Quote of the Day, 2008-06-30
Posted by
tgirsch
Commenter John Spragge, at Obsidian Wings:
Frontier settlers needed guns to protect them from Indians the way people making unauthorized bank withdrawals today need guns to protect themselves from guards, tellers, and police officers.
Heh!
Oh, this one’s fun.
Comment 6/30/2008
If your objective was to show that gun rights advocates:
(1) have no sense of humor at all; and
(2) aren’t particularly clever
… then go ahead and unfurl the “mission accomplished” banner.
Comment 6/30/2008
TG, the quote in the OP is indeed clever. But it’s not really true or even insightful.
Admittedly, Gatt loses on the first part.
Comment 7/1/2008
I’m a soulless animal — I don’t do humor well.
On the other hand, I find it a useful way to demonstrate how idiotic other people’s attempts at this sort of joke are. Equating an entire portion of society that is overwhelmingly lawabiding with bank robbers is a pretty easy one to demonstrate as idiotic.
Comment 7/1/2008
Hmm. I thought the point was the indians were here first and the settlers were encroaching on their land in an uninvited fashion. They were making an unauthorized withdrawal from the land bank, as it were. Law abiding is in the eye of the beholder in this case.
Comment 7/1/2008
Ted:
You just don’t get it, do you? If you’re white and have a gun, you ARE the law. Manifest destiny, and all that.
Comment 7/1/2008
Yeah - I don’t think the dig was at modern pro-gunners, but rather against imperialist frontiersmen. Either they didn’t need protection because the natives were largely peaceful, or they only needed protection because they were engaging in criminal-like behavior which the natives were understandably and righteously resisting.
You’re a smart guy, gatt, but even with your misinterpretation of the quote, most of your retorts miss the (already missed) analogy. They don’t need due process to blow up dozens of people, I don’t even think due process is flammable.
BTW, how awesome is it that you can abbreviate the pro gun voice’s sn by calling him “gat?” Eazy-E is smiling down on us.
Dan M.,
It’s insightful to the extent of, what the fuck are the gun nuts so concerned they need to protect themselves from? It’s also insightful to the extent that if you’re in a position where you need heat to protect you, you are at least somewhat likely to be engaged in something not totally on the up and up.
Now, if you what to say that the “what” we need protection from is the oppression of a tyrannical gov’t (kinda the spirit of the original amendment) then I’m inclined to agree in the theoretical. Only problem is, the pro-gunners as a group seem more willing than just about any other to concede to oppressive encroachment on our civil liberties, sans Amendment Dos of course.
Comment 7/1/2008
i don’t know and i hope i’ll never find out. same answer i give to folks who wonder what i see the need to own a fire extinguisher for.
oh, wait — nobody’s ever seen any pressing need to wonder why i’m so paranoid and fearful as to own a fire extinguisher. fancy that.
not only that, i guess i must be an arsonist as well. fire extinguisher, after all.
Comment 7/1/2008
I’m sorry, I guess I just assumed that “law-abiding” meant “follow the actual law on the books at the current time”. All nations involved recognized the right of conquest and the right to self-defense against conquest (doing otherwise is a very new concept), and in some specific circumstances, the actual attackers hadn’t had their land encroached on yet.
My criticism is against both sides of the argument.
Comment 7/1/2008
Nomen:
I’ve always found the fire extinguisher analogy to be silly for two reasons. First, it would be pretty hard to kill someone with a fire extinguisher, except by using it as you would any other blunt instrument. Second, and much more importantly, I don’t know anybody who’s so paranoid that they carry a fire extinguisher around with them wherever they go, and bitch and complain if they can’t. Fun exercise: try carrying a fire extinguisher onto a plane some time.
gatt:
The “right of conquest?” WTF?
in some specific circumstances, the actual attackers hadn’t had their land encroached on yet.
Well, good to know that you’re on our side in opposing pre-emptive attacks, at least.
Comment 7/1/2008
of course it’s a silly analogy. claiming gun owners, even ones for whom self defense is a primary reason to own guns (which doesn’t actually include me, BTW) are necessarily involved in shady dealings — or even that they are more likely to be so involved — is just as silly, and insulting to boot.
i reserve the right to respond to sweeping insults with silliness. i’ll keep using the fire extinguisher analogy whenever i please.
people do not generally burst into flames on the street, which is why nobody carries fire extinguishers everywhere. people do occasionally get assaulted on the street, which is why some choose to carry concealed weapons. this is one of the places the fire extinguisher analogy breaks down, and hence, using it to justify concealed carry outside the home would be invalid, yes. (or, well, at very least it’d be a non-obvious stretch.)
note that some folks have fire extinguishers in all their cars, against the remote likelihood they’ll be on the scene of an accident and find a need for such. note also the curious phenomenon among some gunnies — i think primarily in the west and south of the country — of owning “truck guns” or “trunk guns”. i don’t really know if there’s any analogy there, although i personally rather hope there isn’t. that practice seems a bit paranoid even by my standards.
Comment 7/1/2008
How does “right of conquest” get a wtf? It’s not exactly an unusual phrasing without definition. Inter-tribe and tribe-colonist fights over territory and property pretty clearly demonstrated both sides to believe in the concept, and the matter did go both ways.
Don’t go thinking I’m rational or anything. I just wanted to be clear that the “peaceful natives only fighting back after being threatened or kicked out of their ancient lands” is about as truthful as the “honest homesteader defending land that’s been in the family for generations”. Not a lie, per say, but not quite accurate.
CO2 fire extinguishers are known to contribute to and cause oxygen deprivation, even unintentionally. Sorry to nitpick this one, but I’ve seen someone sprayed directly with a CO2 extinguisher because the user was certain that it couldn’t be harmful.
Comment 7/1/2008
hey, you know those forced conversions by the sword which the Moslem Caliphate once inflicted upon large swathes of south and central Europe? perfectly lawful. analogous logic.
Comment 7/1/2008
Nomen,
I was referring first and foremost to the original quote. Why would a person feel paranoid enough to think they need to tote a piece? Well, one reason would be if he/she is engaging in dealings that make it more likely than usual that somebody would want to inflict harm on him/her. That was the settler’s situation - why do you need a gun, because your going to go steal somebody’s land and they might try to defend themselves?
If you’re shook to the point that you feel you gotta pack to do mundane shit like go to the supermarket, you’re likely either a)bangin’ or b)borderline insane.
Fire extinguisher analogy is ludicrous, and it’s self evident. I wasn’t trying to paint all gun owners with the same brush. I’m just saying, owning a gun for self defense is quite likely either practical or ethical, rarely is it both. Oh, most fire extinguisher bludgeonings are perpetrated with unregistered fire extinguishers anyway.
There are plenty of other reasons why one might feel the need to own a gun, but this is the internet, and I’ve heard if you look really thoroughly, one can probably find some sort of pill for that…
Comment 7/1/2008
idunno, maybe you should ask Sebastian Sassi why he’s so paranoid?
Comment 7/1/2008
Nomen:
I never said that you couldn’t use the analogy, only that it was a stupid one.
gatt:
How does “right of conquest” get a wtf?
For starters, how it’s relevant to this conversation. I would have expected even you to recognize that that’s not the kind of “right” we’re generally talking about, but then again, I’ve grossly overestimated you before.
I just wanted to be clear that the “peaceful natives only fighting back after being threatened or kicked out of their ancient lands” is about as truthful as the “honest homesteader defending land that’s been in the family for generations”.
Except that this statement is the first time you’ve even come close to “being clear” on that point. And even then, they’re still not two sides of the same coin.
digg:
you’re likely either a)bangin’ or b)borderline insane.
To be fair, I think you miss (c) you live in a really shitty/dangerous neighborhood, although in that case going to the supermarket at all could be construed as a subset of (b), were it not for the likelihood that for most, doing so is a necessity.
Comment 7/1/2008
Nomen,
The plural of anecdote is not data. Dude gets got, and now my man wanna act like Maurice Clarrett… I’d say he falls into the b)borderline insane camp. I mean, let’s say the mugger was black, and as a result this mofo wants to join the KKK. Rational? No, of course not, that’s crazy. So, why is it any less when he gets juxed he wants to strap himself like the GTA protagonist? Borderline insane it is. Oh, and btw, I’ve been robbed at gunpoint before, so let’s kill any talk of that walking in shoes stuff in the first trimester.
TG,
How many neighborhoods are there in which its own law-abiding residents are scared to go to the store, really? I’m not trying to toss around some street cred for the purposes of posturing here, but I’ve touched down in Bed Stuy, QB, South Jamaica, Far Rock, The South Bronx, Washington Heights, etc. in my day. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the residents were scared to mail a letter. Sometimes I was uncomfortable, but many of those times I was not there for the most noble of purposes either. My brother actually does political organizing in just about all of those neighborhoods, btw - no problem. Or maybe his 5′5″ pudgy white frame just scares everybody off.
I always have the sneaking suspicion that when these pro gunners make these argument about self defense, the image in their head is a stoop on 173rd and Audubon. (Meanwhile, realtors are calling it an up and coming neighborhood and charging 2K for a one bedroom fewer than ten blocks away.) To me, a lot of the arguments just reinforce how completely out of touch those arguing are, and how much their fears predicated on the notion of “the other” and criminal archetypes built on the back of racial stereotyping.
Comment 7/1/2008
Just to answer my own rhetorical question about neighborhoods I’ve seen that may be that bad. There are parts of DC that are insanely fucked up. Camden, NJ can get a nomination for this dubious honor as well.
Comment 7/1/2008
WTF are you talking about, digglah? i can’t decide which part is more confusing, your sudden fake-ass inner city slang or your equally sudden complete disconnect from anything i’ve said so far.
Comment 7/1/2008
fucked up neighborhoods in DC and NJ… which both have drastic, near draconian gun control laws… oy, the chestnuts are thick on the ground today.
lemme guess, it’s all the fault of those mean, nasty old knuckledraggers these localities have for neighbors, pushing their firearms on poor old DC and NJ, running guns in across the borders all the time? even though said neighboring states aren’t nearly so fucked up and scary themselves, for some strange reason?
Comment 7/1/2008
Yeah… Nomen, I can’t possibly have actually grown up in the inner city and also be able to address these types of issues on a high intellectual level. The street slang isn’t fake, it’s just difficult for you to make sense of.
Lemme reiterate this. Right now, I don’t give a flying fuck about the gun laws portion of this discussion. I want to know why you think it is at all rational to think you need a gun for self defense. Who the fuck is attacking you all the time, Nomen? What are you so scared of?
When I asked you this before, you replied with some non sequitur about some loon who got robbed and became an ardent advocate of staying strapped. Frankly, you were doing better when you were talking about fire extinguishers.
My display of “fake-ass street slang” (I’m sorry, you must be a Senior Editor at Don Diva)was really just an attempt at sarcasm. My main point was that I’ve spent time (or still do) in numerous neighborhoods that are infamous for being “dangerous” and I didn’t/don’t feel I need a gun if I’m there for normal and legal activities.
Further, my last point was that it is hard for me to get past the supposition that most people who talk about how one may need a gun for regular everyday activities are really saying, I may need a gun in case I see some young black kids in baggy (well now, not even) clothes.
My comment about DC and Camden was “just a cigar.” I wasn’t implying that they are that fucked up b/c of anything having to do with gun control laws of their parent state or neighboring states. Marlo Stanfield isn’t buying his guns at Walmart (although they did cop those nail guns at Home Depot).
I’m done.
Comment 7/2/2008
why do i need, need, need, need, need… because we don’t have a bill of rights, we have a list of needs.
since you’re clearly not interested in polite discussion, i’ll hand it to you bluntly: it’s none of your, or anybody else’s, goddamn business what i “need”. so long as i, personally, am not doing a tangible harm to anyone, in a free country i damn well get to own pretty much whatever i can afford to buy. you? get to pull your nosey face the hell out of it.
unless maybe you’d like to hand me an itemized list of each and every thing you own, complete with your carefully explained reasons for why you need to own each separate item. ‘course, that’s not how we do things in my America, but perhaps it’s the custom where you come from…
i could explain to you about how, if i ever thought i would need to defend myself, i’d get the hell out of that spot first, and that my owning that shotgun is because no matter what i might think i need, my thinking has been wrong before. i could try to explain that i’d rather have that option, if FSM forbid i should ever end up in the gravest extreme despite all my efforts to avoid it, than to be in that spot and not have the option. but in the end, all of that is beside the point.
the point, really, is this: free country. my property. my business — none of anybody else’s. “need” has not a fucking thing to do with it, cityslicker. my guns hurt nobody else, nor have they ever; until they do, yeah, i get to keep ‘em. now pull up your big boy pants and deal with it.
Comment 7/3/2008
Nomen:
While I appreciate where you’re coming from, the big problem I’ve always had with reasoning like that is that is makes absolutely zero allowance for prevention, or any kind of proactive behavior.
I don’t pretend to know what the solution is, or have a magic compromise that properly balances freedom with prudence, but taking a strictly reactive approach to gun crime doesn’t seem like a great approach to me.
Comment 7/3/2008
I need a gun, but not to harm anybody.
/Guiness commercial voice/ Brilliant! /Guiness commercial voice/
…see, that brings me back to the “there’s a pill for that” thing!
Of course you have the right to have one, I’m not debating that. My comments were relating to a gun for self-defense purposes, you’re the one who brought up Sebastian Sassi. By all means, have fun pallin’ around at the shootin’ range with Cletus and the boys, I’m not trying to take that away from you.
Comment 7/7/2008
geezus haploid kee-rist nailed to a pogo stick and set a-bouncin’ with a swift kick to the arse, but if dug-his-brains-out here is what the anti-gun movement’s come to these days, no freaking wonder us sensible folks are winning the day before the supremes.
here’s a clue, name-calling boy: if your entire argument is all about insulting not only your opponent, but the very concept that they might possibly have a point, without bothering to so much as try to understand their point much less refute it — you’re going to lose. as your side by and large have been for the last several years.
now if we could only work that same magic on the republican party, we could set you up with their dead-enders to keep one another company while crying in your beers.
Comment 7/7/2008
Frist, I’m speaking on behalf of me, and me only. I am not speaking on behalf of the anti-gun crowd. I’ve explicitly stated I don’t think the legislation addresses anything but a very small portion of the problem. I don’t even think I would consider myself “anti-gun.” I’m also not speaking on behalf of the Democratic party, as your “their dead enders” comment seems to imply. I certainly don’t self-identify as a Democrat.
Second, you do have a point, that point is you are afforded the legal right to own firearms. I don’t dispute that, or object to it, per se. The point on which my view doesn’t really have any room for debate is that it can in any way be considered rational for one to feel the need to carry a gun for the purposes of self defense while engaging in completely normal, legal, everyday activities.
You wanna own a gun to go the firing range cuz its fun - rock on. You want one to hunt, I think hunting is kinda disgusting, but it’s within your rights as long as you obey the rules. You wanna own weapons to prevent hostile takeover by a tyrannical gov’t - sure thing. I’m not trying to force law-abiding citizens to forfeit their right to own guns.
But, those who feel they need to pack a piece because they are scared shitless of their fellow (hu)man - die slow! You won’t get much beef from me if you argue for owning firearms along any other line.
We may disagree about the processes, restrictions, etc. that should go along with gun ownership, but that’s minefield for many. Don’t take the name calling or sarcasm personal, it’s all in good fun.
Comment 7/7/2008
Quote: “The point on which my view doesn’t really have any room for debate is that it can in any way be considered rational for one to feel the need to carry a gun for the purposes of self defense while engaging in completely normal, legal, everyday activities.”
Response: The gun is for protection against those who are not “engaging in completely normal, legal, everday activities.” That is rational. Only those who seek to harm me need be concerned that I am packing.
Quote: “But, those who feel they need to pack a piece because they are scared shitless of their fellow (hu)man - die slow!”
Reponse: Believe me, when I carry my concealed weapon I don’t fear any (hu)man who wants to harm me or my family. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with firing range fun or hunting.
BTW, who cares whether or not you give “much beef” to anyone who is exercising his Second Amendment rights? I say that, of course, in good fun.
Comment 7/8/2008
Only those who seek to harm me need be concerned that I am packing.
I’m afraid that’s simplistic. It assumes you can be fully trusted with a deadly weapon. Maybe you can, maybe you can’t. There are plenty of accidental shootings, and many of them involve police officers who almost certainly have a lot more training than you do. It only takes one moment of carelessness.
Is that a reason to deny you the right? Not by itself, no. But it’s ridiculous to claim only the bad guys need to worry about you, just as it would be ridiculous to claim that only bad drivers need to worry about you when you (presumably a good driver) drive.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with firing range fun or hunting.
Hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with personal defense, either. It has to do with national defense and armed rebellion, plain and simple. (I’d argue that both of those justifications are largely obsolete in the modern world, by the way, which isn’t to say that I’d repeal 2A.)
Comment 7/8/2008
Quote: “Hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with personal defense, either.”
That’s not what the Supreme Court said in its recent decision.
Comment 7/8/2008
That’s not what the Supreme Court said in its recent decision.
I know. It was weird to see Scalia throw out original intent that way, and embrace living constitutionalism, but I suppose stranger things have happened.
Comment 7/8/2008
“It was weird to see Scalia throw out original intent that way”
He did no such thing.
Comment 7/8/2008
Well, you can’t have it both ways. The original intent of the second amendment had nothing to do with personal defense. So if he ruled that personal defense was what the amendment is supposed to protect, then he ruled in contradiction to the original intent of 2A.
Gun rights advocates have been telling me for years that the opening clause of the amendment (”A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”) is intended not as a limitation, but as a justifying clause. Personal defense has nothing at all to do with a well-regulated militia. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is justified solely by the need for an effective militia, according to the plain text of the amendment.
Comment 7/8/2008
Yeah, no law-abiding citizens have ever been accidentally killed by firearms…
And, the fact that something might happen doesn’t make it rational. Yeah, you might be in the middle of renewing your CD when a masked gunman walks into the bank to rob it. These are highly unlikely situations. Your home might catch fire in the middle of the night too, doesn’t make it a rational decision to sleep in flame-retardant suit.
You know what I always find hilarious, how people perceive infinitesimal probabilities differently when they are negative vs. positive. If I say, you had like a 1 in 10,000 chance of winning some daily giveaway, people don’t react like, oh shit, I better make sure I play single every day. Yet people are constantly defending the rationality of defending against “threats” that have ridiculously low likelihoods of happening.
What’s worse, when you strip the threats, real and perceived to their core, you find that people willfully increase all sorts of real, statistically viable risks to their wellbeing all the time, and they celebrate it as part of our culture. It’s all fucking backwards. Even assuming you live in the PJs in Brook-nam, getting shot on your way to buy a quart of milk should probably rank at least in the triple digits of shit you need be worried about, and proactively mobilizing against.
Comment 7/9/2008
Quote: “Your home might catch fire in the middle of the night too, doesn’t make it a rational decision to sleep in flame-retardant suit.”
It is rational to keep several fire extinquishers handy.
Quote: “Yet people are constantly defending the rationality of defending against “threats” that have ridiculously low likelihoods of happening.”
Saving a life is a lot more important that buying a lottery ticket. How many times can someone murder you? Your perception that people who have concealed weapons permits are always nervous about getting attacked is ludicrous. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Quote: Yeah, no law-abiding citizens have ever been accidentally killed by firearms…
Yeah, no law-abiding citizens have ever been accidentally killed by a car. Ban Cars!!!
Comment 7/9/2008
Yes, because cars have no other legitimate purpose…
And you don’t carry a fire extinguisher around with you wherever you go. Further, I seriously doubt you have one alongside your bed. I personally have two: One next to the stove, where I’m exponentially more likely to have a fire than just about anywhere else; and one next to the fireplace, for the same reason. The risk of me harming anyone, intentionally or otherwise, with the fire extinguisher, is microscopic. It only takes up a tiny bit of space. I don’t require ongoing training and practice to responsibly use it. Etc., etc.
So I’m sorry, but a fire extinguisher is absolutely nothing like a weapon. Further, digglahhh isn’t ridiculing having a gun in your house (at least not here). He’s ridiculing the perceived need to carry it around wherever you go. Which is, to my mind, why the fire extinguisher is actually a pretty apt comparison, but not for the reasons you intended. Nobody carries a fire extinguisher around with them wherever they go, even though they are statistically considerably more likely to have use of that than they are to have use of a firearm. So if most people recognize taking your fire extinguisher with you everywhere as being silly, and possibly paranoid, what does that say about carrying a firearm?
Comment 7/9/2008
Your perception that people who have concealed weapons permits are always nervous about getting attacked is ludicrous. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Yet it’s you guys who keep defending it on those grounds.
Let’s back up a minute.
So those who people aren’t scared of being attacked:
Are they not scared of being attacked because they have a gun? If so, that’s a bad reason - it kinda implies, “Try me, son, I’m itchin’ to use this thing.” Plus it proves that they were scared originally, which is irrational in the first place, as per my contention.
Or are they not scared because they are rational people who possess a reasonable understanding of statistics, and the likelihood of being held hostage in a bank robbery vs. the frequency with which devastating accidents occur as a result of improper uses of firearms, or poor decision making with firearms.
If the latter, then why would one even feel the need to carry? So if not an irrational fear of your fellow man that belies statistical probability (and is a unique reaction to a specific “threat” of such unlikelihood), please explain why somebody would feel the need to take their gun to the supermarket.
You guys also act like dudes who are holding don’t get smoked on the reg. Let’s go back to the gang members angle, how does deterrence by mutual armament work there again?
Comment 7/9/2008
So those who people aren’t scared of being attacked
I’m not entirely sure what you meant to write there, but I’m pretty sure that’s not it.
(The sentence diagram there would be intriguing, to say the least.)
an irrational fear of your fellow man that belies statistical probability
A pet peeve of mine, but that’s not a proper use of that word. If A belies B, then A demonstrates that B is false. So what you’ve actually said here is that the irrational fear demonstrates that the statistics are wrong/false, and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant (which would be closer to “flouts”). (belie.)
[/semantic nit]
Comment 7/9/2008
Quote: “So I’m sorry, but a fire extinguisher is absolutely nothing like a weapon.”
You got me there. Of course, I didn’t claim that it is. How did you come up with the idea that I was comparing a gun and a fire extinquisher? You need to re-read the post by Digg. He was talking about the odds of getting burned in bed as an analogy of the odds of someone being attacked and needing a firearm. I assume that his bed is in his house. Of course, you never know.
I’ll make you this deal. I’ll continue to carry a firearm and be able to take care of myself and my family. You depend on police response to protect you. Hopefully, neither one of us will be attacked. However, if you are, good luck on getting those police there in time.
Comment 7/9/2008
I get it, it’s the illusion of control you’re after. I think you overestimate the likelihood that even if you are attacked, the circumstances of the attack will be such that you’ll be able to use the gun to defend yourself, without incurring even greater risk.
Honest question, with no snark intended: Have you ever practiced this? Have you ever done a walk through of a simulated attack, in which you have to present your weapon from its holster and use it effectively to stop the attacker? And even in such a walk-through you know the attack is coming, so it’s not a valid analog.
Remember, too, that while I’m unsure where you live, in most places, actually using your firearm is only allowable for immediate defense of life. If somebody asks you for your wallet, that’s not sufficient legal justification to shoot the bastard.
I’ll concede that a possibility exists that:
A) You could be attacked while in a safe area, AND
B) while conducting legitimate business, AND
C) in a circumstance where the attacker’s intent to harm is clear, AND
D) where you actually have time to react appropriately, AND
E) you have the ability to react appropriately and effectively while under stress
… but you have to admit that the probability of all those stars and planets aligning just so is vanishingly small.
And, as digglahhh has been trying to pound into your skull for quite some time now, if that sort of attack is really what you’re afraid of, there are a lot more effective ways of minimizing or eliminating that threat that have absolutely nothing to do with carrying a weapon. (Ironically, they taught us several of these in my concealed carry permit class.)
Comment 7/9/2008
Quote: “If somebody asks you for your wallet, that’s not sufficient legal justification to shoot the bastard.”
I don’t know what state you live in, but when a person “asks” for your wallet there is usually an implied threat that if you don’t turn it over you are going to be attacked and it will be taken away. What robber says, “I would like for you to give me your wallet, please. If you don’t want to, that’s okay. I’ll just go find someone else who is more sensitive to my needs and desires”?
Quote: “And, as digglahhh has been trying to pound into your skull for quite some time now.”
Why do you feel the need to take that attitude? I’ve said nothing derogatory about you. Are you so unsure of your position that you need to belittle others?
Comment 7/9/2008
I don’t know what state you live in, but when a person “asks” for your wallet there is usually an implied threat that if you don’t turn it over
Right, but if turning it over will make him go away, then that’s what you’re supposed to do. You’re only allowed to use your weapon if your life is in danger. You’re not allowed to use it to defend property. I’m not saying it’s right, but it’s how the law is. Now, if the robber has a gun pointed at you, then yes, you can shoot the bastard. Of course, if he does, then he’s already got the upper hand, and trying to draw your own weapon would be foolish.
Why do you feel the need to take that attitude? I’ve said nothing derogatory about you.
That’s fair. You have my apology.
Comment 7/9/2008
Quote: “Right, but if turning it over will make him go away, then that’s what you’re supposed to do.”
And how do you determine that? Who says you’re supposed to give up you property to anyone who comes along and asks for it? That’s a recipe for a dramatic increase in crime. If the perp knows that all he has to do is ask and he will be rewarded, why not rob everyone who comes along? Easy money.
Recently in a city near me, a group of four women were walking down the street. Two thugs accosted them and told them to give up all their money. Unfortunately, from the viewpoint of the thugs, one of the women was a vacationing FBI agent. Instead of cowering in fear, she shot one of the robbers who then fled in a van along with his partner. The next day his dead body was found in the next county. Should she have been arrested?
Comment 7/9/2008
Should she have been arrested?
As an officer of the law the rules are somewhat different for her than they are for you and I, but the answer is still largely the same: it depends on the circumstances. If they were already fleeing when she shot them (for example, if they started to back off when they saw she had a weapon), then yes, she should be. But not knowing the specifics, I simply can’t say.
Comment 7/9/2008
Quote: “As an officer of the law the rules are somewhat different for her than they are for you and I,”
So officers of the law are more entitled to self defense than are the common folk? Maybe we all need to have an officer of the law assigned to us. This reminds’ me of politicians who oppose the right of people to carry guns but then are protected by men in black suits with big guns. Remember Rosie O’Donnell’s opposition to people protecting themselves but then having an armed guard to protect her children? In their view, all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
BTW, in the case of the FBI agent, she shot the man because he kept approaching her after she told him to stop. He had not touched her or taken her wallet.
Comment 7/10/2008
The problem is, you moved the goal posts here, and I fell for it. Nobody here argued that anybody should be “arrested” for carrying a weapon; we’ve been arguing that it’s irrational to want to do so, a completely different thing. Whether or not she (or anyone else) should be arrested is a question born of the fact that the weapon was used.
In any case, no, an officer is not more “entitled” to self-defense than “the common folk.” That officer is, however, almost certainly more qualified to do so. They would have had specific training for circumstances like this.
Which brings me back to my earlier question, which you conveniently dodged. How much hands-on training have you had to prepare for the possibility of such an attack? How confident are you that you’d actually be able to safely present your weapon in a crisis, effectively repel the “bad guy,” and do so without unjustly harming anyone, and without putting yourself and others in even greater danger? And on what do you base this confidence?
I think you misunderstand my position here. I am not “anti-gun.” I own a gun, and I’m licensed to carry it. I choose not to do so for two reasons: because I don’t feel the need to (the chances of it coming in handy seem remote, even in a high-crime city such as mine); and because no matter what the state of Tennessee might say, I recognize that I’m not qualified to safely do so, precisely because I haven’t had the sort of hands-on training I was just talking about. (I’m also in bars a lot, and carrying there is illegal, but that’s a minor consideration.)
Hell, in TN, you don’t even have to demonstrate an ability to properly draw a weapon from a holster in order to get your certification. Eight hours of training, demonstrate that you can hit a stationary paper target 20 feet away, and pass a background check, and the license is yours. It’s a joke.
Look, I have no problem with the idea of allowing people to carry a weapon for self-defense in the abstract. It’s the execution that I have problems with. We’re talking about a deadly weapon here, and we let people take ‘em out in public with far less training or demonstrated competence than we require for, say, legally driving a car. Something’s not right about that.
And I do agree with digglahhh in principle, that it seems a little paranoid to be so afraid to go out in public unstrapped. Especially when, statistically speaking, you’ll almost certainly never be in a situation where you need it and could effectively use it. Even if you ARE robbed, the odds are overwhelming that they’ll take your money/wallet/purse and otherwise leave you alone.
Comment 7/10/2008
Quote: “The problem is, you moved the goal posts here”
No, you brought up the prospect of being arrested because a weapon was used when someone was attempting to rob a person. (post #41) I never said you said that someone should be arrested for carrying a weapon. The question was about when it is proper to use the weapon.
Quote: “In any case, no, an officer is not more “entitled” to self-defense than “the common folk.” That officer is, however, almost certainly more qualified to do so. They would have had specific training for circumstances like this.”
I get it now. Only those who have extensive training in self defense are allowed to defend themselves.
Comment 7/10/2008
No, you brought up the prospect of being arrested because a weapon was used when someone was attempting to rob a person.
True enough, but that’s not what I want; that’s the law in many places.
And in any case, why can’t you understand the difference between “allowed” and “qualified?” Also, on what planet is defending one’s self with a gun the only legitimate means of self-defense?
So the correct way to summarize my position isn’t your straw man. It’s that “only those who have extensive training in the use of a deadly weapon should be allowed to carry around a deadly weapon wherever they go.” Which should be no more controversial a statement than “only those who have been trained to drive and who have demonstrated proficiency in driving should be allowed to drive on public roads.” Yet for some reason, the former is much more controversial than the latter, even though the latter is far more restrictive of a right that far more people are far more likely to need.
And, by your lack of response to my repeated question, I’m going to assume the answer is “no,” you don’t have any meaningful training in using a firearm in a stress situation. But I’ll bet you’re aces at putting holes in a large, stationary paper target.
Comment 7/10/2008
Quote: “And in any case, why can’t you understand the difference between “allowed” and “qualified?” Also, on what planet is defending one’s self with a gun the only legitimate means of self-defense?”
I understand the difference between “allowed” and “qualified.” What’s your point? Your judgment as to who is “qualified” and therefore “allowed” is purely subjective.
Quote: “And, by your lack of response to my repeated question, I’m going to assume the answer is “no,” you don’t have any meaningful training in using a firearm in a stress situation. .”
I have the required training to carry a weapon. Do I have as much training as an FBI agent? No, but I’m not waiting around for an FBI agent to show up if I need to defend myself. I am not some trigger happy person spoiling for a fight. I have lost only one fight in my life, and I wouldn’t have lost that one if I hadn’t slipped running around the corner. (: I don’t like the idea of ever taking the life of someone else. I like even less the idea of being a helpless victim. Leave me alone, and I definitely will leave you alone.
Quote: “But I’ll bet you’re aces at putting holes in a large, stationary paper target.”
There you go again. Why do you insist on belittling those who are trying to have a serious discussion with you?
Comment 7/10/2008
Your judgment as to who is “qualified” and therefore “allowed” is purely subjective.
I wouldn’t say it’s purely subjective. But I’m willing to have that debate.
I have the required training to carry a weapon.
As previously stated, so do I. But this doesn’t address the key question of whether the required training is adequate. Now we may disagree about how much training is “enough,” but I find it hard to believe that any rational person would think that the currently-required training is anywhere near enough. It’s the equivalent of teaching someone how to fly without teaching them how to take off or land (or demonstrate that they can) and issuing them a pilot’s license.
No, but I’m not waiting around for an FBI agent to show up if I need to defend myself. … I don’t like the idea of ever taking the life of someone else. I like even less the idea of being a helpless victim.
I guess I’ll just never understand the mentality that thinks “no gun = helpless, gun = perfectly capable of defending oneself.” I have successfully defended myself from a threat without having had a gun, and without so much as throwing a punch. But apparently, I was “helpless,” I just didn’t know it.
Why do you insist on belittling those who are trying to have a serious discussion with you?
Oh, come on. The earlier remark was out of line, and I admitted it and apologized. This was gentle ribbing, and if you can’t take even a mild joke, then I’m certainly not going to apologize for that. It must be something about you South Carolina folks.
Comment 7/10/2008
Quote: “I guess I’ll just never understand the mentality that thinks “I guess I’ll just never understand the mentality that thinks I guess I’ll just never understand the mentality that thinks “no gun = helpless, gun = perfectly capable of defending oneself.” I have successfully defended myself from a threat without having had a gun, and without so much as throwing a punch. But apparently, I was “helpless,” I just didn’t know it.
Since I don’t have the “no gun = helpless, gun = perfectly capable of defending oneself” mentality, your comments don’t apply to me. I would use my gun as a last resort. I know a lot of people with CWPs. None of them are looking for a fight or paranoid about everyone they meet. They are average people with a desire to live their lives in peace.
Comment 7/10/2008
Yeah,the threat of you being assassinated is comparable to that of the president. Also, since you regularly hop out the Maebach with the Presidential Rolex with H-cut bezel like Jay-Z, it probably makes sense that you should complain about not having armed bodyguards to protect all those plotting on your material possessions.
/Chris Rock/ JFK was assasinated. Malcom X was assinated. Martin Luther King was assasinated. (Derf Irom), that nigga just got shot!” /Chris Rock/
I’ve said if before and I’ll say it again, IMO, these attempts at rationales for the irrational are basically just veils for Bernie Goetz fantasies (many of which are predicated on racial archetyping).
My bad about the language/grammar blunders, TG. I usually write from work, and sometimes I’m multitasking. Sometimes, I write and delete whole paras (believe it or not, I censor myself and try to be amicable - this is the result
) The belie thing is just an error on my part - I’ll make not of your correction, thanks.
Comment 7/10/2008
None of them are looking for a fight or paranoid about everyone they meet. They are average people with a desire to live their lives in peace.
Right, because nothing communicates that like carrying a concealed firearm to your son’s Little League game.
Comment 7/10/2008
Since I don’t have the “no gun = helpless, gun = perfectly capable of defending oneself” mentality, your comments don’t apply to me.
Hey, you’re the one who said you carry a gun because you don’t like to be helpless. The strong implication there is that if you didn’t have the gun, you would be helpless. If that’s not what you meant, feel free to clarify.
They are average people with a desire to live their lives in peace.
I might buy “ordinary,” but not “average.” And their priorities wrt protecting themselves are anything but average or ordinary. I’d be willing to bet that most of the people who choose to carry haven’t bothered to prepare for circumstances that are a lot more likely to actually happen to them than finding themselves in a situation where they need a gun to defend themselves. (And, I’d argue, most of them aren’t really even prepared for that, unless having a gun is the sole requirement for “preparedness.”)
What kind of “preparedness for more likely circumstances” am I talking about? Well, for example, how many of them have a first-aid kit with them at all times? How many of them even have one in the house? How many of them have stashed a couple weeks’ supply of bottled water and non-perishable food items? How many have flashlights, candles, matches, and plenty of batteries? (On that last, probably a fair number, I’d imagine.) How many have a generator, and enough reserve fuel to power it? Just a few off-the-top-of-my-head examples. (I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if a high percentage of them had plenty of duct tape and plastic wrap…)
Comment 7/10/2008
“Right, because nothing communicates that like carrying a concealed firearm to your son’s Little League game.”
I don’t mean to talk down to you, but how does a “concealed” something communicate anything?
Comment 7/10/2008
Quote: (I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if a high percentage of them had plenty of duct tape and plastic wrap…)
Your characterization of people with CWPs (didn’t you say you are one?) in such perjorative ways is very telling.
I have tired of this discussion. Remember, if someone legally carrying a gun ever sees you or your family in mortal danger, ask him to call the police and let them take care of the situation.
Comment 7/10/2008
Your characterization of people with CWPs (didn’t you say you are one?) in such perjorative ways is very telling.
It’s not a characterization of people with CWPs. It’s a characterization of people who feel the need to take their gun with them everywhere they go. Not the same group of people. I know plenty of gun rights advocates and CWP holders who aren’t the least bit afraid to venture out gun-less, and would never qualify themselves as “defenseless” if they don’t have a gun. My “perjorative” [sic] was reserved for those who really are that paranoid.
Remember, if someone legally carrying a gun ever sees you or your family in mortal danger …
… I’m buying a lottery ticket.
Comment 7/10/2008
Quote: “My “perjorative” [sic]…”
So you want to play that game? Okay let’s play.
Tg’s post #43: “As an officer of the law the rules are somewhat different for her than they are for you and I [sic].
An object of the preposition should be in the objective case. It should be “for you and me.”
Tg’s post #10: “I don’t know anybody who’s so paranoid that they carry a fire extinguisher around with them wherever they go, and bitch and complain if they can’t.”
You use “anybody” (singular) and then use “them” and “they” (plural).
Tg’s post #16: “For starters, how it’s [sic] relevant to this conversation.”
Huh?
Tg’s post #35: “Nobody carries a fire extinguisher around with them [sic] wherever they [sic] go, even though they [sic] are statistically considerably more likely to have use of that than they [sic] are to have use of a firearm.”
“Nobody” singular. “They” plural.
Want more? I’m sure if you read my posts, you are sure to find a few mistakes. So what?
Comment 7/10/2008
Actually, I encourage you (and anyone else) to correct my grammatical errors, spelling errors, and typos. That said:
Comment #43: You got me. Thanks for the correction.
Comment #16: It is indeed a sentence fragment, and could certainly have been worded better. However, the missing portion is implied by the question to which I was responding. With the implicit part made explicit:
Comments #10 and #35: You may be old school, but it’s genearlly considered acceptable to use “they” and “them” as pronouns to refer to a single person of indeterminate gender. (I must confess, I’m not certain that the King of Anglophonia will agree with me on this.)
By way of comparison, note that digglahhh didn’t take mortal offense when I corrected him, nor did he whine or take his ball and bat and go home. And he’s a self-described asshole!
Comment 7/10/2008
Quote: “note that digglahhh didn’t take mortal offense when I corrected him.”
Nor do I. (I don’t take mortal offense when you correct digglahhh.)
Comment 7/10/2008
How many of them even have one in the house? How many of them have stashed a couple weeks’ supply of bottled water and non-perishable food items? How many have flashlights, candles, matches, and plenty of batteries? (On that last, probably a fair number, I’d imagine.) How many have a generator, and enough reserve fuel to power it? Just a few off-the-top-of-my-head examples. (I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if a high percentage of them had plenty of duct tape and plastic wrap…)
I don’t need that shit. I got a PPK, if shit hits the fan, I’ll just take yours.
I don’t mean to talk down to you, but how does a “concealed” something communicate anything?
Oh, my bad, you’re brandishing it in the bleachers. And here I thought you might be doing something irrational and crazy.
E6? I think you might want to rethink that and give little Johnny a single!
Comment 7/11/2008
Quote: “Oh, my bad, you’re brandishing it in the bleachers.”
Then it’s not concealed. You need to be more careful when you make up fanciful scenarios.
BTW, no bats should be allowed at baseball games. I would think that more people at ballgames have assaulted umpires and others with bats than have assaulted them with guns. Cleats should not be allowed because players have been know to use them as weapons sliding into second base.
Comment 7/11/2008
Yes, because things that can be used as weapons are exactly the same as things that are explicitly designed to be weapons. Sure.
Comment 7/11/2008
Quote: “Yes, because things that can be used as weapons are exactly the same as things that are explicitly designed to be weapons. Sure.”
Are knives weapons or tools?
Comment 7/11/2008
A knife can be a weapon, but most knives are designed as tools to accomplish other primary purposes. Meanwhile, there aren’t too many guns out there that weren’t designed specifically to be weapons (even track meet pistols are usually repurposed revolvers), so I fail to see how the comparison applies.
The more apt comparison would be to a sword or a dagger. Here we are talking about things that are weapons by design.
Comment 7/11/2008
Fuck the heck…
Do I need to explain why I made the last post about brandishing the weapon? Hint: it’s not because I’m unclear of the meaning of “concealed.” (It’s to change states, from soft or fluid to solid, everybody knows that, sheesh.)
With your response to my sarcastic comment about guns at the Little League field, you (astonishingly) implied that a concealed weapon wasn’t enough because it you wouldn’t communicate how ready for combat you are, since it was concealed and all. So, my presumption is that you brandish it in the stands to make sure everybody knows not to fuck with you.
See, this discussion really proves how off the deep end the gun nuts will go. I’m asking only to admit that it is irrational to take your gun with you everywhere you go. I’m not objecting to gun ownership or anything like that. I’m asking only to concede that it is ridiculous to bring your gun to junior’s baseball practice, and I get substantial push back.
And re: the weapon vs. tool non sequitir, that’s just semantics. Is a knife a weapon or a tool - it depends on context, duh. Are you cutting rope fighting the Jets? (from their first cigarettes). Last weekend, I put together a wall unit, I used a screwdriver. Back in 1999 or so, I was arrested for stabbing some punk kid in the neck with one (reduced to a misdemeanor, long story).
Also, one could make the argument that all “weapons” are simply a subset of “tools.” A weapon is defined as a tool used to inflict harm, it’s the used-to-inflict-harm part that (sublabels that tool as a weapon, not the pre-existing status as a weapon that determines the object’s use. If I have to shoot the door of its hinges for some utilitarian purpose, the gun isn’t a weapon, it’s just a tool. But an object’s primary, most common use determines how we refer to it normally. Gun = weapon. Screwdriver = tool. But just to indulge the argument anyway - knife - I’d argue tool (eating, performing surgery, etc.) all more common than stabbing people.
Next topic: Is “blue” a color or a state of being?
Comment 7/11/2008
Quote: “I fail to see how the comparison applies.”
I didn’t compare knives and guns. The only point is that an object is a weapon only when it is used as such. Sure, guns were designed as weapons. However, it is a weapon when it is used for that purpose. Does a gun have more potential for harm than a bat. Of course, that’s why we don’t have carry bat permits. Can a bat kill a person? Of course it can. If you put a gun in the hand of the wrong person, he can murder someone. If you put the bat in the hand of an angry person, can he kill? To use a phrase that gun haters despise: Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
To classify a group of people who want to protect themselves as a bunch of nuts looking for someone to shoot is silly and bigoted.
Comment 7/11/2008
The only point is that an object is a weapon only when it is used as such.
So if somebody pointed to a S&W .40 in a display case and asked you “Is that a weapon?” you’re saying you would say it isn’t? Because it’s not currently being used as such? Man, parsing like that puts Bill Clinton to shame…
Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
Let me fix that for you:
There, that’s better. Besides, it’s not the guns. It’s those little bullets. By the way, when people want to kill people, what’s usually their tool of choice? That’s right, firearms, 68% of the time. This despite knives and cutting implements being a lot more commonplace. Gee, I wonder why that might be?
(And while I’m looking at statistics, it looks like we really need to do something about that white-on-white crime.)
Comment 7/11/2008
Quote: “it looks like we really need to do something about that white-on-white crime.)”
It looks like we really need to do something about all crime. Why are you trying to turn this into something racial?
Comment 7/11/2008
However, it is a weapon when it is used for that purpose…
To classify a group of people who want to protect themselves as a bunch of nuts looking for someone to shoot is silly and bigoted.
And how do they intend to use a gun to protect themselves? Why, using it as mother fucking weapon, of course…
I also love how you guys always say, in the hands of the wrong person, as if you guys are immune to lapses of judgment or dexterity of the finger… The other reason that phrase is funny is because in essence, a significant portion of the time, “wrong” can be read as “young and black (even if statistics were to show otherwise)”
Comment 7/12/2008
Quote: “I also love how you guys always say, in the hands of the wrong person, as if you guys are immune to lapses of judgment or dexterity of the finger…”
When was the last time your heard of a person with a CWP committing a crime with his gun?
Quote: “The other reason that phrase is funny is because in essence, a significant portion of the time, “wrong” can be read as “young and black (even if statistics were to show otherwise)”
What does race have to do with this discussion? When all logic fails, insert race.
Comment 7/12/2008