Thomas Hills, Ph.D.: Anyone Who Believes in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Dangerous

Some people respond to information about gun deaths with the short reply that information has no place in the American conversation about guns, because gun ownership is a “right.” It doesn’t matter what guns actually do, the true odds of shooting a bad guy, how many innocent people die, what Norwegians with guns might have managed when Breivik came, how dangerous a gun is to its owner, or anything else. The facts are completely irrelevant, because all that matters is that it is a right to own guns. Period.

If you want to know what’s wrong with this way of thinking, then keep reading. If you are convinced by the above line of reasoning, then don’t read this. You won’t like it.

First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights. And they take those rights away. They do this when it seems reasonable to do so.

…people who unquestioningly believe in something because of its status as a right are dangerous. They are dangerous, because they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong. This makes them susceptible to manipulation by others and makes them a threat to themselves and the people around them. – Thomas Hills, Ph.D. for Psychology Today, On Gun Rights in America

comments

  1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

    Government grant rights? So there is no such thing as a natural right to self defense?

    Where’d he get his PhD? Definitely piled high and deep…

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      I left him a comment (I’d suggest others do so, too at least while the comment section remains open) suggesting the same.
      In its entirety:
      “People like Thomas Hills are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. They have nothing but contempt for our foundational documents and resent the enumerated rights therein. Hills is wrong to say our Constitutional Rights were granted by government. These are Rights we are born with. They exist with or without the paper they’re written on. In fact, they exist on paper for the sole purpose to restrain government from infringing upon them. Folks like Thomas Hills pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic and MUST be recognized as the terrorist he and his ilk are.”

      1. avatar Porridgeweasel says:

        I commented as well. Don’t expect eloquence or wisdom though.

        People like this guy completely ignore the proof of history and the very nature of the meaning of freedom. Amazing.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          “People like this guy completely ignore the proof of history and the very nature of the meaning of freedom.”

          Didn’t you read his opening paragraph? He doesn’t ignore facts and statistics; WE are the ones who ignore facts and statistics! I’m sure if we showed him the muliple independent studies that showed that guns are used 2million times a year to save lives, as a man of science and reason, he would see the error of his ways and amend his understanding. /sarc/

        2. avatar Toni says:

          comments closed by the time i got to it.

      2. Thanks for showing me about it, I did too, told him he was a propaganda spewing whackjob. I’m sure I’ll get a favorable reply……….. RIGHT!!, LMAO

      3. avatar Frank in VA says:

        Thomas Hill is a Brit. University of Warwick is in England. So thankfully he is not a domestic anything.

      4. avatar WesleysHuman says:

        This is the truth. I have rights because I am a human being NOT because a government gave them to me. Anything that can be unilaterally removed from me is by definition NOT a right but rather a privilege!

      5. avatar Joe says:

        The comments seem to be closed there, but the publisher does have a Feedback page:

        https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/feedback

        Highly suggest people hit it like Hickock45’s gong.

        1. avatar MB says:

          Closing the comments page proves there is no rational argument to support the author’s article. “Thomas Hills, Ph.D.: Anyone Who Believes in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is Dangerous. ” If he prompted the action, he truly is the coward we think he is.

      6. avatar The People says:

        Do not reply here- he will never see them. Instead, I suggest hitting his twitter account.😉

        https://twitter.com/thomhills?lang=en

        He is so far off base it isnt funny. Just another “educated” idiot.

    2. avatar Art out West says:

      The Creator defines right and wrong. Human institutions don’t have that authority.

      The State is that man’s god. That makes him extraordinarily dangerous.

      I also have an earned doctorate, but don’t feel the obnoxious need to flaunt it all the time.

    3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      Modern academic psychology, both clinical and experimental, is dominated by leftism. Which is pretty rich actually because some of the few products of experimental psychology that have arguably achieved status as true scientific law (Thorndike’s law of effect) imply that socialism can never work long term and on a large scale.

      Regardless, this guy may be a bit fringe even for academic psychology (though not as far off mainstream as I personally would like). But the implied threat in the referenced editorial should not be taken lightly. You don’t have to strip much away to get to his core message: If you believe that individuals have rights, and that there should be meaningful limits on the power of the state, then you are dangerously insane. And what do we do with the dangerously insane, ladies and gentlemen? That con is a favorite of totalitarians, though not as ubiquitous as “it’s for the children.”

      1. avatar Raphael Corrino says:

        PhD in Psychology. That in itself is a eed flag. What, he did not have the intelligence and patience to spend an extra four years and ge an MD in Psychiatry? Maybe then he’d have a miniscule more credibility

    4. avatar Gman says:

      I picked him apart in 6 comments. At least they allow them. But I’m not holding my breath he will have the courage or conviction to respond. He is delusional.

  2. avatar Craig in IA says:

    I believe in the inherent, God-given right to keep and bear arms, especially firearms. OF COURSE I COULD BE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS! Dangerous to a lot of people seeking to do me harm of either a physical or financial nature, including my own govenrmental entities. That was the intention of the Second Amendment- a bit of self preservation and protection.

    1. avatar Jon says:

      I have a question. Where in the bible does God grant the right to self defense? I have not been able to find one. I am not trying to be a jerk, just want a solid example where God explicitly or contextually grants the right to self defense.

      1. avatar Chris. says:

        Well, I’m an Atheist; But, Ecclesiastes 3 “A time for all things”

        A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
        a time of war, and a time of peace.

        &

        Luke 22:36 — if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

        Regardless every animal on the planet will fight for it’s own life. Doesn’t mean it will win, but it will fight. When people talk of a Natural Right to self-defense, that’s where I go. Even a cornered mouse will scratch and bite at the cat.

      2. avatar Keith says:

        Then sir, you have not read the same bible as I. In the laws given to the children of Israel, God told them, ” if the thief be found breaking up the house, and yes strike him, and he die, you are not at fault”. He had the people stand guard armed, while the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt, because they were being threatened by their neighbors. Solomon said in proverbs, that if we stand by and watch our neighbors dragged to their doom and did nothing, then God would require an explanation of us. Jesus told the disiples to buy a sword. Shall I continue?

      3. avatar JP says:

        Take it from this Athiest/Agnostic:

        Gospel of Luke (22:36, NIV), “sell your cloak and buy a sword”

        However, you still may be subscribing to a system of thought that requires you to believe our lives need formal directives from some authority.

        Our rights are natural and unalienable. The evidence of our right to self-defense is all around our natural world. We can see it when a water buffalo sticks its horn into an attacking lion, or when a stingray whips it’s barbed tail when threatened. And we feel it when we see scores of Coptic Christians are getting slaughtered in Egypt and we ask: “Why didn’t they have the means to defend themselves?”. It’s because totalitarian regimes stripped them of their natural rights “when it seems reasonable to do so”.

        When they say our rights come from God, they mean our rights come from our creator, in nature, by natural law. It’s just that documents like the Bible and our Constitution codify and enumerate those rights so that we don’t have to figure out (the hard way) what others have learned about our existence already.

        1. avatar Art out West says:

          Yes, even athiests should logically assume the basic right of self defense. All creatures have a right to defend themselves, and their families. Look at the biological world all around us. It is everywhere.

          Athiests are rather silly to believe that natural selection and random mutation created everything. They usually don’t understand science very well. 😊

          I’m still thankful for those that affirm the natural right of self defense.

        2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Proof that or rights are natural and inalienable requires only the realization that no person has any cause to wield power over another without consent. The period that make up government are not superior, wiser, or more knowledgeable than you or I. Their power to force others to live a certain way had no legitimate basis.

          That is what a right is: a behavior that no one else has any authority to prevent you from engaging in, like gun ownership, or to force you to engage in, like giving up guns.

      4. avatar Art out West says:

        Read the Bible. It is everywhere. Even the 10 Commandments (You shall not commit murder) presumes the right to defend the innocent from slaughter. Jesus told His disciples that they should sell their cloak to buy a sword.

        Don’t forget that God raised up the Judge Ehud who made his own sword to kill the obese king of Moab (who was oppressing the children of Israel).

      5. avatar Dev says:

        You don’t even need to go to the Bible or any other religious text. Every form of life has a means for self-defense; the core of existence is survival. This is what the anti-gunners fail to understand.

      6. avatar jwtaylor says:

        There are many throughout the bible. Both implicit stories and explicit verses.

        Psalm 82:4 “Rescue weak and needy people. Help them escape the power of wicked people.”

        Proverbs 24:11 “Rescue captives condemned to death, and spare those staggering toward their slaughter.”

        Exodus 22:2–3 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed”

        Luke 22:35-37 “Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out to preach the Good News and you did not have money, a traveler’s bag, or an extra pair of sandals, did you need anything?” “No,” they replied. “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled”

        Luke 22:38-39 “Look, Lord,” they replied, “we have two swords among us.” “That’s enough,” he said. Then, accompanied by the disciples, Jesus left the upstairs room and went as usual to the Mount of Olives.”

        Nehemiah 4 17 “Those who were rebuilding the wall and those who carried burdens took their load with one hand doing the work and the other holding a weapon. 18 As for the builders, each wore his sword girded at his side as he built, while the trumpeter stood near me. … 21 So we carried on the work with half of them holding spears from dawn until the stars appeared. …. 23 So neither I, my brothers, my servants, nor the men of the guard who followed me, none of us removed our clothes, each took his weapon even to the water.”

        Ezekiel 33 “… 6 ‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand”

        Psalm 18:34 “He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze”

      7. avatar Craig in IA says:

        And in addition to the fine posting by supporters to this notion above- excerpted from the Declaration of Independence:

        “… to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        My initial posting was derived more from this founding statement upon which our entire being as a nation was formed. And as someone above stated as well, it is inherent for many animals, including humans, who are not so fleet of feet or wing to stand and defend themselves. Just the other day a damn marmot was holding off my GSP that she’d cornered on the running path, doing a good job, too.

      8. avatar Specialist38 says:

        Mosaic Law mentions that someone who hits someone (and kills them) who is trying to rob them is not guilty of murder.

        Moses also defended Jethros daughters at the well where it mentions his “stick”. Not sharp words.

        When Nehemiah was rebuilding the temple walls there were groups who wished them harm and tried to stop them. Nehemiah had everyone wear weapons and posted guards to protect the Hebrews building the wall.

        The underlying ideal is that it was assumed you would defend yourself. The legal side took witnesses to convict you of a crime. There were designated cities of sanctuary where those guilty of homicide/manslaughter could be safe from the family of someone killed in a dispute or fight and no one witnessed it to determine a crime.

      9. avatar David says:

        while I don’t remember the verses–if you kill the fool that breaks into your residence at night, it is the fault of the burglar if he dies and there is an ethical obligation to defend innocent life and to not commit suicide–failing to defend yourself violates both of those points

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights. And they take those rights away. They do this when it seems reasonable to do so.’

    So when it seemed reasonable to Adolph Hitler that Jews should no longer have the right to live, then that was acceptable because being chosen by the people he had the proper authority to grant or take away rights. Got it.

    1. avatar L says:

      100% this ^

      It’s a miracle this guy got a Ph.D sleeping through all of his history classes.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        He got a PhD in psychology, fer crissakes. And he’s a professor. And he’s “publishing” in Psych Today.

        Much akin to reading the Sunday comics with a yellow highlighter, looking for a particularly meaningful passage in ‘Beetle Bailey’…

  4. avatar Quasimofo says:

    “…people who unquestioningly believe in something because of its status as a right are dangerous. They are dangerous, because they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong.”

    Uh huh. Does the good doctor also apply this approach to, say, the right of free speech? If so, he’ll fit right in in the EU and UK…

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      “..they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong.”

      This usa 100% backwards. It’s the belief that rights are granted and can be revoked that is based in authority instead of region and morality.

      The idea that a government authority is required to grant rights is literally a belief in authority.

      The belief in absolute rights is literally a belief in the fundamental limits, or total invalidity, of authority.

      This is a completely rancid word salad.

      How the hell did this jackewgon finish a degree?

      Proof that some with degrees are owed a refund.

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Damned typo

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Ditto. A belief that the government is the source of rights is a belief in state authority, not individual morality and free choice.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    So it’s the people who believe we have rights that are dangerous NOT the people who want to restrict those rights? Got it. It’s good to know who the good guys are. White hats like Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, good ol Benito. Real heroes looking out for the little guys.

  6. avatar kap says:

    You can tell the Author does not believe in Christianity, Jesus believed in self defense for his Disciples when he told them too purchase swords, he did not need them as it was his choice too be put on the tree!
    Just another POS trying to justify their better than thou attitude and cowardliness at not saying people are warped!

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Or laying the ground work for new DSM IV afflictions to better target undesirable personalities.

      1. avatar Jon says:

        ding ding ding ding ding. You win. This way he can medicate what he does not like.

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Can I concede my victory and leave the prize across the pond?

      2. avatar Dr. Whatever Pulls Your Trigger says:

        “Can I concede my victory and leave the prize across the pond?”

        NOPE!
        The current version is DSM V.
        You do, however, get a really bigly Attaboy!

  7. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

    “They are dangerous, because they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong. ”

    …and here I thought he was talking about the “progressive Socialista” so prevalent in the world news…

    1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      “They are dangerous, because they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong.”

      He’d fit right in as a 9th circuit justice, wouldn’t he?

      1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

        A thousand (and one) years ago in college I took Dr. Himmelstein’s Abnormal Psych class. We had to read “The Authoritarian Personality” by Adorno, et al. As I made my way through the intervening decades, I have met (even worked for) most of the personality types he wrote about…and they are even crazier today then they were back when he wrote his classic book.

        His many publications explored the rise of Fascism (after all, he was a German living through the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s) and his comments on the rise of modern mass culture as a program of social control are as valid today as they were when he put them on paper.

        The Ninth Circus Court of Appeals fulfills Adorno’s observations to a “T”…social engineering Fascists.

  8. avatar Geoff "You'll shoot your eye out, kid!" PR says:

    “If the majority of Americans felt that a right was hurting people more than it helped them, then they should work to change that right. In fact, they should feel obligated to do so. A government that refused to do this would not be representing “We the people.””

    The comment section to that turd of an article is wide-ass *open*.

    Let him know what you think of his ‘ideas’…

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      The article was published almost a full year ago, and the author is an academic at an English government funded research university. His focus is actually on statistics. This is an old article by a grossly unqualified author in another country writing about the US. He’s not listening to comments, and neither is anyone else.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        The fact that he is supposed to deal in statistics makes his statement, “If the majority of Americans felt that a right was hurting people more than it helped them, then they should work to change that right.”, even more ridiculous. What does how people *feel* matter to a statistician. If we are going by the statistics, then the data tell me that something on the order of 99.9% of the guns and gun owners are not involved in criminal acts each year. How I feel about that is irrelevant, from a statistical point of view.

      2. avatar possum says:

        I bet the FBI is, they have to be. ….what ever happened to joeR, tee hee

        1. avatar M1Lou says:

          He probably had a visit by some people in special gear. He is now being force fed his medication while wearing his “huggy jacket” in a padded cell.

  9. avatar Baldwin says:

    Hey, at least he warned us not to read the rest of the article.

  10. avatar Fffghll says:

    The 2nd amendment isn’t about I (the individual) is allowed to do. It was talking about what the government is not allowed to do. The Bill of Rights were intended as negative rights checking the powers of a centralized federal government.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      It frightens me severely how few people understand this. I truly believe we need to start talking in terms of the powers that government is not allowed instead of “rights.”

      They are in fact the same thing but when little focus on the word “right” instead of the concept of restricting power they start to believe that if a right is limited then “you still have that right,” which is wrong.

      This is where the idea comes from that free speech doesn’t include “hate speech,” or that if your are restricted to owning only single shot pellet guns then you “still have” that 2nd amendment right, when in fact free speech means there can be no such legal category as “hate speech” and not being infringed means not being limited.

      1. avatar George Overall says:

        Well said.

  11. avatar Roger Pemberton says:

    Where’d this guy get his PhD, a box of crackerjacks? If believing in the God given right to self defense is dangerous than call me dangerous. To not include guns in that same belief would be stupid and dangerous. I have never heard anyone say that fists are a good defense in a gun fight. Knowing what escalation of force is and how to implement it is key for the fight and afterwards.

  12. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    I don’t think this guy by his own logic has a right to write articles. He should be silenced and his 1st admendment right should be taken away.

  13. avatar CCDWGUY says:

    He is a Professor at the University of Warwick, England, no wonder he doesn’t care about our rights.

  14. avatar Nam62 says:

    Psychology is lethal to the rights of people they should be required to register as a lethal weapon!!

  15. avatar OBOB says:

    yep like gramps said…PHD don’t mean that you are smart…just letters in most cases!

  16. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Thomas Hills, PhD, statist, says:

    First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights.

    Nah, I’ll stick with our nation’s founding document:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

    Let’s break that down:

    …all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…

    Rights are not granted by men, through government or otherwise. Rights are an endowment from our Creator.

    …that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

    Chief among the rights with which our Creator has endowed us is the right to life. As a result, we have the right to defend our lives, and therefore have the right to use the most effective means to exercise that right. Ever since the Chinese invented gunpowder over a millennium ago, that means has been the firearm.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…

    Not only do governments not grant rights; the primary – if not sole – responsibility of government is to protect rights not granted by government but endowed by our Creator. Thus, a government acting to infringe upon or outright violate those rights is acting illegitimately.

    …deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

    Government has no authority corporately that does not first exist, and derive from, the authority inherent in the individual. Thus, it is impossible for the government to “grant” a right, because all power, authority, and rights exercised by the government derives from the power, authority, and rights inherent in the individual. For the government to “grant” a right is implicit acknowledgement that such a right first exists inherently by the individual.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

      “Men” — misogynist
      “Creator” –religious fundamentalist
      “Unalienable” –racist
      “Life” –dog whistle for anti-abortion
      “Liberty” –dog whistle for inequality
      “Pursuit of Happiness” –dog whistle for Capitalist exploitation

      Their little messaging campaign is quite thorough, isn’t it? They quite literally stand everything we don’t stand for (also they called you guys dorks)

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        friggin’ wordpress…s’posed to respond to Chip up above…

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Meh. I’ve been called worse, by far better than his ilk.

      3. avatar Cthulhu 2020 says:

        Nice Zap Brannigan reference at the end. Seriously.

  17. avatar G. Shervo says:

    Another subject that thinks he can talk down to citizens. Lol.

  18. avatar barnbwt says:

    Ah, psychologist. A “doctor” doctor. I wonder what personal mental pathology prompted him to enter the field?

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

      “Men” — misogynist
      “Creator” –religious fundamentalist
      “Unalienable” –racist
      “Life” –dog whistle for anti-abortion
      “Liberty” –dog whistle for inequality
      “Pursuit of Happiness” –dog whistle for Capitalist exploitation

      Their little messaging campaign is quite thorough, isn’t it? They quite literally stand everything we don’t stand for (also they called you guys dorks)

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        🏆 Genius and I’m stealing it. And you can’t stop me, lol. Thx!!!

      2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Nice

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Failed Ouija board 101, Séance 201, and not smart enough to be a witch doctor.

      1. avatar David says:

        don’t insult witch doctors

  19. avatar Mad Max says:

    What a poorly educated fool; he should demand a refund from the Universities that he attended (and his high school too; if they charged his family tuition).

    He should have never graduated without a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights.

    1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      He’s British. His only understanding of rights is those that the Queen allows him to have. He’s a subject, not a citizen.

      1. avatar M2AP says:

        The UK is still technically a theocratic monarchy. The queen gets all the power from their god. The queen then delegates powers to the government. The government decides what the people get.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          It looks like Allan will soon anoint the monarch for the once great island.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        Ok. That explains it. He’s a Loyalist.

  20. avatar DrewR says:

    Doctors are responsible for 16 times as many avoidable deaths annually than gun owners. Just throwing that out there.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      He’s a Psychology guy; highly unlikely he’s responsible for hurting anyone (or helping them for that matter)

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        “recent push in several states to grant psychologists prescribing privileges and there are actually already a few places where psychologists do have prescribing privileges”

        Given their inclinations there is no doubt that their main interest is spreading more pot around.

  21. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    one more shit-for-brains demoncrap that has been smoking the same poison -pipe that the communist use, this makes me wonder where this idiot got his phd. cracker-jacks box????

  22. avatar HP says:

    It’s cool, guys. He’s got a Ph.D., that means he’s smarter and more sophisticated than us, and totally has a more valid world view.

  23. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

    “Psychology Today” or Psychology from last February?

  24. avatar Florian Geyer says:

    “First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights” Well there’s your trouble, partner. But what else can you expect from someone whose living is mostly made from other people’s taxes?

    And yes, I probably am dangerous to “experts” like him who have more degrees than brain cells who believe that membership in the intelligentsia qualifies them to dictate the rights of us rubes in middle america.

  25. avatar M2AP says:

    Governments don’t grant rights in our system. The people have rights and they form a government and delegate powers to it in order to protect the rights of the people.

    In another system, the monarch has all the rights and powers that they get from their god(s) and they choose which ones they’ll grant to their people.

  26. avatar CDC says:

    I may make the likes of Thomas Hills uncomfortable because I will not be manipulated by their constant beat down. I’m dangerous to those within bad breath distance without my permission, and that’s with or without a firearm.

  27. avatar MB says:

    Another leftist educated beyond his intelligence. These people will be the first die in a natural disaster, or be standing on their roofs waiting for someone to save their worthless asses. These people contribute little to American society that is useful to their fellow man.

  28. avatar JD says:

    Yeah you’re right thomass, I AM dangerous.

  29. 1. I have a Ph.D. – Just saying that doesn’t mean so much.
    2. There is a reason professor’s don’t allow students to use Psychology Today articles as references – it isn’t a credible source. Would you want your physician to get their info from Men’s Health?
    3. If some of you rich fellows would get together and fund a pro-gun firearms research center we could effectively rebut fools like this. We keep buying politicians instead and they sell out our rights for a little personal gain. The anti gun folks have a bunch of sh*tty, biased research – but that’s all there is to base policy on. They will win if we don’t shift approaches.
    4. This butthole is in Coventry, England. He should stay there. Another approach to combating anti gun researchers is to identify and disempower and discredit them. This can be done using the academy against them. Destroy a few careers and spread the word – few professors will pursue research tracks that damage their career.

    1. avatar MyName says:

      “… few professors will pursue research tracks that damage their career.”

      This addresses one of the fundamental problems with our current higher education system. Not only will professors not pursue research that might damage their career, they are increasingly likely to only pursue research directions that are already clearly accepted by their peers – the path of least resistance, if you will. In some cases this means ideologically acceptable, in others it means not challenging widely accepted conclusions or findings and in many it just means research that has been historically well funded. Academic program administrators, in my experience, care a great deal about the volume of funding and publication produced by their various faculty members and seem to care little about the quality of the content of the published research. Even when they do claim to be focused on quality, the measure quality in terms of a piece of works acceptance by the border academic community. In this kind of environment faculty, particularly junior faculty, seek to generate the largest amount of ‘low hanging fruit’ publication that they can and the easiest way to do that is to look at the literature and re-write what has already been written. As a result, people look at the work coming out of the academy and proclaim that everyone who is an ‘expert’ agrees about the subject.

      A key result of these directions in the academy is an echo chamber with the veneer of academic credibility. In most areas of study, for research to be particularly meaningful, it is necessary that similar levels of academic rigor be used to pursue multiple, often competing, lines of inquiry. Without this struggle between ideas, a field of study becomes stagnant and monolithic. This is exactly what we are seeing in much of the academy today. Academic environments are becoming more and more like the fashion industry: A very few trend-setters produce some work that everyone else pretty much copies and those who don’t copy well enough are tossed aside as unfashionable.

      1. Well said.

        The academy is not the place to produce firearms research. We need academics – they are the people who know what to do – but we need to provide for them outside the system. If you are a parent, in possession of a hard earned academic post, providing for your family, you are highly motivated to pursue ‘acceptable’ lines of research. Until you are tenured, the promotion committee controls your future. Cross the wrong person and your kids go hungry while you desperately try to find a new job.

        What is needed is not a sprawling new bureaucracy but a clever, flexible, and responsive team. A psychologist, a statistician, a computer wizard, a library science guru, and a decent attorney or legal tech. You don’t even need a building.

        Goal: counter antigun research, disempower antigun researchers, support firearms ownership. I would add ‘have a good time doing it.’ How fun it would be run a few idiots out of town.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Increasingly, the academy is not the place to produce any kind of meaningful research and, interdisciplinary, independent research centers of the type you describe could certainly be a useful alternative. The problem with developing such institutions is, simply, money. It is very hard to find sources for funding for such research that is not directly tied to the results of the research. Michael Bloomberg, and his ilk, are not going to throw money at a research center that pursues studies showing that his efforts at gun control are ill conceived. Public funding sources, likewise. There are likely many with the types of backgrounds you outline who would be interested in doing a number of types of truly independent research work (myself included) but few, if any, can or will do it for free.

  30. avatar former water walker says:

    Gee a psycho er psychopath er psychologist…my brother has a doctorate( in Hebrew). I don’t care about his theolgy but he sold me a gun and I sold him one. NOTHING this British buffoon says means a damn thing to this American!

  31. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    The most dangerous people are those like you who are anti-Constitutional and want to take away rights. That is the start of tyranny. Check with the Venezualans. You also probably think politically incorrect speech should be illegal. And those on the left are the only ones who can define politically incorrect?

  32. avatar slow says:

    Another one educated beyond their level of intelligence.

  33. avatar rt66paul says:

    …people who unquestioningly believe in people in power because of their status as a a person in power are dangerous. They are dangerous, because they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong. This makes them susceptible to manipulation by others and makes them a threat to themselves and the people around them.

  34. avatar Icabod says:

    “First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights. And they take those rights away. They do this when it seems reasonable to do so.”

    Were, we the people, to take away Hill’s rights, what would happen? By his beliefs this is altogether fitting and proper.

    Sadly, he’s missed the basic understanding of these rights. They aren’t granted by any government. They are part of being human.

  35. avatar Dennis says:

    Maybe this [email protected] would like to address the “right” to abortion along the same line of reasoning??

    1. avatar million says:

      their collectivist upbringing has brainwashed them against individualism.

  36. avatar million says:

    Brits tried to seize the arms cache at Concord in 1775. They were shot.

  37. avatar possum says:

    Possum is not only dangerous he’s KHP signal 1.

  38. avatar crndl says:

    This guy is associated with the University of Warwick in the UK. Say no more. Keep it on your side of the pond, mate.

  39. avatar CZJay says:

    “First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights. And they take those rights away. They do this when it seems reasonable to do so.”

    Sounds like the white man’s patriarchy…

  40. avatar Pasifikawv says:

    “We hold these truths self-evident: that all men …are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    The right to self defense and the protection of life and liberty is a fundamental, human right. It cannot be separated from the right to the tools of defense. The right to have and carry arms in defense of self, family, and freedom is not granted by government nor can it be abolished by government. The right is natural to all people regardless of government and pre-existing to any government. Our Second Amdt to the US Constitution merely enumerates that in these United States, government shall not infringe upon said fundamental, human right.

  41. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    I’m sure THEY (.Big Gov) used this person, or someone like hlm consulted to help create and design “RED FLAG/STOP/ERPO Laws”!

  42. avatar luigi says:

    “First, people, in the form of governments, grant rights. And they take those rights away. They do this when it seems reasonable to do so.”
    There it is folks, right there in black and white. The difference between real Americans and those people

  43. avatar GS650G says:

    I wonder how people like Mr. Hill would defend themselves if in a tight spot. But I know the answer and we’ve seen it before.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      There is no such thing as self defense in the UK 2018

  44. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Poster boy for the dangers of atheism.

  45. avatar Lance says:

    “…people who unquestioningly believe in something because of its status as a right are dangerous. They are dangerous, because they base decisions on authority instead of their own ability to reason about right and wrong. This makes them susceptible to manipulation by others and makes them a threat to themselves and the people around them.”

    Careful with that lightsaber, pal… it can cut in all directions.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      lol he also seems rather muddled in that statement. Believing in a right makes them dangerous because they dont question authority? Hmmmmm i would say that it is him doing just that whereas those of us how believe in these inalienable rights do so not because they were given by government (authority) but because they are Natural Human Rights that every creature on the face of the earth also has and fights for against predators (govt and authoritarians like himself)

  46. avatar luigi says:

    JUST CALL ME DANGER DAN

  47. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Well, that’s a typical, middle-school exercise “issue article.” As a piece by an academic in a national publication, well … he’s playing way, way above the standard. The whole thing is made of complete sentences, and sometimes the subject, verb, and object line up. Is that allowed?

    As for the content… while I’m a fan of Norwegian numbers; all those little accents on the digits and blonde highlights (Or is that German? No matter.) some interesting numbers in the US came out of the CDC; “came out” years after the stuides themselves were done. (So, maybe don’t fund agenda-driven “research.” Verdict first, trial after! Gotta please the grant writers, and nothing pleases them quite as much as “findings” that support their prior agenda — all Ph D’s know that. But “finding” what you want vs. what’s true doesn’t much help with getting things to work.)

    So, the estimated annual number of DGUs — that’s “defensive gun uses” — in the US for the years studied ran from the low 100,000s to 1.5 to 2 million. That isn’t what they were supposed to find, so the reports got buried. That’s reported, with a rather narrow definition.

    I agree that it is indeed horrible that peaceful, responsible US citizens have to protect themselves with force from assault and worse, a million+ times a year. As much as I dislike the events themselves, I am more reluctant to take away those people’s ability to stick up for themselves; particularly the smaller, older, frailer ones perhaps not equal to their assailant in fisticuffs or other, less chivalrous contests. There is, of course, a counter-argument that those folks are of little further use to the rest of us, so we might as well let whatever might happen to them, happen. Besides, there’s a Soylent feed-stock crunch from time to time. Keeps driving up the price.

    If our rights-granting friend wants to get on something, how about leaving people unmolested by threat of criminal violence a couple million times a year. Certainly they have that “right.” Maybe write it into the constitution and problem solved. That’s all it takes, right? Or maybe the right to live peacefully without threat of violence is no more created by words than, for example, declaring the number “Pi” to be 3.14 actually makes it so.

  48. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    The comment section was just about 100% negative to his silly authoritarian ideas so, of course, it had to be turned off.

    1. avatar MB says:

      But you can send the ass-hat an e-mail directly here > https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/experts/thomas-hills-phd

      Be polite…

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Bwahahahaha. The article has been up since last February. Within 24 hours of this morons tyrannical ideas being exposed to a community that advocates for individual liberty, they do what all post-modernist collectivists do- shut down the discussion. If they can’t control the narrative, they stifle the free exchange of ideas. So predictable.

  49. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    You are all out of step.

    This is the New World Order he is talking about. That old stuff doesn’t apply any more.
    If you continue to insist on living that way the blue beret thought police will disappear you and your family (they are contaminated by your presence).

    Soylent Green is in the works.

    Be Prepared !

  50. avatar Tom Dallas says:

    This guy is the ONE who is dangerous…his very first statements that “governments’ grant rights” is fundamentally flawed…and downright scary…he exhibits the very mentality that our founding fathers we so diligent to protect this great nation with our Constitution, recognizing that fundamental rights come from God not man….Oh but wait….he likely does not believe in a God. Nuff said.

  51. avatar Randolph Stewart says:

    Disarming the People

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    That is the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. According to Daniel Webster’s dictionary, this meant “shall not be broken, violated, transgressed.

    NOTHING in this Amendment limits the right of the People to a well-regulated militia…but it points out that the People have the right, not only to keep and bear arms as individuals, but to use that right to form effective military units in order to keep their State (and the People within it) secure and free.

    Washington: ““A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.” “

    Hamilton: “The constitution shall never be construed…to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

    Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
    And “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

    It was clear to any but irrelevant fools that those who supported this Amendment had no intention on regulating, limiting, constricting the ability of law abiding citizens from arming themselves as individuals, or of banding together in effective units.

    It is an act of war to disarm a population. You disarm an enemy, not your allies. The current push for gun control is not to make us safer, but to control us.

    More than that, it is in direct violation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. It is nothing short of efforts to bypass further the Supreme law of the land, and replace it wit arbitrary decisions of judges and lawmakers: a coup, rule by rulers rather agreements among representatives.

    So the effort to disarm us is in fact a civil war waged under pretense of forcible pacification.

    This makes those supporting the gun grabs from law-abiding citizens traitors against the Constitution, and our enemies.*

    Contact your State Reps and Senators, let those seeking to deny draconian infringement know we appreciate their efforts, let those evil souls who support it know we see their criminality and treachery and when they start slaughtering us to disarm us, we will eventually hold them responsible for their crimes.

    This must be stopped and the criminals seeking to subvert our Constitution and our liberties held accountable.

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