Take an old movie serial, add a new voice over by the Firesign Theatre and you have some very funny stuff. In this case, the gun loon’s nightmare: Big Brother’s henchmen come for the last handgun on earth.
“To think people used to sleep with these things under their pillows.”
It was made up by Jeff Cooper who gave us the four rules of gun safety and the combat mindset. So, is he saying that we shouldn’t be concerned if we see someone carrying a firearm? I think this goes to point of VPC’s study Unintended Consequences where Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-defence. In other words, the candid voices of pro-handgun experts and exposes through expert opinion the gun industry’s lies about the illusory benefits of handguns for self-defence.
First off, this “condition is not recognised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (AKA DSM). It is probably unlikely to be recognised as a condition as well, despite the efforts of the people who like to use this terms efforts to get it in there. This would be due to the fact that most of the medical community is aware that the risk of harm from pistols and revolvers that is demonstrated year after year in America’s unparalleled handgun death and injury rates.
Irrational Fear? This term came from Jeff Cooper the person who gave us the four rules of gun safety and the colour coded combat mindset. The first two rules of gun safety are:
- All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
- Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
Rule number 2 is the most important for this critique since it concedes that guns are destructive devices. Unfortunately, the fact that guns when used properly can cause serious injury or death is one of the things the folk who tend to use this term would prefer to neglect—in particular, the person who created the term.
Is he saying that we see someone we don’t know carrying a firearm and not see the possibility of a threat? Is he saying that guns don’t deserve at least a shred of respect for their capacity to cause injury or death?
Spot the inconsistency!
Before I leave this, I should say that no one has addressed Cooper’s inconsistencies in that he has his little colour coded combat mindset and points out that guns are indeed lethal, or at least destructive with his four rules of gun safety.
He would call people who are concerned about those who would carry firearm in a civilian setting hoplophobes.
Instead he wants people to walk around in condition white about someone who is carrying a deadly weapon:
“Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty, your reaction will probably be “Oh my God! This can’t be happening to me.”
But the ultimate absurdity is that Cooper taught COMBAT firearms use. In fact, the colour coded mindset was expounded upon in a book called Principles of Personal Defense and refers to the states of awareness in combat, or the combat mindset
People who have served in the military, especially in combat arms and are quite used to the presence of weapons know the difference between war zones and civilian life. Being in the military is different from being in a civilian population. And that is a rational consideration, not mental illness. The civilian environment does not have life threatening danger around every corner. It is not a combat zone.
Civilian life is not combat. You would have thought a battle hardened marine like Cooper would have caught on to that fact. One usually does not encounter weapons in a Civil Society which is at peace.
So,which is it, are you tryiing to create a society where it is considered normal to be in a combat state of awareness?
Or do you live in a society where there is peace and laws?
I have to admit this is one of the most idiotic terms I have ever heard, yet it is repeatedly used to castigate those who support gun control. I have devised this simple test to determine if you are a hoplophobe or not:
A madman is pointing a large firearm at you (e.g., 12 Bore riot-shotgun with 00 buckshot, Desert eagle .44 with hollow points and laser sighting device, or something else of your choice which would most likely seriously harm, if not kill, you). He is far enough away that any attempt to disarm this person would be futile. Likewise, any attempt to pull a weapon would be met with his (or her) getting in at least a shot that would probably result in your being hurt, if not killed.
- Not at all scared since you know full well that guns are not harmful in anyway, especially not in the hands of the insane or criminals, and you could not be hurt no matter how lethal the weapon or good the person’s holding its aim.
I am sure those gunloons out there will say that they have no fear and fit squarely into category 2.
Whereas anyone with a shred of sense would be afraid and say 1.
This is why the discussion of gun violence in the United States makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. “Gun rights” advocates place themselves and others in this situation through their policies, yet want to imply those who oppose them are in some way not sensible.
I can’t think of a reason to want to buy Starbucks’ Coffee: They allow gun toting clients in the USA (“would you like hot lead with that?”).
Now, they have the bad taste to ask the Irish why they are proud to be British!
Inviting followers on Twitter to “show us what makes you proud to be British” as part of a diamond jubilee promotion must have seemed like a good idea at the time at Starbucks.
But after tweeting the invitation to nearly 2,000 Irish followers of its Twitter account on Tuesday, the coffee giant has been on the receiving end of a backlash over its seemingly shaky grasp of political geography.
If allowing gun toting customers isn’t bad enough, they have to show how DUMB they are by asking Hibernians (the Irish) if they are proud to be British--TWO DIFFERENT ISLANDS.
I should repost the C G P Grey video post about the difference between the United Kingdom and Great Britain
It never fails to amaze me how culturally ignorant the Yanks are with this error coming months after another global brand, Nike, found itself on the back foot after falling foul of sensitivities over Irish history.
The sportswear giant said no offence was intended after issuing a St Patrick’s Day-themed shoe which raised memories of a British paramilitary unit which gained notoriety during the Irish war of independence.
IRELAND IS NOT BRITAIN, BUT NORTHERN IRELAND IS PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (FOR THE TIME BEING).
I have to admit that people on the “pro-gun” side tend to be fairly clueless and miss the obvious.
Yes, criminals not only DON’T register their firearms–THEY CAN’T. That’s the whole idea–the criminal is arrested and is charged with possession of an unregistered firearm. They aren’t able to register their gun and THEY GO TO JAIL!
Get the idea, or are you still too stupid?
Over at Commongunsense they are having the old drunks and cars debate. If someone is inebreated and is driving, they are breaking the law and they lose their licence to drive. They might even serve some time in jail!
A drunk on public transporation is annoying–a drunk driving a car is a danger to society.
Anyway, I like this article by Peter Wheeland from the 26 Aug 10 Montreal Gazette which I am copiously citing since pro-gun people are too stupid to spot citations. It concerns how idiotic their arguments are.
You register your car -why not guns?
By PETER WHEELAND, The Gazette August 26, 2010
There’s a very good chance that a private member’s bill will be adopted by Parliament within weeks that would abolish the registry of rifles and shotguns owned by Canadians.
Imagine, if you will, the average car owner trying to use the same arguments as gun owners for refusing to register their weapons, to fight storage regulations and to push for dismantling the gun registry.
The following arguments were lifted from numerous pro-gun blogs and websites about the long-gun registry and little was changed except weapons were transformed into vehicles, bullets into car keys.
– ¦ “Cars don’t kill people, people kill people.”
– ¦ “Criminals won’t register their cars, they’ll just go out and steal them or smuggle them into the country.”
– ¦ “Forcing me to keep my car and car keys separate when I’m not using them is stupid. What if there’s a fox in my field and I have to run into the house to get my keys so I can go run the fox over? By the time I get my keys, he’ll be gone. Yet if I leave my keys in the car and some kid steals it and kills someone with it, they think I’m the one acting irresponsibly! That’s crazy!”
– ¦ “Ninety per cent of car crimes are committed with sports cars, not SUVs, so why should SUV owners by forced to register their vehicles?”
– ¦ “The car registry penalizes the majority of vehicle owners, who are law-abiding citizens, by imposing bureaucratic procedures and fees on them, as well as making them vulnerable to prosecution for failing to register their cars.”
– ¦ “If a lunatic decides to take a bunch of people out, it really won’t matter to him whether or not the car is registered.”
– ¦ “It’s not the fear of registering cars, it’s the cost for each car, plus the hassle you have to go through. Plus you have to take a driver safety course in order to get a permit to drive the car. I’ve been driving without a licence all my life, why should I have to take a safety course? My dad taught me everything I need to know.”
– ¦ “The original cost of implementing the registry was estimated at approximately $120 million, with most of the costs being covered by registration fees. Subsequent reviews, however, have shown the actual cost to be closer to $2 billion.”
Well, it’s hard to argue with that last point. Setting up the registry was enormously, ridiculously expensive. The only way to recoup that $2 billion is, obviously, to scrap the registry.
Yes, yes, that argument doesn’t make much sense, either.
But don’t forget that this is the same government that spend $1.1 billion on the G8 and G20 summits without worrying about what five days’ worth of talks would cost, nor were they worried that the expense (not to mention the criminal trials for 300 protesters) would produce nothing of benefit in its wake.
It’s the same government that wants to spend $9 billion to expand the prison system because of a rise in “unreported crime.”
The same government that wants to increase the cost of conducting the census by $30 million because of privacy complaints that, well, are so private that no one has heard of them.
The same government whose only other major privacy concern has been that Canadians not be allowed to obtain information about MPs’ expenses and that journalists making Access to Information requests get only documents with all of the nouns and adjectives blacked out.
It’s the same government that promotes a “law and order” agenda yet refuses to listen to the unanimous position of the Association of Police Chiefs on the usefulness of the long-gun registry,
Laws don’t kill democracy, politicians do.
Peter Wheeland is a Montreal writer, Gazette copy editor, and owner of a proudly registered car.
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/register+your+guns/3444385/story.html#ixzz17wTUYvBi
Personally, I don’t trust a site which claims to be facts of any kind. I had a link to www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm that has the page title of “Gun Facts”. This elicited the following response from Guy Smith, who claims to have a copy right on that term.
For lack of a contact address on your “about” page, I need to leave this message here.
“Gun Facts” (in that capitalized form) is copyrighted, and I own the copyright. As such, your link in the left margin pointing to a web site that is _not_ http://www.GunFacts.info is a copyright violation.
This is a polite request (before demand and action) to change the anchor text to anything besides “Gun Facts”. Please email me once this change has been made so I can remove you from my action list.
Thanks in advance for your time and understanding.
Actually, I don’t want to get into the battle with the man, but I did send two responses in pretty quick order:
Per your request, the tag has been changed from “Gun Facts” to “gun statistics from the gun control network”.
While I sincerely doubt that you would prevail in a copyright infringement based on Gun Fact being a copyrighted title, I personally am not interested in dealing with that.
I am happy to change the tag.
Personally, I think that if you are so oversensitive about such an issue, you are probably not the type of person who should be able to own a firearm. Since I’d hate to think of what sort of thing would set you off
Given that the page I was referring to is listed in Google as:
Over our Dead Bodies. Port Arthur and Australia’s Fight for Gun Control by Simon Chapman. Pluto Press. 1998. Updated: October 2007. FACTS ABOUT GUNS …
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm – Cached – Similar
Have you contacted that group?
To be quite honest, I seriously doubt you would prevail on a copyright action since (a) that isn’t my page and (2) the other groups is responsible for it.
As I said in my previous message, if you are that sensitive to keeping the title Gun Facts, you probably shouldn’t own a firearm. Likewise, you will have your work cut out keeping people from infringing upon your “copyright”.
Anyway, I would prefer to change the link just to make you happy. Although, if I were really slime, I would keep it up just to bankrupt you in copyright suits.
I’m not sure why Smith Contacted me since if he clicked to the linked page, he would have found it wasn’t owned by me, but by the Gun Control Network, PO Box 11495, London N3 2FE. It’s a waste of his time and money to chase after me to change the link title since I have absolutely no connection to the Gun Control Network.
IN fact, Smith should google the phrase Gun Facts and start threatening to sue everyone who uses that term without his permission, beginning with the Gun Control Network in London. I am curious as to how long it would take to bankrupt him. In fact, my response to his law suit would have been to deny everything since the title I used was the title used by the Gun Control Network.
Likewise, the title is published by google as my comment pointed out: has Mr. Smith contacted Google and threatened to sue them since they have a link titled “Gun Facts” that points to the Gun Control Network?
And thinking about it, given his request was that I change the link title “to anything besides “Gun Facts””, I could have changed it to “gun facts”.
I’m curious as to Smith’s response regarding his suing the Gun Control Network and Google. The picture to the above right is the British Court’s response to his suit regarding “Gun Facts”. Anyway, that’s his battle and not mine as of now.
I will add that I have contacted an intellectual property lawyer for his opinion on this matter. If he says that Mr. Smith has no legal basis for his claim, the title may return to “Gun Facts”. On the other hand, it may not since I can appreciate Guy’s concerns about people being confused since I have to admit I made that mistake on my own prior to receiving his message. And he’s been nice enough.