MacBride: Gun Violence is Deeply Enmeshed in America’s Sense of Control

courtesy Forbes

Although she makes some valid points, the urge to yell “stay in your lane” is sometimes overwhelming. A little soft-pedaling ideology here…

I’m not an expert, but after a year of writing about the business of guns, of talking to gun owners and the owners of businesses that sell guns, or related businesses, I told them both why I think it is a more complicated issue than it seems.

People caught up in an emotional dynamic of fear and the need to protect take all kinds of steps, more or less rational, from lobbying to buying pepper spray to buying a gun to installing six-foot-high security fences that block out the sun to telling children to throw their plastic animals at men carrying huge rifles. Fear can be a powerful subconscious addiction for some people; and people who gain a sense of self by protecting others could act to perpetuate fear in those around them. Emotional truths sometimes, or often, find expression in the companies that entrepreneurs create.

In short, one of the reasons that we can’t solve our gun violence problem is that it’s complicated, emotional and deeply enmeshed with Americans’ sense of power and control. (And I haven’t even touched on the way a portion of Americans believe it’s their patriotic duty to own a firearm and encourage others to do so.) Our gun violence problem and the political conflict surrounding it have existed so long that there are now markets that have sprung up and companies making profits off the efforts to solve gun violence. (Elizabeth MacBride for Forbes, America’s Gun Business is $28B. The Gun Violence Business is Bigger.)

Then there was this gem:

It’s also worth noting that there are other kinds of gun violence that we have judged to be (more or less) socially acceptable: violence committed by soldiers and police to defend the country and keep law and order; and hunting. (Elizabeth MacBride for Forbes, America’s Gun Business is $28B. The Gun Violence Business is Bigger.)

And this:

…it appears to me that the private sector has generated very little way of solutions for women (or men) who want protection, or at least feel safer, against an abusive spouse or partner with a gun. (Elizabeth MacBride for Forbes, America’s Gun Business is $28B. The Gun Violence Business is Bigger.)

comments

  1. avatar Bob Jones says:

    The US is much less violent than that paragon of serenity Japan.
    Gun-Free Japan’s Intentional Death Rate is 22 per100,000.
    Heavily-Armed US Intentional Death Rate is 16 per 100,000.

    Intentional Death Rate = Homicides + Suicides.

    Violence is a cultural thing, presence or absence of firearms ultimately makes little real difference.

    1. avatar binder says:

      Japan is more screwed up than you think

      “Months later, the local deputy police chief was asked how many murders had occurred recently in his district. “I don’t recall any,” he replied. The children did not count. They were considered part of a “family suicide.””

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2000/05/01/for-japanese-suicide-can-be-a-family-matter/69bcd5bf-07cf-4ff1-935b-1075e7a67a3b/?utm_term=.9a8b981c11b8

    2. avatar TommyJay says:

      30 or 40 years ago Japan had a police major case closure rate of something like 90%. Eventually, somebody from the U.S. went over there and conducted a study. How is that possible? There were a number of factors, including neighbors who kept in close contact with each other and talked to police. But the big factor was that the police often beat confessions out of suspects.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

        It often doesn’t need to get to a beat-down to get a confession out of someone in Japan.

        Something about their culture makes them want to confess…

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          Might that be the same gene that made it so easy to persuade them that crashing their airplanes into other country’s ships was a hell of a great idea? That it would not only win the war(nope…) for them but it would also give them, personally, a fast track to a bunch of virgins in ‘heaven'(I guess we’d have to say the jury is still out on that one..)?
          I think I’ve actually heard that philosophy somewhere before…….. sound familiar to anybody else?

        2. avatar Too Frank says:

          it is not just their culture, it is mainly Japan’s laws which have no true First, Second, Fourth or Fifth amendment rights protections.

          You can be held in Japan for FOUR WEEKS interrogated 12 hours a day, every day, with no charge.

          And Japan has a much higher rate of lethal violence (suicide plus homicide) — as does like S. Korea and others — than the US has,

  2. avatar Jacob says:

    “it appears to me that the private sector has generated very little way of solutions for women (or men) who want protection, or at least feel safer, against an abusive spouse or partner with a gun.“

    Actually, the private sector has generated great solutions for women/men in this situation. It’s called “buy a gun(&carry it), break up with abuser, get restraining order”

  3. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The “social acceptable” line identifies her as a Big Government Nanny State adherent. Personally, I don’t care what she or anyone else considers “socially acceptable” when it comes to the 2A.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      GunnyGene,

      While I agree with you in principle, I disagree with your implied sentiment that we are wise to ignore the political goals of Progressives and Big State conservatives simply because their goals are dishonorable.

      As the saying goes, “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.” That is a cute way of saying that power-hungry people are always scheming to use, abuse, and exploit you whether or not you agree with it or recognize it.

  4. avatar DerryM says:

    Here’s a link to a report on a little known study by Harvard University first released in 2007:

    https://www.beliefnet.com/news/articles/harvard-university-study-reveals-astonishing-link.aspx?fbclid=IwAR19fu3TP6da8tXnwQwJRS4gczJjCbhFFAPLk7746U01EaAyjdLhjD-Tqs4#pu2JeSKaCEw3PyD1.01

    Although it is eleven years old, some of you might find it interesting.

    This MacBride person can go pound sand.

  5. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘Emotional truths’ – don’t exist anywhere but MacBride’s imagination.

    Sure, the ‘gun violence problem’ is all the fault of white guys in flyover country who beat their wives and go hu nting when they’re not volunteering for military service. Those poor underprivileged black youths in the inner cities have nothing to do with it. How incredibly bigoted!

  6. avatar soccerchainsaw says:

    Until these jackwads come to realize that there is no such thing as “gun violence” (i.e. guns never commit any act of violence), they’ll never even realize that everything they propose will only make the “problem” worse.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Or to put it another way, there is no gun violence “problem” or “epidemic.” The rate of violent crime committed with firearms is less than half of what it was only thirty years ago, and is down to the “usual” levels seen after WWII. Second, if we really want to talk about the subject, what we are really talking about is inner city gang /drug violence. Without those statistics, and the statistics as to the number of suicides, we are less violent here in the vast expanse of the country that the major news networks would want us to believe.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        We have an epidemic of legislators that have the socialist sendrome. This is a contagious disease that can spread in an ignorant mass of people. The only proven antidotes are education ( real, not indoctrination ) and lead.

  7. avatar Forrest Adcock says:

    How short is she that a 6 foot tall fence “blocks out the sun?” I’m sorry, I just can’t take anyone seriously who says stuff like this…

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      But all those beautiful sunrises and sunsets…

  8. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    “… the private sector has generated very little way of solutions for women (or men) who want protection, or at least feel safer, against an abusive spouse or partner with a gun.”

    Breathtaking.

    The solution for abused spouses is to get out. For those who choose to stay in such a relationship, I don’t know how anyone would think the private sector can overcome that level of stupid.

  9. avatar Elaine D. says:

    Some of the data in the article was interesting. But I am not seeing where this writer distinguishes between some kind of irrational fear driven state and the simple need to be prudent.

    It’s interesting to me that nowhere does she mention the fact that POC and WOC in particular do have to protect ourselves from more significant rates of aggression and violence. So do LGB+ folks. This makes me wonder if this writer belongs to a majority group that doesn’t have to worry about such issues on a daily and weekly basis.

    There’s a big difference between being fear driven in the absence of supporting experiences and being the ongoing target of harassment and hate which leads one to take the strongest measures of self protection available.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      At first I was going to be a [email protected]$$ and say this sounds like you wrote it….but then decided against it…….:)

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Aaron

        Nah. I couldn’t have written this article. I’m a gun owner, with very clear reasons why I own them. I’ve thought through my decisions and what I’m willing to do to protect myself quite thoroughly. As such, I’m going to have a different perspective than someone who has never handled guns and therefore can only speculate about that process.

        1. avatar Too Frank says:

          This makes me wonder if this writer belongs to a majority group that doesn’t have to worry about such issues on a daily and weekly basis.

          The entire elevated violent gun crime rate in the US is driven by elevated commission rates by minorities. So exactly what is your obsession with majorities vs minorities when the data shows you are WRONG?

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “…It’s interesting to me that nowhere does she mention the fact that POC and WOC in particular do have to protect ourselves from more significant rates of aggression and violence. So do LGB+ folks.”

      Armed blacks rarely get lynched.

      Armed woman rarely get raped.

      Armed gay’s rarely get bashed.

      Just sayin….

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I had a cousin that died proving you can’t rape a .38. And the world is a better place with out him.

      2. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Chip

        Yep.Believe me, I’m always talking to people about self defense and how it’s not really something one should consider an option as a minority. I don’t talk to people about guns unless they ask me, but if they do, happy to provide information and help.

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Elaine D.,

      Friendly suggestion: do not use acronyms, especially obscure acronyms, if you want to communicate effectively.

      You used the acronyms POC and WOC and it took me about three minutes to finally realize that you were using shorthand for “people of color” and “women of color”.

      Yes, a reader could certainly open an additional browser tab, go to a search engine, type in the acronym that you supplied, look through the search results, and determine which meaning you intended. That same reader could also skip all of that and leave your comment having no idea what you were trying to say.

      Given that it takes about an extra three seconds (and zero mental effort) for you to type out your acronym, I would say that is an optimum approach versus requiring someone an extra minute, lots of keystrokes, and a fair amount of mental effort to determine which meaning you intended in your acronym.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @uncommon

        Thanks for the feedback. These acronyms are commonly used in my work and social circle, so didn’t think to spell them out, will do so in future.

        1. avatar Too Frank says:

          Except the entire elevation of US violence rates derive from elevated commission rates by “People of Color.”

    4. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “This makes me wonder if this writer belongs to a majority group that doesn’t have to worry about such issues on a daily and weekly basis.”

      Well, here’s her picture :

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethmacbride/#7411ef3e4681

      (For the lazy, she’s not elderly, white, blonde hair, and (to me, anyways) rather attractive…)

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Geoff

        Yep. Kind of what I figured just from reading it. It’s very easy to overlook the real need other people have to protect themselves when you yourself don’t have that need, which is why the self protection needs of POC always seem to get left out of these discussions.

    5. avatar Eli2016 says:

      “It’s interesting to me that nowhere does she mention the fact that POC and WOC in particular do have to protect ourselves from more significant rates of aggression and violence. So do LGB+ folks. This makes me wonder if this writer belongs to a majority group that doesn’t have to worry about such issues on a daily and weekly basis.”

      To Elaine D. As a MOR POC who has a tendency to steer to the right more often than not I have to disagree with your statement unless you are specifically pointing to the black populace. Among the Asian “populace” where I live I have not seen any significant rates of aggression towards this group which constitutes Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Filipino. In fact, the neighborhoods I’ve frequented are almost always peaceful but industrious. I’m sure there are many exceptions but there is nothing to indicate that your statement is absolute as I’m sure you know that the Asian populace is almost always a minority except in Hawaii.

      Cheers.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        Depends on where you live. If you live in an area where a large nonwhite population is normalized, you’re probably OK. If not, it’s a very different story. Being a woman of color means that you have a significantly higher risk of experiencing a combination of both gender and racial violence, which is why we’re considered a vulnerable population. I’ve personally been through many, many more experiences of threat and harassment than any of my white colleagues, and so have pretty much all of my WOC clients.

        1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          “Depends on where you live. If you live in an area where a large nonwhite population is normalized, you’re probably OK. If not, it’s a very different story. Being a woman of color means that you have a significantly higher risk of experiencing a combination of both gender and racial violence, which is why we’re considered a vulnerable population.”

          Try living as a white person in a majority non-white area. Or a mixed race couple in a majority non-white area. The higher risk you claim to be unique to you is very real to white people and mixed couples. Very very real. It is a shitty human being problem. Certainly not exclusive to any race or gender.

        2. avatar Too Frank says:

          Being a woman of color means that you have a significantly higher risk of experiencing a combination of both gender and racial violence, which is why we’re considered a vulnerable population.

          women of color also have massively higher violence commission rates

      2. avatar ferret427 says:

        When I lived in Los Angeles/Orange Counties in the ’90s, all you heard was about crips and bloods…what you did not hear about were the gang controlled Vietnamese neighborhoods. One of my closest friends was an LA County Sheriff’s Depute, and he said they were far more brutal than either of the other two.

        1. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Ferret

          Yep. Violence in Asian communities often goes unnoticed because it doesn’t fit the “model minority” stereotype of how Asians behave.

          The really creepy thing is that a lot of neo-Nazis prefer to try to find Asian women as partners because of the perception that we are submissive, “almost white” (meaning not like those other black and brown people) and will easily give into the beliefs of white supremacy. It’s pretty openly discussed on their forums. I also saw this when I was in Germany years ago, where there was a lot of “bride buying” from Southeast Asia by German men.

        2. avatar Too Frank says:

          The really creepy thing is that a lot of neo-Nazis prefer to try to find Asian women as partners because of the perception that we are submissive,

          It is amazing how many bigoted statements you feel you can make. Why is it people obsessed with dividing society, as you are, turn out to be such bigots? People marry who they want for a variety of reasons and you don;t have any data to back up your claims.

          Also ou say people of color have higher violence victimization rates, Well they also have elevated violence commission rates. Women of color only have higher victimization rates because of Men of Color.
          you are obsessed with LGBT lens yet gay men have higher domestic violence commission rates than heterosexual men, and gay women have higher domestic violence commission rates than straight women.

    6. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      ” the fact that POC and WOC in particular do have to protect ourselves from more significant rates of aggression and violence. So do LGB+ folks. ”

      As somebody who has lived as a white male in areas where white males are the minority I can assure you that the “C” in your quote very much includes the color white “in particular”. Rates may vary depending on what part of which town you are in but it is certainly universal. So all you should be talking about are “P” people and “W” women. While I acknowledge that my personal experience may be anecdotal I can assure you that white people are very much an at risk group of aggression and violence if we dare to live in the wrong address, visit a restaurant in the wrong zip code or follow Google’s direction through the wrong neighborhood.

      If I have to acknowledge that I have never lived as other than white or other than male then the reverse is also true. Racisim (while argueably at it’s lowest levels in human history in current western culture) is now and will forever be a problem because there always has been and always will be stupid people. There are certainly differences between the sexes and stupid people will always use those to create distention. Pretending that it does not impact all sides (including white and male) perpetuates the problems these divisions create.

      It is true the people who are not white face different challenges than people who are white and women face different challenges than men. Failure to acknowledge that white people and men do not encounter aggression and violence at the hands of other colors (including whites) and females daily only weakens your argument, not strengthens it. Lets leave the racism and sexism out of it and try to help everybody . . . as in everybody everybody regardless of <>.

      “It’s interesting to me that nowhere does she mention . . .” because those factors are universal. So granular and different that they defy addressing in a simple and misguided article but universal none the less.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Ian

        There is extensive data and research on what I have said above. Nothing that I said in any way states that white people don’t experience violence and aggression. But there’s plenty of data that shows that the more brown and female you are, the more your risk of being threatened goes up.

        Certainly it’s affected by where you live. If you live in areas where you are the majority and not the minority in your area, you’re probably alright. But I do think there are particular things that WOC face that are unique to us.

        I often find it interesting to ask the guys at the range the last time they experienced a harassing or racist remark or someone trying to invade their physical space, treat them in a sexual manner in a non sexual context, or touch them, for example. I also ask my white female colleagues the same thing. The answer is almost always that they can’t remember the last time something like that happened or it was a while ago.

        If they think to ask me the same question, I can usually tell them about an incident that’s happened within the last several weeks. And it’s been that way my whole life. And I live in a nice neighborhood and have a professional job.

        I could tell you stories, a lot of them, but they wouldn’t make you think any better of humanity, so I’ll spare you.

        1. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          “I could tell you stories, a lot of them, but they wouldn’t make you think any better of humanity, so I’ll spare you.”

          And I likely have the exact same stories with different genders and colors in equal numbers, which is my point. For every statistic you can present for one color or gender being more victimized than another I can present one that is equally cherry picked to highlight yet a different color or gender . . . which is my point. The only thing I am arguing is that white is a color and males are equally marginalized victims.

          The original article made no mention of color and only briefly touched on gender when talking about domestic violence. 100% of the topic of color and gender in the comment section was injected by your comment. Nobody else including the original author. It applied to everybody.

          I am happy to discuss the intricacies of individual cases, people, circumstances, etc. But when you say “People Of Color” . . . you include white people. “Women Of Color” includes white women. Anything less is painting with a brush so wide it weakens the argument. Because white is a color.

        2. avatar Elaine D. says:

          @Ian

          The Harvard research that the article linked to did mention gender in some places. It also used the term “socially undesirable” a number of times in regard to people’s behavior with guns, which always brings up the question of what that means and who determines what is “socially desirable.” This is where it links to questions about race and socioeconomic class. I posted in a different thread about the current lawsuit against Harvard, which has been keeping out Asian Americans based on vague measures of “sociability.”

          I’ll use the term “non white” from here on out to clarify what I’m talking about.

        3. avatar Scoutino says:

          “But there’s plenty of data that shows that the more brown and female you are, the more your risk of being threatened goes up.”

          Maybe it’s hanging around violent people that rises the risk of being threatened.

          There is lots of neighborhoods in most of large cities, where it would be very dangerous for white person to walk the street alone, especially after dark. And I don’t mean danger of suggestive remarks. Can you name one place in US, where brown person needs to worry to go to, because he would be likely physically attacked by white locals for his “not belonging color”?

          Please, leave that leftist “Poor me, I am member of a victim group!” mentality at the door.

        4. avatar Ian in Transit says:

          I am well aware of the long overdue lawsuit against Harvard. To bad it wasn’t more broadly applied to the entire higher education system. They have been limiting the advancement of asians for decades now bases solely on their race. This is one of those specific instances against a specific group that can be addressed specifically. Shifting the goalposts to that talking point I am 100% with you.

          Still doesn’t change the fact that white males and white females are people of color just like all other males and all other females of all other colors. Just depends on which statistic you want to focus on and which ones you decide to ignore. Blanket statements are almost universally counterproductive.

        5. avatar Too Frank says:

          Elaine writes:But there’s plenty of data that shows that the more brown and female you are, the more your risk of being threatened goes up.”

          You ail stats 101.
          You are ignoring the fact that the data also show the more brown you are the more risk there is that YOU will threaten violence and commit violence.

          Black males per capita commit way more violence than white males do per capita. Black males are also, per violent felony committed half as likely to be shot by polcie as white males are.

          Black males are 6.5% of the US population and commit the majority of murder, over 50%.
          Black females commit more murder than white females do.

    7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Out groups always have the biggest need to look after themselves — kind of goes with the definition. What the system chooses will tend to ignore the impact on out groups — kind of goes with the definition. Out groups appealing to the system for help is kind of a fools errand. Gun legislation, regulation n policy isn’t likely to much help the people who could most use it. Being out groups, it won’t be written for their benefit: WOC, for example.

      I’m not a fan of the “prudence” vs. “fear” conflation in the article. And now “control.” Apparently, an out group is psychologically unbalanced in some way, for simply recognizing that fact n doing what they can. Seems like further marginalizing out groups — kinda what happens.

      (Any resembelance to declaring people “bitterly clinging to their guns and religion” because they are afraid is … well, just doubling down on something that worked. Welcome to the clingers, E. We have room for everyone.)

      That article author isn’t anybody’s friend, especially any people in out groups with greater need to look out for themselves. I’m not much of a fan of that article’s thinking in groups either — “culture” “gun owners.” Misleading categories as used.

  10. avatar Alex G says:

    Domestic violence incidents are almost always crimes of passion committed by individuals who are in a extremely emotional state at the time. The attacks are committed using the weapons readily at hand , whether they are fists, knives, improvised clubs or guns. While guns are perhaps the most lethal weapon used in crimes of passion, they are not the cause of the attack and if a gun was not present, some other weapon or implement would likely be used. That said, a woman, who is generally the physically weaker party in a domestic violence situation, is more likely going to be able to defend herself effectively against a physically stronger attacker if she is armed with a firearm and trained in its use.

  11. avatar pg2 says:

    One democrat(maybe former democrat?) that gets it. Vast majority of republicans are clueless. Party lines have become a joke to give the public the illusion they have a choice. The individual liberties this country was founded on stand no chance against this globalization.

  12. avatar DJ says:

    Marxist nonsense! Molon labe

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    I guess incarceration, execution, or just plugging dirtbag in the act isn’t a solution to this learned expert in gun violence, whatever that is.
    England is progressing to a country where people are stabbed to death in knife violence. Next will come beating violence.

    Disarmed people die like that.

    1. avatar MouseGun says:

      Oi mate, ye got a loicense for closin’ yer ‘ands?

  14. avatar Wiregrass says:

    So the message I’m getting is if you have a mindset to be in control of your life and property and make the least bit of effort to provide for its defense instead of relying on the authorities while you wander oblivious sniffing unicorn rainbow farts then you are contributing to the level of violence.

    Love the way she even managed to work hunting into that definition.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Hunting is a problem for these people. Don’t think for a minute they will permit it.

      1. avatar pod says:

        Prepare for the shitshow when lab-grown meat becomes an affordable reality. Right now, the go-to defense for hunting is that it’s actually more humane than what’s being done to the animals in the slaughterhouses. Once a close, affordable, lab-grown analog of meat becomes a reality, the hunting community will have to shore up it’s defenses hardcore. In a way, it’ll be good since the Fudds will be forced to come around finally. Since then they’d be grabbing for the Fudd guns as well.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          If the Left gets its way, all the proles will be eating Soylent Green.

        2. avatar pg2 says:

          Only on Tuesdays Ralph.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Bring in the Scoops.

          Now, that was crowd control.

        4. avatar Mark N. says:

          Doubtful, as hunting is the only known solution to wild animal population control absent abandoning the country to them and reintroducing large numbers of wolves, cougars, and bears to keep the numbers in check. Few on the left seem to realize that hunters provide a huge portion of annual federal and state budgets for conservation, and without hunting, those conservation efforts will likely grind to a halt.

        5. avatar MyName says:

          @MarkN

          I don’t think the Left has really thought through the hunting-as-population-control issue at all. They would like to see hunting go away just as much as any other gun use. They often go nuts on hunting related social media and I’ve had many say something to the effect of, “Why do you like killing the cute animals?”

          I predict that their solution, could they get rid of individuals hunting, is that they would then call for state sponsored culling like we see happening in other countries. Of course, that won’t be paid for by the hunters in the fashion it is now so, as usual with the Left, they’ll call for increased taxes to cull and dispose of the surplus wildlife all why patting themselves on the back because they are ‘protecting’ the animals from those evil bloodthirsty hunters. As far as the Left is concerned, there is no problem that can’t be solved by a bigger government and more taxes.

        6. avatar ATTAGReader says:

          I am not a hunter but know plenty of people who hunt. The Left does not like hunting because they would prefer to leave the countryside to the animals. They want all people to be concentrated (I use the term deliberately with multiple meanings intentional) in cities and towns where they can be controlled, and where, due to the designed overcrowding, they want to be controlled, protected from the social misfits who prefer the urban areas. Places like NYC are self-fulfilling prophecies and have been so for hundreds of years. Police states, martial law, etc. are difficult to enforce in the countryside (e.g. Vietnam, rural Afghanistan, rural Pakistan, etc.) And anti-government movements can thrive or at least hide out in the countryside (same countries plus US natives until wiped out/rounded up.) Hunting is in existential threat to the radical Left and other totalitarian movements in so many ways.

    2. avatar TheUnspoken says:

      I thought it was the progressives telling everyone in gun free zones to hide or as last result throw staplers and coffee at armed killers trying to shoot you? I would be saying to either hide behind cover and listen to commands of the armed, responsible adult who is present (for small kids who should have an armed, responsible adult caring for them anyway) or if the kids are of age and left alone, they should be able to call for help and retrieve a weapon to defend themselves.

      My work regurgitates the same drivel, shows the run hide fight videos, tells us we have the right to defend ourselves from a mass shooter, gives us little training quizzes on what improvised office gear we should throw at an attacker…. And sticks no weapons/no guns signs on all the doors and bans weapons in the handbook. Feel free to defend yourself, but no guns or weapons allowed. Yeah that isn’t the message the 2A promotes.

  15. avatar pod says:

    At least she acknowledges it takes violence and threats to enforce the law. Maybe she’ll keep that in mind next time she calls for gun control

  16. avatar FedUp says:

    MacBride: “I’m not an expert, so I’ll just go with my feelz and treat them as established facts…”

  17. avatar MyName says:

    Another screed based entirely on the premise that we have a huge ‘gun-violence’ problem that must be solved when, in fact, only a minuscule fraction of guns and gun owners are ever involved in any type of crime or violence. Why would anyone advocate for sweeping changes to society that would impact a huge portion of the population but would only possibly yield a benefit for a tiny fraction of the population?

    On another note, what is that pistol?

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “On another note, what is that pistol?”

      To me, it looks a whole lot like a CO2-pellet gun.

      It just has that pot-metal ‘look’ about it, and the bore damn sure ain’t .45…

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Yeah, I’m thinking pellet gun or completely fake. Muzzle isn’t .45, (yes, I know there are non .45 cal. 1911s out there) bushing is weird, recoil spring plug doesn’t have shoulders to engage the back of the bushing so it is either captive in the slide or not actually a plunger, slide cuts are weird, trigger and guard are weird (for a 1911).

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        The bore appears too small for even .22 inch bore, let alone a .177. The barrel bushing is also nowhere near robust enough for even a mild caliber like .380acp. My money is on a plastic toy that someone thinks they can pass off “as if” they aren’t pretending(like the self-styled ‘progressives’ always do. If they couldn’t play pretend, they would have no life at all. Certainly weighing options and coming to a rational decision is just not possible for the majority of them.)

  18. avatar W says:

    Gun Control is deeply enmeshed in progressives’ core need for control.

  19. avatar Yarbles says:

    Once again. There is NO SUCH THING AS ‘GUN VIOLENCE’. There is only ‘CRIMINAL VIOLENCE’.

    When someone tries to start a conversation with me about ‘gun violence’ I shut them down immediately.

  20. avatar possum says:

    Soldiers committing acts of violence with gunz. Uh and that’s why “We” have a Nation willing to send in Troops to fight those soldiers. Someone needs to shut that guys door.

  21. avatar Too Frank says:

    The left opposes hunting because it is an individual providing for themselves.

    AS far as domestic violence and domestic murder is concerned, a women owning a gun reduced her risk since the data indicate it is a deterrent.

    The elevated risk for being a domestic violence victim directly varies with being in a relationship with a prior criminal and/or having a prior criminal domiciled in the home

  22. avatar joefoam says:

    The problem with the whole article is the premise that there is a ‘gun violence problem’. Gun violence is a no more than statistical noise in this country, and as pointed out above far less than other nations. You can’t accept anything as being factual about this article unless you subscribe to that notion.

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