guns, guns must be rounded-up so no one can hurt someone else with a gun, find out if your parents have guns at home and tell your teacher; Eddie Eagle is a gateway move to condition society to banning all guns.

          – Progressives, if pitched properly, might see that it would be useful to rope-a-dope the pro-gun people. Agree with the pro-gun element that the Eddie Eagle program is useful to keep the children safe, then and use it to initiate conditioning that all guns are bad, everywhere, all the time.

        15. avatar Roymond says:

          “but “gun rights” people would see even that as government infringement (because they think no one should be forced to do anything).””

          Well, under the Constitution they’d be wrong, because Congress has a specified amount of authority over the militia, which regardless of our likes they ought to be exercising.

          If Congress had attended to its duties, we wouldn’t be having this problem.

        16. avatar 2Asux says:

          No argument here (as if that would matter to anyone).

        17. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Agree with the pro-gun element that the Eddie Eagle program is useful to keep the children safe, then and use it to initiate conditioning that all guns are bad, everywhere, all the time.”

          You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that culture has already ‘conditioned’ the children that guns are not evil in themselves, but a tool useful for good or bad.

          What you are going to have to do, 2Asux, is get Hollywood to *only* portray guns in a bad light, and they *cannot* do that and expect to turn a profit.

          People *like* movies where good triumphs over evil or a wrong is righted by someone with a gun.

          Take the first-person shooter game industry (Call of Duty, etc). Guns are used in offense and defense equally, depending on the person wielding them. The mostly-young players can see plainly, in front of their own eyes, that the guns *themselves* aren’t the problem.

          You will *have* to change the entire culture concerning guns, and you cannot do that without Hollywood and the urban music industry being on-board with you.

          And that ain’t gonna be happening. 🙂

        18. avatar 2Asux says:

          Actually, anti-gun people are generally of two minds about movies/games with guns. One group will have nothing to do with anything called “gun” (one must refer to stun guns as tasers, because stun gun is, you know, a gun.

          The other group accepts movies with guns because movies are not real, the good guy is always experienced and obviously well trained in using a gun. But that group wants nothing to do with guns in real life (some, even games).

          Quite often, though, one hears “anti-gunners” talking about how movies prove that bad things happen to people with guns, then they must use a bad thing (gun) to overcome even greater evil. Makes for great “teachable moments”.

  32. avatar C.Z. says:

    I think you did a service to the 2nd amendment cause by engaging inn this way. Your focus on the issues is something that I will attempt to emulate as I engage in 2A discussions.

    Good Job and Thank you.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I think you did a service to the 2nd amendment cause by engaging inn this way.”

      Yes, this is why I don’t see 2Asux as a troll, and why I don’t mind him – her commenting in TTAG.

      2Asux is actually defending his position on this without it devolving into a screaming match.

      He’s actually a True Believer, not a troll.

      He’s still wrong, of course. 🙂

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Thank you.

        Always glad to be helpful.

  33. avatar Kendahl says:

    So many words to debate such a simple question. Assuming you are a peaceful person who respects the persons and property of others, if you are attacked by someone without such scruples, are you entitled to place your welfare above that of your assailant? In my opinion, you are and this should be so self evident that further discussion is unnecessary.

  34. avatar Joe_thousandaire says:

    Seems to me the anti-gun person in this argument is worried about terrorists and lone – gunman maniacs. He believes we need gun control to stop those types of attacks. The pro-gun person is concerned about muggers and home-invasion, and therfore believes that armed self defence is a good idea. Objectively the pro-gun argument wins here, as the odds of being the victim of a mugging or home evasion are quite high while the odds of being involved in a mass murder or terrorist attack are statistically negligible.

    1. avatar BhamLyan says:

      Also by the fact that terrorists and maniacs are not deterred by even the most severe gun restrictions, so the solution for even the outliers is ineffective.

  35. avatar Badams says:

    After years of being in this culture, my ‘argument’ now consists of ‘I have guns, you don’t want me to have them. Your move.’

    If I feel like getting deeper ‘how much violence will you instigate, condone and perpetrate to disarm the non violent?’ ‘How many doors will you personally be kicking down?’

    I don’t rationalize or reason anymore. I’m a bitter clinger

    1. avatar PeterK says:

      It’s pretty hard to have a civil discourse these days, sadly.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “It’s pretty hard to have a civil discourse these days, sadly.”

        Take a long look at the commenters on this blog. Which side of the gun proliferation debate devolves most quickly to the lowest form of insulting verbiage?

        To borrow from Herr Trump, “I get hit, I hit back”.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          I’ve always enjoyed it when White anti-gunners “civilly” call me a “nigger” when I disobey their ORDERS to submissively endorse invidiously racist gun controls.

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          “I’ve always enjoyed it when White anti-gunners “civilly” call me a “nigger” when I disobey their ORDERS to submissively endorse invidiously racist gun controls.”

          In the situation you describe, you are right to tag those persons as impossible to talk to. My comment was that people on this blog are almost exclusively pro-gun, yet a majority default to the most abominable screeds, vs. those who are not so pro-gun and are putting forth their ideas.

          From my side, it is impossible to have a civil discussion with gun owners whose response to everything they don’t like is equivalent to, “Screw you, I got my rights. Go stuff yourself”. (although I admit such commentary is useful for my side to use to prove how unfit gun owners generally are)

        3. avatar Roymond says:

          “From my side, it is impossible to have a civil discussion with gun owners whose response to everything they don’t like is equivalent to, “Screw you, I got my rights. Go stuff yourself”. (although I admit such commentary is useful for my side to use to prove how unfit gun owners generally are)”

          That response proves no such thing — it more likely proves that the respondent is sick and tired of hearing that inanimate objects instigate evil actions.

          Besides which, with regards to ANY right, “Screw you” is an excellent response: it doesn’t matter whether it comes from students being sprayed by uniformed perpetrators of violence opposed to free speech or upholding the power of corporations to abuse people, or from someone desirous of protecting self, family, and neighbors. It is, indeed, the response that has done more to advance liberty and equality than any other — for example, when Rosa Parks responded to artificial limitations on the use of public facilities, or (to go ‘way back) when the kidnapped denizens of the lower hull of the ship Amistad exercised their right of insurrection against tyranny.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          QED.

          Inanimate objects wrongly used can result in death or injury. It is mere shorthand to declare that some one was killed/injured by a gun, when anyone and everyone knows that a human had to have some influence over the action of the gun. Even over here, we know someone is off the reservation who declares that a gun lying in a drawer becomes “Chuckie”, and causes bad things to happen.

        5. avatar Anonymous says:

          Which side of the gun proliferation debate devolves most quickly to the lowest form of insulting verbiage?

          Go make a pro-2A comment on CSGV and find out right away.

        6. avatar 2Asux says:

          Deflection, deflection; “we’re not as bad as them”.

          Yes, the embarrassment caused by so many over here is sometimes unbearable. However, my impression (the one you want everyone to believe) is that gun owners are superior because they rely on facts and logic, not emotion.

        7. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “From my side, it is impossible to have a civil discussion with gun owners whose response to everything they don’t like is equivalent to, “Screw you, I got my rights. Go stuff yourself”.”

          I’m sure the Westboro Baptist “Church” and ISIS feel the same way about gays who don’t want to be thrown off of the tops of buildings…

        8. avatar 2Asux says:

          Now, there is a capital deflection.

        9. avatar Anonymous says:

          Deflection, deflection; “we’re not as bad as them”.

          Yes, the embarrassment caused by so many over here is sometimes unbearable. However, my impression (the one you want everyone to believe) is that gun owners are superior because they rely on facts and logic, not emotion.

          I think we’ve treated you pretty well here. Your posts weren’t deleted. Your account wasn’t banned. We have a lot of discussions here. MDA and CSGV didn’t treat me the same. They deleted my posts and banned my account – and I was completely civil.

        10. avatar 2Asux says:

          There is no justification for MDA and CSGV to engage in suppression of civil speech. Those are the sorts of things that really hurt our cause, and I distance myself from that sort of tactic. There are other examples of speech suppression that progressives in general should condemn, as well. I can offer no defense of the crude behavior you experienced.

        11. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Now, there is a capital deflection.”

          I hear that the Nazis were really offended when Jews didn’t just get on the boxcars too…

  36. avatar Steve in TX says:

    As an athiest I don’t have to justify self defense against this modern conception that Jeasus and the commandments require you to be a martyr to murderers. For me it boils down to the belief that this is the only life and it is good for me to live. Some tries to change that and thankfully I have a gun that gives me better chances of prolonging my life. I don’t even believe in natural rights, but all that means is that it is even more important to defeat these people. If they win, we become the prey to whomever is in control.

  37. avatar Tim says:

    “Before you ask, no, tanks and surface-to-air missiles are not okay.”

    Stunningly non-sequitur. The right to self defense is a universal one, no? Then why do we sit idly while other countries develop, operate, and/or stockpile such weapons? Why don’t we just cut it off at small arms? Why is a country more trustworthy than an individual? I’d like to hear your explanation for that.

    1. avatar ninjaTED says:

      It was a total non-sequitur, and here’s why I said it. Philosophically I have no problem with private ownership of, say, tanks. If someone can afford to purchase or construct their own armored fighting vehicle, more power to them. The price alone keeps them out of the hands of casual criminals, and anyone with the money to get one either A) won’t risk their investment by using it criminally, or B) won’t be deterred by laws against them, or C) will realize that their huge money pile would be better and more effectively spent on other ways to cause mayhem. A tank’s worth of money would buy a s***load of small arms, and I would argue that ten guys with machine guns and a tank’s worth of ammo and explosives would be much more societally dangerous than a single slow-moving vehicle, however heavily armed.

      I tossed it into the debate above because I wanted to head off an argument. It’s usually at about that point when somebody says, very snarkily, “Well, how about nuclear weapons? Should people have THOSE? I thought you were all about having whatever you want!” I wanted to keep the argument to the philosophy of self-defense, and by conceding that point in advance I was able to do that.

      Your question about countries having certain weapons is the same as allowing people ot have certain weapons. I have no problem with most people owning arms, but there are some (the chronically violent, the dangerously insane, violent felons, mimes, etc.) that I would argue are too irresponsible. The same goes for countries. I don’t care how many Beretta M9s Iran has, but they’ve made a pretty good case for not being responsible enough for nukes. Belgium? Make all the nukes you want, we’re cool.

  38. avatar WuzNtMe says:

    The ones I get usually result in arguing that all life is valuable. Then I ask them how valuable it is if you’re not willing to protect it…?

  39. avatar 2aguy/billc says:

    When they start to talk about kids killing kids accidentally with guns I always use the CDC…in 2013 there were 320,000,000 million guns in private hands…..how many children died from accidental gun deaths according to table 10 of the final death statistics for 2013…….69.

    That is out of a population of 320,000,000 people…74.2 million kids….

    320,000,000 people.

    320,000,000 guns in private hands…

    69 children died in accidental gun deaths.

    Then I ask..which numbers are bigger…and by how much……then they start to insult me….

  40. avatar Wrightl3 says:

    Nicely done.

  41. avatar Chris says:

    You kicked his ass off the planet, but he didn’t see it that way. Keep up the good fight, you’re a rock-star debater.

  42. avatar PeterK says:

    Man, I’d hate to walk into you in a dark intellectual alley. You gave that person a beat down, though they apparently can’t see it. I can’t believe they pulled a “look at this baby!” on you. :p

    Most people aren’t looking for truth, they only seek validation of their own opinions. Still, futile civil discourse beats apathy in my mind. I won’t stop trying and I thank you for a great read.

    1. avatar 2Asux says:

      Peter K:
      “Most people aren’t looking for truth, they only seek validation of their own opinions.”

      Thank you. Summed up nicely what I have been challenging for months.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        Most anti-gun cultists don’t want to control guns.

        They want to control PEOPLE… mostly black and brown people.

        1. avatar 2Asux says:

          “They want to control PEOPLE… mostly black and brown people.”

          You reckon that is why “anti-gun” people spend so much time trying to restrict the damage wreaked on people of color? If I understand the reporting correctly, most gun owners (for whatever reason) are not “persons of color”. Do you note how many “white people” rally around controlling gun ownership, in protection of people of all colors?

          It is interesting how many here believe movements for restricting gun ownership is evidence of “closet klansmen”, yet if white supremacists were favoring gun control to suppress the rights of minorities, the laws being proposed would strip the klan of its right to guns. So, racist policies to deny minorities gun ownership also work to restrict the right of racists to have guns to be used to intimidate minorities. Universe in balance?

        2. avatar Roymond says:

          Make that “poor and/or non-privileged” people, and you’ve got it. It’s no longer so much about race as it is about money (though in either case it’s about managing those regarded as lesser).

        3. avatar 2Asux says:

          Yes, economic warfare is rampant in this country. The poor pay the same prices for everything that the rich pay. Every product consumes a greater percentage of the income of the poor than it does the rich. A fair society would allow people on food stamps a healthy discount on whatever they buy.

          Time we move beyond the idea that it is just that some have more economic privilege than others.

        4. avatar Anonymous says:

          Yes, economic warfare is rampant in this country. The poor pay the same prices for everything that the rich pay. Every product consumes a greater percentage of the income of the poor than it does the rich. A fair society would allow people on food stamps a healthy discount on whatever they buy.

          Time we move beyond the idea that it is just that some have more economic privilege than others.

          Oftentimes I see the lady in the drive through window serving me a burger and I think to myself back to my burger flipping days and wonder how anyone can survive on minimum wage pay today. So I see that view and perspective. That person pays a lot to survive. A great portion goes just to food, water, and shelter.

          But then again, I see it from my current perspective too. I work a lot – working 60 hours a week. My father just before he retired was working 80. The more I worked, the more tax I have to pay. I am actively being punished for working hard rather than being encouraged to produce more, to earn more. I had the false assumption that I was entitled to my own sweat and I have figured out that I am not. That sweat belongs to other people. Why should I work hard when I make almost the same just working average? The solution is to work less. Everyone can work 40 hours a week and make the same money. The overhead that I make can be transferred to the the minimum wage guy.

          “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Textbook Marxism/Socialism.

          “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” – Winston Churchill

          Which is what I feel. The equal sharing of misery. For all of us to be equal – we all need to feel miserable.

          https://youtu.be/S6HEH23W_bM

        5. avatar 2Asux says:

          Predatory economics indicates a basic selfishness that needs examination. Just because you “did all the right things” and managed to “win” does not mean that those who struggle more deserve what they have. A just society does not have an underclass. (or even an uberclass)

        6. avatar Anonymous says:

          Just because you “did all the right things” and managed to “win” does not mean that those who struggle more deserve what they have.

          But a “Just” society means some money needs to be taken from you, 2Asux, and given to me. Just because you are working hard selling risk mitigation based insurance doesn’t mean that I should live in the poverty I am experiencing. I’m going to stop working 60/80 hours a week, start working 20, and I need you to work harder 2asux, and cough it up – I have guns to buy with your money.

        7. avatar 2Asux says:

          Making everything “just” is not an easy proposition suitable for platitudes. But first, we as a society need to recognize that the old models leave all to many in abject poverty with no real way out.

          The mechanisms for achieving a more equitable society may not even be imagined yet (but I really would like to know how the United Federation of Planets abolished money). Is the answer that society agrees that government will re-direct all the funds used to support a zillion “programs” into the pockets of every resident? Is the answer that we put a “floor” under every resident (been proposed before)? Is the answer that we cut our standard of living to more nearly align with other industrialized nations? I do know that for the last 50 years, this nation has refused to explore any new solutions because no one can come up with a 100% effective, cost-free, non-mandatory, idea….before any solution would be seriously considered.

          To bring economic justice, we as a people need to determine that the nation will be strengthened when people are not pitted against each other economically.

        8. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “You reckon that is why “anti-gun” people spend so much time trying to restrict the damage wreaked on people of color?”

          I’d have to buy into the LIE that that’s what they’re trying to do.

          This is NEVER about guns, ALWAYS about CONTROL… inevitably of the “out group”, usually non-Whites, but as in the case of the Sullivan Law, Jews and Southern and Eastern Europeans as well.

          Scratch an anti-gun cultist, find a Klansman… or a Nazi.

        9. avatar 2Asux says:

          All law is about controlling the behavior of people. Or controlling people, if you like. Everyone has their favorite behavior they want law to control.

          To claim something is a lie is easy. Proving it gets troublesome.

        10. avatar Anonymous says:

          I do know that for the last 50 years, this nation has refused to explore any new solutions because no one can come up with a 100% effective, cost-free, non-mandatory, idea….before any solution would be seriously considered.

          I’ve got one. Germany. The impoverished can move to Germany and milk the Germans for all that they have. It’s working beautifully for Syrians. We can buy them all parachutes and air drop them over Germany. Madam Chancellor Merkel can have milk and cookies waiting for them. It doesn’t have to be mandatory. The impoverished can stay here if they so desire and agree to remain impoverished. If it’s OK for illegal immigrants to come here illegally, it should be OK for our immigrants to illegally air drop themselves over Germany. Win Win for everyone. The remainder of the populace can develop robots to clean toilets and take out the garbage – like in “IRobot.” Also, we don’t have to feel bad about their mistreatment because all we pay them in is cheap electricity. Also, it doesn’t hurt that they are soulless robots simply following a program. Win win.

        11. avatar 2Asux says:

          “We need illegals to clean our toilets.”

          Is that how you see it?

          You are adopting the hated “liberal” view that life, as with an economy, is a zero-sum game. If someone gets, someone else must lose. Meaning there is economic justification for wildly disproportionate income levels. Yet, the “conservative view” (may I include all gun owners?) is supposed to be that in America, the pie expands so that everyone has more. Interesting how proposals to provide that expanding pie are anathema to the very group that claims the expanding pie justifies their refusal to improve incomes for everyone.

        12. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “All law is about controlling the behavior of people.”

          You mean like from what water fountains they drink, and in which end of the bus they ride?

          Scratch an anti-gunner find a Klansman.

        13. avatar 2Asux says:

          How about:
          Illegal to cross mid-street?
          Must obey traffic signals?
          Required to file taxes?
          Prohibited from assaulting another person?
          Zoning regulations?
          Mandatory seat belt usage?
          Prohibited from theft and burglary?
          Prohibited from killing another person just because?

          You will understand, of course, my curiosity about your intimate knowledge of the Klan.

        14. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “How about:”

          White and colored water fountains?
          Anti-miscegenation laws?
          Anti-sodomy laws?
          Restrictive covenants?

          Funny isn’t it how an anti-gun cultist can’t even BEGIN to make his argument without ignoring the ENTIRE racial history of North America?

          Scratch an anti-gunner, find a Klansman.

        15. avatar 2Asux says:

          You are using past action to indict current actions. You just don’t get it. The original intent of gun control is moot, irrelevant. The point of” gun control” today is to “control” access and use of guns for ALL races. Like any other law, gun laws are designed to control behavior. Using racist history to judge intent today leaves peopled mired in the past, with no hope to escape. That is not me. Addressing undesirable behavior today is not rendered illegitimate just because people in history had evil intent. Are there still racist laws on the books somewhere? Probably. But irrelevant to this discussion about gun laws that apply to all races. You seem to be succumbing to the idea that all ills must first be cured before any action is taken going forward. That is a theory for stagnating a society.

        16. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “You are using past action to indict current actions. You just don’t get it.”

          Past and present actions arising out of the same ideology of White supremacism.

          Yeah, a Black man wouldn’t “get” racism and White supremacism. Those of your ilk believe we simply don’t have the intelligence…

        17. avatar 2Asux says:

          Thank you for putting yourself out there for all to see.

        18. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “Thank you for putting yourself out there for all to see.”

          Thanks for pulling the sheet off of yourself so that everyone could see what was underneath.

  43. avatar Peter Goznya says:

    TL;DR

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      Which, being translated, means “Too Lazy; Didn’t Read”.

      Sad, what modern schools have done to the attention span.

  44. avatar Anonymous says:

    Read the whole thing – it was lengthy but very entertaining. I enjoyed the reasoned and civil discourse. I can tell this isn’t NT’s first rodeo steering JP right back to the concept of self defense as a right which he fought hard to avoid. It was certainly entertaining to watch JP writhing with a decent response to such a simple question.

  45. avatar ninjaTED says:

    To all of you who read it, thanks! Having so many of you comment means a lot to me, as it shows that, despite the length, it was read and appreciated. To those who said that it was too long, remember that this was a FB conversation that took place over several days. In a single post, you’re right, it IS too long, but I tried to keep my individual answers as brief as possible, knowing that JP’s patience would be finite. I saw several comments along the lines of “The only appropriate response is a big FU!” or “Second Amendment, yo!” \mic drop\ As several others responded, this was a person who doesn’t respect or, indeed, understand the Second Amendment, and I usually think it courteous to give information to those who argue from a position of ignorance, if only that they don’t continue to sound like idiots in public. Also, as many of you noted, JP was the primary target, but not the only one. This was a side conversation on a thread that involved dozens of people, (including one dude who thought that slavery was preferable to a war to end slavery, because, no lie, the CHILDREN!) and if one of the lurkers had a ‘well, that actually sounds reasonable’ moment, the whole thing wouldn’t have been in vain. I didn’t go into this thinking that JP would become a full-hearted 2A partisan, but I hope that I at least made JP think about why people bear arms, and why it can be a good thing.

    For more specific responses, scroll up for more mad debate skillz, yo. (I was looking at 2ASux when I wrote that, but I’ve noticed that the rest of the armed intelligentsia are handling things quite nicely. Thanks, all!)

  46. avatar Azics says:

    An excellent read. You came back with very good responses and all he came back with was emotion and bumper-sticker logic.

    Thought it was interesting where he said it sounds kinda paranoid to imagine assailants and intruders. Yet his paranoia about a carrier shooting a beggar, or acdwabuha shooting up the workplace is his justification for banning guns. Assailants and intruders happens far more often than his scenarios and he calls you paranoid when you use it as your justification

  47. avatar 2Asux says:

    Many commenters are claiming that “self-defense” and using a gun against against an attacker are effective synonyms. That is, “self-defense” exclusively means “gun”. In the exchange of comments, much has been made of the notion that any weapon other than a gun is useless, rendering a victim helpless and hopeless. I might agree with the base proposition, except there is this:
    http://bearingarms.com/authorities-victim-domestic-assault-shot-in-self-defense/?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=

    The victim choked-out a machete-wielding attacker. Attacker zero, victim one. Self-defense. Not bad for being helpless and hopeless.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      “The victim choked-out a machete-wielding attacker. Attacker zero, victim one. Self-defense. Not bad for being helpless and hopeless.”

      Something I’m sure that any sixty year, old 110lb. woman could do to a twenty year old 210lb. man… in your fantasies.

    2. avatar ninjaTED says:

      2Asux, you’ve made some arguments that you seem to be continuing here, and since I don’t want to scroll through 270-odd comments every time I respond, I’m taking the liberty of pasting some of your previous posts here.

      “If a gun is considered legitimate deadly force to be deployed against a knife attack, then a knife is on par with the deadliness of a gun (else you would have disparate force, and subject to legal sanctions…using more force than necessary/allowed). If a knife is deadly enough in attack to justify a response by gun fire, then a knife must be a pretty effective weapon. If a baseball bat is considered a deadly enough weapon in attack that defense by gun is legitimate/legal/justified, then a bat must be an effective deadly weapon. Else, you are employing disparate force.

      You cannot argue that someone attacking with a knife is not using deadly force permitting defense with a firearm, without simultaneously admitting that using a gun against a knife-wielding attacker is unjustified, and illegal.

      Self-defense is not a synonym for gun.”

      “Gun lover logic fails when they declare that using a gun against a knife, scissors, bat, fists, you name it is justified because any weapon can be used to kill you, then argue that all of those alternative weapons are ineffective as weapons.

      If alternative weapons are not effective in the attack, then a gun owner would go to jail for using a gun in defense because….disparate force applied. Since the law permits the use of self-defense (including a gun) against a deadly attack, even non-gun weapons must be effectively deadly. If non-gun weapons are effectively deadly, they are effective in defensive use.

      Then stopping a knife attack by using a gun is de facto disproportionate force, by your own statement. If a knife cannot stop a person with a gun, the use of a gun to stop a knife attack if “overkill”. You end up saying that if someone attacks with a gun you are justified using a gun to stop them, but an attacker with a knife poses no ability to stop a person (the defender) with a gun.”

      Your arguments about diparate force don’t take the legal environment into account. You seem to be trying to put this on a legal footing, so I’ll try to give an overview of the relevant self-defense laws. (disclaimer, IANAL, but most of this is available from reputable websites staffed by actual lawyers.)

      http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/criminalLaw/defenses/SelfDefense.asp

      http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/self-defense-overview.html

      http://www.secondcalldefense.org/using-lethal-force

      To use deadly force in self defense, three conditions must be met, to the “reasonable man” standard. (Would a reasonable man agree that your actions were justified?) Your attacker must have the ABILITY to kill you or cause grave bodily harm, (broken bones, lost eye, rape, etc.) either due to being armed, much larger and stronger, or from force of numbers. He must have the OPPORTUNITY to do the harm, either from proximity or use of a projectile weapon. And the defender must be in JEOPARDY, whereby the attacker has reasonably demonstrated the intent to harm you.

      None of this speaks to the weapons employed on either side. As long as the conditions are met, ANY legal deadly force may be employed. (Notice ‘legal’. I live in NY, and if I shoot someone in self-defense without a pistol permit, I’m screwed.) This is why George Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense was upheld. Trayvon Martin was a larger, stronger person (ABILITY) who had knocked down and straddled his victim (OPPORTUNITY) and stated verbally an intent to kill Zimmerman while smashing his head into the sidewalk with powerful blows. (JEOPARDY) That Martin was unarmed, and that Zimmerman used a gun was immaterial. If Zimmerman used a knife or blunt instrument would have made no legal difference.

      Morally, I don’t agree with the disparity of force argument either. If someone is trying to beat my brains out with a bat, why should I be restricted to a bat to defend myself? What if I don’t have one? If I have a knife, is that okay? I think that, as JP did above, you’re conflating murder with self defense, since both may have a lethal outcome. A tool that is perfectly useful for murder in one person’s hands may be totally inapropriate in the hands of their victim for self-defense. Simply because an object is capable of being wielded with lethal force doesn’t make it a self-defense tool.

      Which leads to your argument that we’re saying that knives, etc. are both effective weapons but ineffective for self-defense, so obviously we’re hypocrites. People are different. I’m a big, strapping lad in my late 30s who does martial arts (a pretty nasty brand of FMA, to be precise) and carries, among other things, a pocket stick and a knife as part of my EDC. I’m still getting my pistol permit, since (largely as a result of my MA training,) I know exactly how dangerous an untrained person with a knife can be. I’m very good at knife disarms, but I don’t EVER want to be in a situation where I’d have to do it for real. I’d MUCH rather just shoot the guy trying to stab me. (And let me be clear, shoot to stop, not to kill. I’d like nothing more than to have my assailant not die.) My mom is in her late 60s, (sorry again, Mom,) and was an art teacher. A blade or blunt instrument in her hands would be a speed bump to a determined attacker. Frankly, due to her shoulder problems, i don’t think she would have the ability to swing a baton or bat with any effectiveness.

      “Self-defense is not a synonym for gun”

      You’re absolutely right. A gun is an effective tool for self-defense. It’s not the only one, for some people, but for others, (Mom) it might very well be. If we seem focused on guns here, look up at the top bar of your browser and remember what the website is called. You’re not arguing on the Truth About Tasers. (OMG, Mom with a TASER… “Eat your lima beans.” “NO!” *CRACKLEBUZZZZZZZZZ*)

      I have a personal question for you, and feel free not to answer if you don’t want to. Much of your arguments against guns bring up the ‘500 killed accidentally’ statistic, and that seems to keep you in it more than anything else. Did you lose someone due to firearms negligence, or was there some other related incident?

      1. avatar waldengr@hotmail says:

        Thank you for the commentary.

        I fully understand the laws of self-defense using deadly force. My examples are not designed to be a legal treatise, but to illustrate that a deadly weapon used in attack is just as deadly used in defense. It cannot be that a deadly weapon is conveniently so because one wants to use a gun, but the same weapon be considered insufficiently deadly as to constitute an effective weapon in defense. If a knife can kill you during an attack, that knife can kill an attacker when used in defense. Thus, there are effective defensive weapons that are not firearms.

        “Did you lose someone due to firearms negligence, or was there some other related incident?”
        – I have experienced first-hand the death of someone by firearms, but not in the frame most here imagine. At the bottom of it all is what I view as arrogant and irresponsible attitudes that refuse to acknowledge that full scope and impact of completely innocent people killed by irresponsible gun handling.Those innocents have inherent value requiring every gun owner to be continuously proficiently and trained…and not just a slideshow about the “four rules”.

        Those I saw killed and injured by gunfire did not deserve to die, but at the time we all knew the risks. However, every loss was significant, and not just a cold statistic. So I also consider every unnecessary death due to irresponsible gun owners to be significant.

        I am highly sensitive to the fact that the so-called “statistically insignificant” victims did not voluntarily accept the risk of being killed, were minding their own business, and were slain by someone who believed they were capable of perfect control and safety whenever they handled a gun. That part is aggravating. On the other hand, having endured and experienced the value of rigorous and thorough training in the employment of small arms, it is puzzling in the extreme how many non-trained people believe they need no training at all, much less on-going training and certification in gun safety and handling. In my case, training was mandatory (and I believe for good reason). In the case of absolutely free-wheeling 2A rights (2A is an absolute right; shall not be infringed; RTKBA, etc) advocates, voluntary recurring training is apparently largely of no value or interest. Barring self-policing safety training (voluntary), then government-mandated safety training is the only alternative. If that measure is refused, then complete gun confiscation is an option worth working toward. People earn their rewards and consequences.

        Thanks for asking.

  48. avatar waldengr@hotmail says:

    “This is where you start hurling racial slurs…”

    If you need to cue me, then I must be a terribly poor example of a racist.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      That did not refer to you, but to our resident Moms Demand Fascism shill.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “That did not refer to you, but to our resident Moms Demand Fascism shill.”

        To borrow a phrase from someone, “If you need to cue me, then I must be a terribly poor example of a racist.”

        MDA is a bit too amateur for my liking. They have a silly factor that is just too off-putting.

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          “To borrow a phrase from someone, “If you need to cue me, then I must be a terribly poor example of a racist.””

          Racists are innately poor examples.

  49. Some Americans may have felt uneasy 35 years ago when DUI laws, DWI checkpoints, seatbelt laws, and car liability insurance laws were started, but most people felt that the experts must be right.

    Pro-police state shows like “COPS” and “America’s Most Wanted” were then aired, neighborhood watch groups were formed, “get tough on crime” candidates were elected, and laws allowing mandatory minimums, IMBRA, 3 strikes laws, curfews, police militarization, teen boot camps, school metal detectors, private prisons, and chain gangs were enacted.

    Nanny state smoking laws then started appearing.

    When 9/11 happened, the Patriot Act was passed, NSA wiretapping, no knock raids, take down notices, no fly lists, terror watch lists, Constitution free zones, stop and frisk, kill switches, National Security Letters, DNA databases, kill lists, FBAR, FATCA, Operation Chokepoint, TSA groping, civil forfeiture, CIA torture, NDAA indefinite detention, secret FISA courts, FEMA camps, laws requiring passports for domestic travel, IRS laws denying passports for tax debts, gun and ammo stockpiles, laws outlawing protesting, Jade Helm, sneak and peek warrants, policing for profit, no refusal blood checkpoints, license plate readers, redlight cameras, speed cameras, FBI facial and voice recognition, tattoo databases, gun bans, the end to the right to silence, free speech bans, searches without warrants, CISPA, SOPA, private prison quotas, supermax prisons, sex offender registration laws, and sex offender restriction laws were allowed.

    Now that the USA is a total police state, Americans are finding out that changing anything is impossible and that freedom is lost forever.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email