“The opinion of the pro-gun movement seems to be that the guy with the gun is always right, no matter what the facts of the case are; that gun possession makes you a super-citizen with enhanced rights to take life, avoid prosecution, and use lethal force in response to non-lethal force. Somehow, gun ownership increases your judgment and makes you smarter than other citizens.” Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Josh Horwitz, The Pugilistic Double Standard of the Pro-Gun Movement [via huffingtonpost.com]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Smile When You Say That Edition
Oh please… We simply apply the standard of “innocent until proven guilty”. As for lethal vs non-lethal force. There is no such thing. Force is force. When you use force against me, it is not my responsibility to quibble over details.
Typical hyperbole by Josh. Obviously, “Always” is hyperbole. However, if you are talking *legal* gun owners, statistically it is correct. Statistically, those who can legally carry guns are far more likely to stay out of trouble than the public at large, and when they are required to use guns, they have shown remarkably good judgement.
They tend to do much better than the police, and for good reason. They do not have to determine who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. They are in the situation, so they know. They do not go looking for trouble, while the police, by their nature, are always looking for trouble. The police often get in physical confrontations by the nature of their work, where citizens who are carrying work to avoid physical confrontations.
All of this amounts to a reasonable skepticism when a legally armed citizen is charged, because they are so seldom at fault.
I agree. There’s an enormous element of self-selection involved here. It’s not that firearms owners assume special authority upon carrying. It’s that typically the better prepared among us are the ones more likeky to carry. There’s no assumption of extra-legal authority, just a more solid understanding of the limits of the authority we each already have.
This guy’s comments are driven by the same old “guns make you do bad things against your will” hysteria that has been more fully and repeatedly discredited than anything that ever came out of the Flat Earth Society.
“The police often get in physical confrontations by the nature of their work,”
I would add, Dean, that IMO police often get into physical confrontations because frequently the personality type that chooses to become a police officer enjoys imposing their will or opinion on others and the authority of being “law enforcement” allows then to do that on a regular basis. Since the people they interact with may have opposing opinions or just want to stay out of jail physical confrontation is common, up to and including gun play.
After reading the entire list of comments to this post something occurred to me and I wanted to come back here to the top and add this:
“A well organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Every response here to this idiot’s ridiculous commentary (with the possible exception of those numerous FLAME DELETEDs) took the bait and attempted to debate this jerk on logic when in fact his entire premise was and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The only legal correction to the supposed problems he is whining about is to propose, debate and pass through Constitutionally provided procedures an amendment revising or repealing the Second Amendment. Good luck with that, Josh.
It’s not quite true that there’s no difference between force and lethal force. I am allowed to use “force” against a trespasser who refuses to leave. I can’t use lethal force. (I speak of Colorado law; your mileage may vary.)
In a sane state, an intruder can leave in two ways. Voluntarily, or in a bag.
the biggest +1 I can come up with on what pwrserge said.
A call to pause and have some thought about the cases rather than jump on the “court of public opinion” bandwagon seems to frequently be interpreted by the anti-rights types as automatic support for the firearms owner.
I suppose we are actually, if by support you mean that we want to insure that he/she gets their day in court and a fair trial rather than being railroaded by the media and public opinion.
When someone uses force against you, you don’t know if that force is going to be lethal. If you don’t decisively stop it, you’ll only know after your spirit is gazing down at your corpse.
It seems that Mr. Horwitz has never heard of anyone being beaten to death.
The legal experts here can correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the standard for use of force FEAR of death or grievous bodily injury? I’m pretty certain the standard does not require you to wait until the Bad Guy makes his intention to kill or maim you crystal clear, only that you have a reasonable fear that this is his intent.
Just as assault is a reasonable fear that you will be attacked and battery is after you have been physically attacked you have the right to defend yourself (or others) before the physical damage is realized.
“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” – Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. – Brown v. United States
I like it!
More self projection from the anti gun lobby. No gun owner I know thinks a gun makes them a super citizen. This FLAME DELETED has been reading too many Judge Dredd comics.
“Somehow, gun ownership increases your judgment and makes you smarter than other citizens.” — Josh Horwitz
I am always stunned at the gall of gun grabbers like Josh. As usual, just take their argument and apply it to themselves, like this:
Somehow, being a gun grabber increases your judgment
and makes you smarter than other citizens.
But I suppose I should shut up and be a good little subject, because Josh knows what is best for me and for society. FLAME DELETED
“… gun ownership … makes you smarter than other citizens.”
Actually I am now going to argue that there is truth in that part of Josh’s statement. I believe it is at best ignorant (not knowing any better) and at worst stupid (foolish) to go about life unarmed and subject to the whims of a violent scumbag criminal. Anyone who arms themselves so that they can effectively resist a mugger, rapist, or even a spree killer is pretty smart (wise) in my book.
I am glad to see that Mr. Horwitz is finally starting to see the light … bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I think that he’s confusing effect with cause. Higher intelligence CAUSES gun ownership, not the other way around.
“I think that he’s confusing effect with cause. Higher intelligence CAUSES gun ownership, not the other way around.”
Hah you are on my wavelength today!
A gun grabber generally starts by reading several articles which allege that guns actually make their possessors less safe. These articles’ authors also claim that the numerous studies debunking the grabbers’ claims are all paid for by gun manufacturers and are junk science. Now armored against any argument that might contradict the rationality of their hoplophobia, they blaze away with their ill-informed opinions. Since anyone who disagrees with them is clearly misinformed, they feel free to congratulate themselves on their superior intelligence.
It’s the reverse – smarter citizens with good judgment tend to become gun owners.
Ad hominem comments are not permitted.
Wait… none of that is true??? Crap.
So it makes you a cop?
Exactly. When I read it my first thought was that he’d just perfectly described cops.
More “war on women.” This guy ignores our memos about arming victims of domestic violence. Tells them the gun would get taken, etc.
Well actually the gun would get taken if the victim of domestic violence used it properly … the police would temporarily take the gun as they investigate the bullet-riddled incapacitated violent domestic attacker.
Side note to female gun owners in this situation – do not let the police confiscate a loaded weapon. (wink, wink – nudge, nudge)
“Somehow, [obstructing others’ natural rights] increases your judgment and makes you smarter than other citizens.”
Huh. He brings up Michael Dunn as a ding against gun owners without even bothering to read the reaction of gun owners to Michael Dunn’s actions.
Unsurprisingly, he appears to have very solid opinions about how gun owners react without actually examining how gun owners react.
He should read TTAG.
Clearly lashing out in the long term effort to vilify gun owners and make them the new lepers.
This guy assumes a lot. FLAME DELETED
The simple fact I am not a leftarded America hater, like Joshie boi is, does all that for me. Carrying firearms is just gray on top.
I will respect Horowitz’s opinion when he posts his home adress, a picture of the inside of the home and his wife, and then publicizes when he will and will not be home. Man up.
The first one’s easy, but I hear the powers that be don’t like it when addresses get posted in the comments….
While I could publicize his address, my request was for Josh to be a man and put his sh!t out there. If we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, then a true leader goes first. Be publicly disarmed and put your “pretty” (gotta believe she is really a pig) wife and family out there so they can demonstrate that their mantra works. When it doesn’t. . . . I have a few FFL’s he can use to facilitate the transfer when he orders his guns off the internet
Dirk, You forgot to mention the Gun Free Home sign on the lawn.
Especially loved the Zimmerman reference to him being “theoretically” “punched”. It’s like there never was a formal trial, the presentation of evidence, and a decision by a jury.
It’s just a guy ranting on the internet to an echo chamber based on quotes and other internet rantings extrapolated to other people whom he’s never met our talked to in an unconvincing manner.
It is like Josh from CSGV read from a list of Logical Fallacies and cherry picked the most convenient to construct his arguments. I see a straw man argument, ad hominem and more. His article is at best a object example of character attack on a few individual he specifically names and lifting their carefully selected repugnant quotes and painting them on all pro 2nd amendment peoples. If anything it shows his ignorance of what those he attacks stand for.
I find it useful to try to make a count of the logical fallacies in articles, it is chance for me to try and improve my own writing and arguments by thinking about how I can critically avoid using logical fallacies and stick to real and factual thinking.
After reading the column, what comes to mind is that it is yet another example of someone taking what one gun owner has said and applying them to ALL gun owners. He seems to think that all gun owners think it perfectly ok to “slap their wives around” and some other nonsense.
It’s a typical tactic of bigots – take some unfavorable actions or words that were used by a few members of a group and smear the entire group. It’s prejudiced, it’s asinine, and it’s wrong.
I will also say that he clearly does not understand what the “guys with guns make the rules” comment means. The guys with guns – the politicians, who have the police and military at their disposal – absolutely are the ones who make the rules. We have to live by them, or else they come with their guns and force us to. That’s how the world works.
And as for the “punishment for punching as death” … I’d like to know if an evil man started punching his mother (or another relative), would be upset if a gun owner then shot that guy to stop him?
Did all gun owners jumped on Adam Lanza’s bandwagon? What about Holmes in CO?
And, don’t forget about all the gun owners that rushed to support the ex cop that shot the popcorn thrower at the movies…
An animate object doesn’t have the power to change the very nature of a person, or their actions. Gun people blame or justify the person, not the tool, anti folks, not so much.
I was kinda rooting for ex-cop Chris Dorner given he exposed how defenseless the “trusted ones” (ie, po-po) in the peoples’ republic of kalifornia were . . . . .
I was not rooting for him, per se, but it was amusing to see how one man could create such havoc.
It’s was a quick tutorial on the effectiveness of Guerrilla ware fare for the all the arm chair statist saying, “we are gonna come and take it.”
(Shakes head to try to clear out the cobwebs reading this put there.)
I find it ironic that the same group of whiners who want to ban those scary black rifles are pouting about self defense when someone is attacked with fists. They obviously haven’t heard that the number of people murdered with bare hands is 3 times higher than the number of people killed will all rifles (not just the scary black ones).
Just bought a gun yesterday. I don’t feel any more super. Then again, this is the Huffington Post. So, it’s like reading…Archie.
Without the babes.
Give it a few hours….you’ll be rollin’ hard, judge judy and executioner in no time.
Love the Hot Fuzz reference.
Love the picture of Miguellito Loveless.
Are people still paying attention to little Josh Horwitz? Will wonders never cease?
Not real people, just those who think the HuffPo reports real news and is able to present a rational argument on any subject.
“The opinion of the pro-gun movement seems to be that the COP with the gun is always right, no matter what the facts of the case are; that gun possession makes you a super-citizen with enhanced rights to take life, avoid prosecution, and use lethal force in response to non-lethal force. Somehow, gun ownership increases your judgment and makes you smarter than other citizens.”
Now it makes sense, josh. Just remember the private army of police you think works for your goals will be the same ones coming through your bedroom door at 3 AM.
I guess old josh is back on tm again. The crux of his argument is that if you are not dead you do not have the right to fight back with lethal force. You can’t fix stupid, josh.
That article basically validates my belief that one of the greatest challenges our society faces today is the combination of people’s inability, disinterest in, and intentional avoidance of carefully dissecting, researching, and analyzing evidence surrounding a given issue. People (in general) seem perfectly happy with adopting a fanatical belief I. A position based on no more information than will fit into a Twitter post or headline. I understand that everyone cannot deeply analyze every aspect if every issue. But if you don’t care enough about an issue to do the heavy lifting, F off and go watch YouTube while the adults talk.
And if Messrs Horowitz and shugarman wouldn’t mind changing their first names too, that would be great.
We promise, we won’t mistake you for good old mr horowitz.
WHAT …………….is this ASSHOLE SMOKING???
Ok,longer version: yes, people who carry guns with lawful intent on self defense ARE smarter. Because it doesn’t take a neurosurgeon to realize that violence can happen anywhere, anytime, and anyplace. Just because millions of people choose to be unprepared to defend their lives doesn’t make it a good idea.
I get it, it’s important to understand the enemy and all that – but I go and follow the link, start reading the comments, and then I start feeling like I want to engage in discussion with these people.
Luckily, midway through typing a response I’ll chill out and realize those are not people with whom a debate is worth anything. There just typically aren’t casual Huffpo readers that are on the 2A fence, so I’m not going to change any minds by pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Still, everytime one of these things gets posted I have to talk myself off that ledge for a few minutes.
Most people are more careful when they carry a gun, not less. Perhaps Mr. Horwitz would realize it if he tried it himself.
“The opinion of the pro-gun movement seems to be that the guy with the gun is always right, no matter what the facts of the case are; ”
Um, the only people who feel that way are what us “regular” pro-gun folks call “nutters”. No rational gun owner would make such an ignorant statement. For example, I am 100% for having a gun for self defense, in the home and outside of it too. But I can’t think of a single rationale for the homeowner who pulled a gun on a girl scout the other day. Sure, the GS can be pretty militant at times “YOU WANT SAMOAS!!” That doesn’t mean you need to pull a gun.
The problem is that the antigun crowd only wants to have a conversation when it involves us capitulating and accepting their terms. They don’t want to hear logic, and they don’t want to hear about legitimate DGUs. And they most certainly don’t want to hear anything about changing the laws except to make them more strict.
He was only *reported* to have pulled a gun on a girl scout. I do not know how many times I have read or heard of an event where a hoplophobe simply saw someone with a gun and *reported* that the gun was pointed at someone. I even had something similar happen to me once, when I was out running and had a Glock in a holster. The belt was not cinching properly and I put my hand on the butt to keep it from flopping around. It was *reported* that I was running around with a gun in my hand.
I read the accused’ web page. Sure, it is possible for a highly intelligent software manipulator who has a keen interest in the Constitution, to be an emotional and idiotic wreck in other ways. It is simply rare.
My suspicion, is that he opened the door holding a shotgun in one hand, never pointed it at the girl, and never suspected that the police were told that he had committed aggravated assault instead of simply being prudent. The police went to his place and he was arrested without incident.
We do not know what the population density is at his address, or what other circumstances might have put him on his guard.
Josh is a brazen traitor just like the rest of the anti-gun morons. I mean he published in the Puffington Host for chrissakes. No intelligent person reads that crap.
First of all, nice photo of Dr. Lovelace, not sure how many others recognize him, but I grew up watching Jim West and Artemus Gordon defeat him over and over…
I would hope that “Executive Director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence” Josh Horwitz, would come here and step foot on my property, his words and rhetoric are as, if not more than, dangerous as any firearm, and I would not have any issue eliminating the threat to my personal safety or my personal and Constitutional rights…
Not trying to be pedantic here… (but failing…)
But I think it is Dr. Loveless.
Lovelace was a porn star…
My bad…thanks for the correction…
Loveless preferred pistols and rifles – Lovelace dealt mostly with guns.
He’s correct. It’s entirely relative but the one with the gun is always right. That’s the whole point and why we fight for our ability to protect ourselves….
Umm…A Bad Guy with a gun is not always right and in fact is often wrong, but if he is the only person with a gun then he certainly has the ability to force an agreement, however temporary, with his opinions.
“The opinion of the ANTI-gun movement seems to be that the guy withOUT the gun is always right, no matter what the facts of the case are; that THE LACK OF gun possession makes you a super-citizen with enhanced rights to RISK OTHER CITIZENS’ lives, avoid prosecution, and use NON-lethal force in response to lethal force. Somehow, THE LACK OF gun ownership increases your judgment and makes you smarter than other citizens.”
— there. fixed that for you Mr. Horwitz
This just proves why the good guys need the right to keep and bear arms. Lunatics like this are becoming a rampant infestation.
1) “A couple days later, pro-gun activists on Twitter reminded us that George Zimmerman did the right thing by killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin because he was (theoretically) being punched at the time. So we decided to put a question to them:”
You don’t get to retry someone yourself because you don’t like the verdict. The jury accepted the evidence that he was in fact being attacked
2) “It’s OK for pro-gun activists to slap their wives around without losing their rights to own and purchase firearms, but if someone punches them, they have a right to execute that person on the spot — no judge, no jury, no due process under the law?”
A dumbass comment by a single individual does not policy make. Spousal abuse is serious, but the facts of the case need to be considered, not just a blanket loss of rights. There are plenty of cases where a couple both get drunk, and a stupid argument gets out of control. It’s not always crystal clear who did what after the fact, and the courts should be able to consider the specifics of a particular case when talking about revoking someone’s rights.
3) “It was NRA Board Member and Congressman Don Young (R-AK) who took the lead in attempting to repeal the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment, which prohibits those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from owning and purchasing firearms.”
So you’re saying that someone who spray-painted a wall when they were 16 or had a joint in college shouldn’t be able to exercise their 2A rights? Why? The assumption is that all misdemeanors are violent, when in fact the great majority are stupid mistakes that people make.
4) “The opinion of the pro-gun movement seems to be that the guy with the gun is always right, no matter what the facts of the case are”
Baloney. Pure and simple.
5) “The reason we need meaningful firearms regulation is not to stop truly law-abiding people with excellent judgment from getting guns, but rather to stop the reckless, dangerous individuals that exist in every society.”
Then prove it by supporting pro-gun legislation that would actually address this concern, rather than foist unnecessary, expensive, time-wasting measures that provide no benefit to public safety, but merely serve to show that politicians are “doing something”. Actions speak louder than words.
6) “The pro-gun movement is teaching young Americans that it is morally virtuous to shoot and kill someone who punches you.”
Baloney again. The jury found that he was using justified self-defense based on the evidence at hand. Is he implying that Zimmerman should have simply allowed himself to be assaulted? Or that someone being assaulted has to give their attacker a “fighting chance”?
7) “It should be a wake-up call to all of us — including gun owners — to champion non-violent solutions to conflicts, rather than the use of deadly force.”
Try walking through East Cleveland, or East St. Louis, or Detroit, wear a “Mug Me” sign, and wait to see if you can reason with your attackers. Go ahead, I’ll wait. Didn’t work out for you? I’m shocked. He wants to pretend that these “conflicts” are really just arguments between reasonable people. Generally, this is not at all the case. We are not talking about Jerry down the hall at the office who keeps breaking the copier, we are talking about attempted rapes, assaults, and murders. No one has any duty to reason with someone who intentionally poses them imminent harm.
Correction: The Lautenburg amendment is specific to domestic violence. Regardless, having a restraining order does not mean you did anything wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time someone has made up a story to hurt a former friend/spouse/significant other/colleague.
Who could imagine such a thing happening?
Cute visual pun about Michael Dunn.
So wait, I can unilaterally decide what the opinion of the anti-gun movement is, introduce my opinion of their thinking as fact, and use it to deride them? Who knew!! That is WAY easier than relying on facts.
Dear Josh, that certainly doesn’t jive with my opinion. The facts define whether it was a righteous shoot.
However, you can be sure that my opinion, and likely the opinion of the pro-gun community, is that you’re a douche. Please FOAD
“The opinion of the anti-gun movement seems to be that a minority of liberturds are always right because they whine the most, no matter what the facts of the case are; that making up accusations and false statistics makes you a super-citizen with enhanced rights to intrude on everybody’s life, avoid prosecution because laws apply only to mundanes and not special people like liberturds, and use the corrupted media to drown real facts. Somehow, that forcing your twisted views on everybody else increases your holier-than-thou standing in front of your fellow liberturds and makes you feel smarter than other citizens.”
Zimmerman is a permanent resident inside anti-gunners heads. For our side, a guy was getting beat on, defended himself, the jury saw that, and said so. Nothing to see here, move along. I wouldn’t ever give the guy another thought if they didn’t keep bringing him up all the time.
Same applies to Bush and Palin. If leftards would simply stop talking about them NOBODY would be talking about them. They just can’t help it, they just can’t shut their f**king mouths and move on.
The opinion of the anti-gun movement seems to be that the guy with the gun is always a knuckle-dragging racist Neanderthal, no matter what the facts of the case are.
It must be true. Horowitz and HuffPo would NEVER
use a double standard.
Josh should be ashamed for painting gun owners with a such a broad brush and then simultaneously claiming gun owners are not all evil. I believe he won’t be ashamed because he doesn’t believe that the number of good gun owners is significant.
His last paragraph in the article is very telling.
“A clearer declaration of “the guys with the guns make the rules” has never been heard. It should be a wake-up call to all of us — including gun owners — to champion non-violent solutions to conflicts, rather than the use of deadly force. The preservation of human life should always be our highest priority in settling disputes, both personal and political.”
If he had any experience and knowledge of the gun community he would see that it teaches non-violent solutions as the first choice. Just look at any responsible trainer’s teaching and you will see avoidance and de-escalation as the first choice in dealing with all conflict. This is everywhere and you have to be clueless or dishonest to not see it.
Josh’s very final statement “The preservation of human life should always be our highest priority in settling disputes…” shows that he values saving the attacker’s life over you saving yours. I believe he sees no valid justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense. He has been saying the same thing over and over in different ways for years.
Restated a little differently:
The opinion of the pro-rights movement seems to be that the guy who committed the crime is always innocent until proven guilty, no matter what the facts of the case are.
That helps to see the absurdity of this guy’s statement. He’d love to condemn people without proving it.
He does it all the time. It is what he does.
I would not debate Josh Horwitz. It’s obvious that owning a gun DOES make you smarter than he is. Also wiser, because you realize there is risk in life, accept that and are doing something to reduce it. Instead of bleating like a staked out goat waiting for the tiger in the night.
So many lies.
It’s ad hominem attacking the personal qualities of and misrepresenting the thoughts and words of the entire pro-gun community. As we are misrepresented by our malefactor, we must strive to not fall victim to false reason and emotion.
Wolves are there and their cronies.
Sheep are there simple and innocent.
We are there, the loyal Sheepdogs.
The question is are you a Wolf or a
Sheepdog? It’s all about how you use your teeth! Stay alert my friends.
Total disconnect. I think Josh Horwitz has spent too much time away from the homeland. Instead he’s drank to much of the progressive’s Kool-Aid, and needs to get back to drinking more Sahlav.