Archive for the ‘Defensive Gun Use’ Category

How exactly do I feel about “assault rifles”?

I ask this because there is a Pew Charitable Trust poll “Amid a Series of Mass Shootings in the U.S., Gun Policy Remains Deeply Divisive” that asks this and other questions.

In theory, they should be banned or heavily regulated.

The reality, they are something people will have to get used to living with. “Black Lives matter”, The “peaceful protests”, and the defund the police movement have pretty much killed any chance of regulating firearms. That’s ironic since the “Black Lives Matter” movement and defunding the police require having a strong system of firearms regulation to have even a shred of being successful.

That’s because people need to feel safe and secure, which is something I think most gun regulators miss. The belief that “no one needs a firearm like that” rings hollow when the police start disappearing from the streets. My “I Almost bought an AR” post was about this since the reportage if one was fortunate enough to be away from the action could cause some people to want to head to the nearest gun store and buy one.

I think some people are unaware of the situation in this country and how difficult it will be to persuade people they don’t need an assault rifle. Not to mention that I am beginning to believe most of the people on the regulation side are not really good at listening to the other side.

OK, despite what many people may think: I HAVE listened to the arguments. And examined them carefully. That goes for both sides.

Right now, the “gun grabbers” are losing the propaganda battle…badly. The result of which is that they are beginning to lose the battle.

They are also alienating people who should be on their side by living in a highly idealistic world, I still stick by my belief that:

While I support keeping guns out of the hands of people like criminals and the looters, it is thoroughly insane to prevent the law abiding to their safety. And for the most part I am sceptical of firearms for home defence, I can get why some people would want them.

The problem is that one can’t tolerate the “peaceful protests” and defunding the police, yet expect people to be willing to give up on what they see as their best defence.

They say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged: we may see a lot of people become “conservative” in the coming days.

At this point in time, firearms regulation is going to be one of the last things that will happen.

Reality versus gun rights

It’s really fun watching people defend the rioters and looters in the current situation. I’m going to use Pennsylvania law, but there is Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55: Riot, Disorderly Conduct and Related Offenses, which means that the destruction and looting caused by the rioters is illegal.

No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Trashing stores and stealing the contents is not a political act, but a criminal one.

Let’s add in that not only is it a criminal act, but it is actual violence. As I said to one person being able to understand the rioters would also mean that you understand why people are protesting the Covid-19 lockdowns with guns. As they say, they may not agree with the method, but they understand the frustration.

Actually, I find the armed protesters less of a threat than I do an out of control mob who are actually engaged in violent acts. Arson is a major cause of loss of life and injury in commercial properties. Strangely, the people who somehow find that the rioting and looting are justified have an issue with people exercising their right to self-defence.

Rioting, looting, arson, and the other illegal acts mentioned in Title 18, the crimes code, and specifically Title 18, Article F, Chapter 55, are just that crimes and illegal. On the other hand someone does have the right to self-defence if they have a reasonable belief that are in danger of death or serious bodily injury. Which happens to be a very real threat if you are in the sights of rioters.

One person said, “couldn’t you get out of their way, or leave town?” Is that a fair question if you get the lockdown order and AREN’T allowed to leave? Someone in that situation is pretty much stuck.

Which gets to the gun rights type’s question: “shouldn’t the person be allowed to defend themselves?” To which “Fuck, yeah!” seems to be the most sensible answer. And if the best weapon happens to be something semi-auto that can accept a large capacity magazine: then they should indeed be allowed to have such a weapon.

Which is why I titled this the way I did.

The person who somehow feels that the violence is “justified” or “understandable” should also be able to accept that people have a right to protect themselves. And the right which is lawful is the one of self-protection.

Not rioting.

Or as Donald Trump said: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.

While I don’t like Trump or the underlying events which led to the protests, the movement to violence has changed the game to a no win situation. And the people who are going to be the big losers are the ones the protests were supposed to help.

Likewise, I have made it clear that I don’t support “gun rights” or believe it to be a real thing, but if people are going to condone violence, then they need to accept that the cycle of violence will continue.

And isn’t ending the violence what the protests were trying to do?

You can condemn the violence, yet still support the underlying cause. If anything, it makes far more sense to condemn the violence instead of allowing the cycle of violence to keep rolling on.

Orgasm gun

Sedate me mentioned this in regard to Orgazmo at Cousin Avi’s post about Mormons

I think these guns are great items for personal defence: shoot someone and they start cumming!

Pro-gun rubbish

Let’s see: Kleck and Lott have been discredited all over the internet, yet some people still love quoting them. Well, Michael Bellesiles has some pretty good arguments as well and he didn’t need to pretend to be a student to get praise for Arming America!

Gun Control leads to Genocide! really! I’ve gone over that one with a fine tooth comb. Why hasn’t there been a genocide in Britain since it has had gun control for nearly 90 years now? Maybe the answer to preventing genocide lies elsewhere besides firearms ownership!

Saddam Hussein? Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein’s regime and it didn’t stop him. Same goes for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Check out the Durra Gun Market in this video.

The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee private ownership outside of the militia institution and fighting government tyranny is also rubbish. I agree with Matthew White that the most likely outcome of a war between the Feds and the extreme right is that the extreme right is crushed like bugs, even before the network news anchors can move their mobile newsdesks, satellite link-ups and tactical hairdryers out to the battlefield. As I said in my Fear the Reaper post:

Μολὼν λάβε?
Εντάξει, με ευχαρίστηση!

Or in the way that pisses off the gun cretins, let’s just kill them and pry the guns from their fingers if that’s what they want. If these people are that stupid, they deserve to be removed from the gene pool. And they don’t have popular support which means most people would be happy if the government wasted them. I would have called in an air strikes on Ruby Ridge and Mount Carmel.

Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a “right” to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.–Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

The amount of defensive gun uses is highly overestimated
Oh, yeah don’t forget the study that says armed defenders are more likely to be killed or injured!

Sort of like Melanie Hain!

More "Turtles all the way down".

In my original “Turtles All The Way Down” post, I discussed the argumentum ad populem and how people can be wrong. Despite holding incorrect opinions, the masses refuse to see reason. This is despite being shown their opinions are wrong.

Needless to say, we have this love of long discredited statistics concerning defensive gun use by the gun cretin crowd.

They insist that Lott and Kleck are “peer reviewed”. Well, yes, they are peer reviewed and found to be seriously flawed. Yet, the gun cretin crowd will trot them out to try and refute more accurate statistics.

The New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence blog post Say what? How many defensive gun uses? Points out a sidebar in an Article called “Who is the Armed Citizen?” in the National Rifle Association’s magazine America’s 1st Freedom highlights one of the gun lobby’s favorite pieces of research – a 1995 study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz that reported an astounding 2.5 million defense gun uses each year in the United States. But for some curious reason the author neglected to mention the numerous, peer reviewed, refereed, academic articles that have been published over the last decade that clearly refute Kleck’s astronomical claim.

Never mind it’s well known that applying Kleck and Gertz’s methodology to a 1994 ABC News/ Washington Post survey of 1500 adults of which 10 percent answered affirmatively as to whether they had ever seen an alien spacecraft. Of these, six percent stated they had come into contact with a space alien. If extrapolated to the national population using Kleck and Gertz’s methodology, this would translate into almost 20 million Americans who had seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million who had actually met space aliens.

You can Read some of the other refutations of Kleck and Gertz’s methodology for yourself:

* “The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year?” Journal of Police Analysis and Management, 1997
* “The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun use: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events” Chance – American Statistical Association, 1997
* “Defensive Gun Uses: New Evidence from a National Survey” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1998
* “The Relative Frequency of Offensive and Defensive Gun Uses: Results from a National Survey”, Violence and Victims, 2000
* “Myths about Defensive Gun Use and Permissive Gun Carry Laws” Berkeley Media Studies Group, 2000
* “Comparing the Incidence of Self-Defense Gun Use and Criminal Gun Use” Harvard Injury Control Research Center, 2009
* And the list goes on…….

But perhaps the most egregious part of this article is the reference to the work of researchers Phillip Cook and Jens Judwig. In a 1997 article in the National Institute of Justice Research in Brief titled “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, Cook and Ludwig conclude “The NSPOF-based estimate of millions of defensive gun uses each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.” Yet in the sidebar article the NRA inexplicitly claims “researchers Cook and Ludwig confirmed the results of the Kleck/Gertz study.”

That doesn’t really surprise me since the gun cretin crowd will grasp at straws to try and buttress their position. For example the following quote:

It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,1787-88, p. 474-5

The gun cretin will see the phrase “To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense”. Nevermind that the entire quote supports the concept of the militia. In fact, the first quote is only a part of the whole sentence which is:

To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government.

Which sounds pretty negative about “arms in the hands of the citizens” to me.

Anyway, I have a really hard time accepting the arguments from the gun lobby.

The Most Intelligent comment I’ve read on the "gunny" boards

Guns and more
Senior Member

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fl
Posts: 652
Guns and more

Statistics will show two people killed in a home where guns were present.

Yeah, I guess they will–won’t they. And which sets of statitistics? victims of gun violence, not defensive gun uses. Yep, Melanie and Scott are just another of the faceless victims of gun violence.

How many more can we expect?

When will people finally get tired of the carnage because dick is being done to prevent guns falling into the hands of people who really shouldn’t have them?

A Simple Question about Melanie Hain.

Would she be dead if there were not firearms in her house?

She wasn’t killed with a flyswatter, mousetrap, pencil sharpener, piece of paper, cross bow, knife, brass knuckles, axe, machete, chain saw, stapler, toothbrush, or frying pan.


So, why do the gun cretins try to hide that point?

Precisely because their arguments are based upon lies. Actual defensive gun use is a very rare event, as opposed to the anecdotal incidents provided by the gun cretins.

Kleck and Lott are discredited surveys. In fact, John Lott makes Michael Bellesiles look positively honest, yet there are few screams from the lynch mob who went after Bellesiles for Lott’s position. Google Mary Rosh next time you feel the urge to use “More Guns, More Crime” as a source when you try to argue with someone knowledgable about the issue.

The problem is that the better statistics that exist are on the side of gun control. Those being that a gun in the home will more likely harm a family member, Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed, defensive gun use is rare, and a woman is more likely to be killed by someone with a gun in a domestic situtation.

Sorry, but the numbers were against her.

But the gun cretin crowd wants to keep it so that it appears there aren’t valid reasons for gun control. You can’t show that most crime guns are purchased “legally” if gun trace data isn’t available courtesy of the Tiahrt Amendment. You can’t show gun laws work if you can’t show the links between the legal sources of crime guns. You can’t argue that people are more likely to be killed with their own guns with inflated numbers like those provided by Kleck’s surveys. It’s easier to hide under false statistics such as Kleck and Lott when there isn’t a source of valid data to contradict those studies.

But, it’s pretty obvious that the gun cretin crowd wants to hide from the simple fact that Melanie Hain was killed by a gun she hoped would provide her with protection.

Also another sorry, but the guns could have been taken from the home under the current weak gun laws. There was no reason for those firearms to be in her home other than her perceived “Second Amendment” (Actually it is under Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned) and her belief that her gun would be used to defend herself from unknown assailants.

Sorry, but you can’t hide from reality for too long.

Because you are mentally ill if you do and you have made yourself a disqualified person.

I only rejoice that someone who was a fool has been removed from this earth and I wish that the rest of you idiots would see sense, no matter how foolish that hope might be.

Gun Myth #2: Gun control caused the Virginia Tech Shootings

That comment might make sense if the Virginia Tech shootings occurred in Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California.

But they didn’t.

It happened in Virgina, a state with liberal gun laws. It was pretty high up there on the NRA good state scale. Brady gives it a grade of 18 out of 100. Virginia must be doing something correct from a “gun rights” standpoint. So, Just how did gun control cause the Virgnina Tech Massacre?

Virginia has shall issue concealed carry. Heck, you can strap on a holster and carry openly in the part of Virginia where the shootings happened. It’s not unusual to walk into a gun store in Virgina and see machineguns for sale.

According to the RKBA crowd beliefs, this kind of gun culture should have prevented the shootings.

But would an armed citizen have stopped a lunatic intent on committing suicide on a grand scale? I mean Klebold and Harris engaged in a shoot-out with an armed Sheriff at Columbine. That’s a real trained Law enforcement agent.

Didn’t stop them from killing 13 people besides themselves.

What would some armed citizen do to stop the violence if a trained cop couldn’t?

First off, a private citizen does not have all the legal advantages a policeman does when he engaging in his official duties. The private citizen can legally only protect himself if he, or his family is faced with immediate bodily harm. That harm must be resisted with the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack.

So, if someone is coming at you and you could stop that person with somehting less than deadly force, use of deadly force makes the victim the aggressor!

Not to mention if Rambo with the gun there mistakenly hits someone besides the gun toting maniac. Bimbo with the gun has just added to the chaos, confusion, and carnage. Think of the liability there!

Hero to zero in nothing flat.

Anyway, I’ve seen in posts that Cho Seung-Hui wasn’t a US citizen (in gun groups where this is a thread no less). Not to mention the guy had psychological problems.

Now, shouldn’t that have disqualified him from owning a gun?

Nope, Cho Seung-Hui plunked down the money and passed the instant checks to walk away with a Walther P22 and Glock 9 mm handguns, not to mention how many rounds of ammunition.

Now, does that sound like gun control contributed to those shootings to you?