It's been a few weeks since the tragedy in Tuscon reignited several debates. One of them was the gun debate and in all of the swirl of dialog, a question arose in my head.
What you are afraid of?
I am asking this question specifically to the gun rights folks that migrated to this blog from Kevin's site. After the Tuscon shooting, gun sales skyrocketed. Many gun rights proponents told me this was due to fear of a new wave of gun control yet the only thing that I have seen being seriously considered is a ban on the high capacity clips that are similar to what Loughner used. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that but I'd like to see tighter controls on the mentally ill being able to purchase guns before that sort of ban.
I'm still lost, though. Was there another reason why people rushed out to buy a gun? I think so but I'll get to that in a moment. I get the fact that people should be able to own guns and use them for hunting, sport, and target practice. I even get the collectible side of it...I'm the world's biggest pack rat with comic books, CDs, and DVDs, books...so I get the obsessive need to collect.
But what I don't get is the ridiculous notion that an AR-15 is for home protection. Or a Glock with a high capacity clip is used to protect oneself on the street. Again, if it's just because they are cool and you want one, fine. I'm that way with stuff too. But don't give me the BS about protection. And that goes for just about every situation regarding protection.
In some situations, I can see it. I have a friend who lives in Chicago who got mugged a few times and bought a gun. She has since been nearly mugged three times and her gun has been an effective deterrent. Women protecting themselves....I get it...no problem. But I had someone tell me the other day that if Abe Lincoln had a gun, he would've been able to turn around and shoot John Wilkes Booth. He was serious but I just laughed at him. Where would he have kept it for easy access? In his hat?
Then it all dawned on me. In their continued adolescent power fantasy, people who (over) use the line of protection think they are living their lives in an episode of 24. Or in the film Die Hard where John McLane duct tapes guns to his back and tricks the bad guys. This is complete fiction. It NEVER happens like this. Yet these folks thinks that it does and that's a big problem. They are so afraid of...something...in their lives that they primarily reside in a world of fantasy (Ayn Rand) in which they are Campbell's archetypal hero...shooting their way to security.
I've always been a huge action film and TV fan. I love 24, the Die Hard films, and have been obsessed for over 20 years with HK action flicks (Chow with two guns=Mega) but I know that they are complete fantasies and have no resemblance to real life. The same person who told me that if Abe Lincoln had a gun, he would've been able to defend himself said the same thing of Gabby Giffords. This mentality is so silly that it's hard to even comment. She would've had no time to react and the one guy that was there with a gun didn't even draw it because was uncertain as to who the gunmen was during the incident.
This is how the real world works, folks. So, if you just like guns because they are cool to collect or you have a legitimate reason to defend yourself, fine. Fess up. If neither are true, however, I ask again.
What are you afraid of?
30 comments:
AR-15s were used to great effect in the defense of shops/homes by Korean storeowners during the LA riots, especially since the cops decided to stay home. Darnit, that liberty thing - where you don't get to tell me what's appropriate for my personal situation - just keeps getting in the way, huh mark?
Again, if it's just because they are cool and you want one, fine. I'm that way with stuff too.
That covers most of my gun purchases. I haven't bought anything since Obama came into office - just haven't felt the need. That and a couple of guns I would like to buy aren't allowed in Californistan anyway - so until I move, sigh.
I've lived in two shall-issue CCW states, and never felt the need to have a permit. Honestly, the only time I felt like I needed to carry on a regular basis was when I lived in Virginia but went into DC.
I do like to hike, and I am near the border, so usually I and/or a one or two of my fellow hikers pack when we are out in the back country - just in case of predators, on four legs or two. Happy to say there hasn't been anything to cause concern - but I carry a first aid pack too and I haven't needed it yet either. I won't go out there unprepared for either case.
I've never had to use a gun for self-defense, yet there have been home-invasion burglaries in the area (though none recently since 1 perp was killed, and another wounded when they smashed into the wrong house), including 1 old guy killed 3 doors down who was murdered (with a crowbar to the head) and there were shots fired down the street 3 weeks ago. The area is getting less safe and we're looking at moving.
My brother was attacked and beaten down in St. Paul walking home from the lab one night by a group of "youths of color", and left unconscious on the sidewalk on a night when it was well below zero Fahrenheit. Now he has a CCW.
BTW, Mark, I take offense at the assumptions behind your final question. Of COURSE I have a legitimate need for defense! Any person does except for those brainwashed to be like that one warren of rabbits in Watership Down. A firearm is the most effective tool for defense. In my declining years, I will never again be a match for a young thug (if I ever was), and certainly not 2 or 3.
I also enjoy shooting sports.
The chances are quite low that I would ever have to draw my gun, lower still that I would actually have to use it (but if I do use it, I won't be doing anything so stupid as firing warning shots or trying to wound. The chances are quite low that I will have a house fire, but that doesn't mean that my wife and I don't have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers in the house.
Why does it have to be fear Mark? Is that the only possible way you could have a gun? Or would even having a gun near you be a reason for you to be afraid? Would you be afraid of what you would do with a gun?
Does having a fire extinguisher make me afraid of fire? Does wearing a coat make me afraid of the cold?
You say that having a gun for protection is "BS". But then you turn around and tell of a person you know who has used a gun for defense several times. With that example so close to you why are you even asking the question?
You do know that there are approximately two million defensive gun uses a year by law abiding citizens in this country? Two million Mark. Your idea that a person can't have a gun for protection is laughable in the face of that tidbit. Watch as I turn anecdote in data and relate that I personally have used guns for protection several times in the twenty-one years I have been carrying one. And yes, actually I have used a Glock with a "high capacity" magazine for defense on the street.
Oh, and as an aside, while I could use my shotgun for home defense, the recoil is a bit much for my petite fiance. She can however shoot an AR-15 easily and accurately. So that is what we have for home protection.
or you have a legitimate reason to defend yourself, fine. Fess up
What the hell does that mean Mark? Does not everyone have a legitimate reason to defend themselves? Do you? Or are you being rather silly and thinking that 'bad stuff doesn't happen in this neighborhood?' News for you Mark, bad stuff happens everywhere, to everyone.
As for the retelling of the imaginative conversation you had with the voices in your head I will let others psychoanalyze.
And I'll leave you with this:
Where would he have kept it for easy access
Probably in a holster. You know, the things that are designed to hold a gun securely and yet provide easy access.
Do you really know so little about something you just spouted off so absolutely about?
Marktroll 1
Respondents 0
Both Presidents Roosevelt owned pistols, as well as Eleanor Roosevelt who carried her revolver with her.
And while nothing would've saved Lincoln from the assassin who got past his bodyguard and approached him from the read, he would've carried his gun the same way everyone else did: in a holster or in a pocket. Did you even bother to think that one out, Mark, or was it just word salad pouring forth at that point?
Well, this comment thread started out just fine. I found the first three comments to be quite informative and reflective. Yeah, there was some snark but largely they were honest answers. Juris, for example, was honest and forthright with his view of guns. If you think guns are cool and just want them, I'm the same way with other stuff so I get that. Larry's comments were level headed, factual, and completely honest. They made complete sense.
But then came Guard Duck's comment and...well...hence the reason why I asked the question. I'm curious as to when you used a Glock with high capacity in a defensive situation on the street. Did you just pull it out as a threat or did you have to lay down covering fire to protect someone/yourself? If the latter is true, where on earth do you live?
Bad stuff does not happen everywhere to everyone. Violent crime has been going down for years and is still heading in that direction. I'm not sure where you get your stats from but I get mine from the FBI and local law enforcement. That's the little something I know about, dude.
My point in all of this is while violent crime has gone down, reporting of violent crime has gone up. This leads to people believing that bad guys are comin' to gin 'em and I think that is complete bullshit. It's needless fear peddling that taps into an action hero fantasy that is totally preposterous.
Oh, and Anon, how can i be a troll on my own blog? Really grasping at straws there...wow.
Simple.
You are not worth reading, or commenting about. Note the interest in your last couple posts.
You throw up a gun control post, knowing that you will at least be shouted down, and at best will be shown your errors.
So, you are posting only to generate outrage. I guess bad attention is better than none....
Troll.
Bad stuff does not happen everywhere to everyone. Violent crime has been going down for years and is still heading in that direction.
You might note, and I will admit it is correlation not necessarily causation, that the drop in crime has been accompanied by an expansion of concealed carry.
Certainly what we have not seen is the blood in streets that the gun banners promised would happen with more people carrying concealed.
A gun CONTROL post? No. Where did I say guns should be controlled. I was questioning motivation for having them. If you say to me "Hey, I think guns are cool and I like to collect them" I get it. If you say, "Hey, I like target shoot-even with high capacity clips" I get that, for the most part. If you say to me, "Hey, I like to hunt" I get that. If you say to me "Hey, there's a lot of crime in my neighborhood and I've been mugged so I need a deterrent" I get that.
What I don't get is action hero unrealistic scenarios and the paranoia about needing to protect yourself from imaginary foes. That's questioning the personality, not the guns. The outrage comes from the people who I just called on their bullshit, not me. Again, the PEOPLE, not the guns. For the most part, I think all guns (save autos) should be made available to any adult as long as they are not criminals or mentally ill. That's a far cry from gun control.
I'd be a troll if I was posting on some other blog or forum. That's where the term came from not from an author of the blog itself. Under your definition, that makes every blogger a troll, right? Because no one but me posts controversial remarks. I'm certain that no conservative ever has:)
Juris-I'm not sure it has to do with guns. It's a nice story but I think there are other factors in our culture that have changed the level of violence.
Juris-I'm not sure it has to do with guns.
I certainly wouldn't say that was the only factor, or even the most significant. But as you note about your friend in Chicago - it does work.
Interesting that in the couple of years the economy has been in the tank, crime hasn't gone up - as many would expect.
I agree. It does work in certain situations and perhaps the total of those situations has made the difference in a downward tick.
Also had the same thoughts as you on the economy. Everyone predicted that crime would go up and it didn't. Why? I smell a very ripe sociological study waiting to be had. I don't understand it. People seem angrier than they ever have been. Or is it just the media making it out that way? Perhaps people are happier. Or, more likely, there is more apathy and people just don't give enough of a shit to lift a finger to be violent. The lazy boy, flat screen and video game technology have made us warm and happy:)
Oh, you didn't want snark Mark? Why didn't you say so? Better yet, why didn't you just ask the question rather than throw out some ridiculous insults? Sure, if you really feel that someone who has a gun for protection is living in some Rambo fantasy world you could have easily kept that to yourself if you really wanted to hear the perspective from the other side. But you didn't, you brought your vision of imaginary foes to, in your words, call them out on their bullshit.
Forgive me if you truly believed you should have got a different reaction. I'll give you a 'reflective and honest' answer as long as you stop being insultingly stubborn as to your viewpoint. You asked the questions, I really want to assume, to get an opposing viewpoint. Not to start an argument, so please stop being patronizing and expect me to be reflective in return, deal?
I'm curious as to when you used a Glock with high capacity in a defensive situation on the street.
When? 1993, 1995, 1999 and 2002. Technically 1993 was in a mobile home, 1995 was in a parking lot, 1999 was on the street and 2002 was inside a business.
Did you just pull it out as a threat or did you have to lay down covering fire to protect someone/yourself?
I didn't have to fire in any of the occasions. 1993 I interrupted a home invasion robbery and the bad guy came at me with a crowbar, I drew and he gave up his intentions.
1995 three guys came at me, two pulled knifes. Again, when I drew on them the ran.
1999 a guy was popping off shots at a car full of people he had just gotten into a fight with. My partner and I both drew and came the closest I ever have to shooting. He started to spin around on us, then tossed the gun and ran.
2002 I stopped an armed robbery at an all night truck stop. I drew and he gave up.
Now, to be forthright I was working various armed security jobs in each instance. Further, I would not have been in the situations of 1993, 1995 and 1999 had I not been working and been obligated to be not only there but to respond to certain situations. As well, even if I had not been working and ended up near those situations my responses would not necessarily been the same.
However, in the case of the armed robbery, I, and anyone else could have easily been grabbing a cup of coffee and found themselves in a similar situation. This particular robber was, at the time I interrupted him, starting to herd the clerk into the back room. I have no doubt that he would have also been herding any unlucky customers back there as well. The odds of getting out of the back room alive when such happens is rather low. So, if I had not been working and blundered into that robbery my being armed would have been the difference between live and death.
Bad stuff does not happen everywhere to everyone.
Yes it does. Granted, if you engage in illicit activity or some sort of criminal enterprise you chances of being a victim increases substantially. But random acts of violence, crime and mayhem happen....randomly...to random people.
Violent crime has been going down for years and is still heading in that direction
Yes, I'm very aware of that. When violent crime reaches a rate of zero, nada, zilch then you can say that violent crime won't strike you or me or anyone else. But just because the rate has been going down does not mean it isn't happening.
reporting of violent crime has gone up
You got a source for that?
As I said, there are an estimated two million defensive uses of guns by law abiding citizen every year. That stat alone disproves your theory that having a gun for defense is action hero fantasy.
I'd start with Glassner's Culture of Fear (now recently revised). He has plenty of statistics. Or you could just turn on the news if you wanted to save time.
Based on what you have told me, it seems that having a gun is a good idea if you work in security. So you are a trained professional who encounters situations like this all the time. It also sounds like you live in a city with a high crime rate so it's no wonder that you have the view you do. It's perfectly understandable. Trained professionals are not who I am talking about.
So, you would not be one of the people that I would ask about fear. It was part of your job. What I'd like to know is why gun sales went up after the Giffords shooting. Or after Obama became president. Did these people really think the government was going to take away their guns? I haven't seen it happen yet but I have seen an awful lot of greenbacks go into the hands of the all to eager gun industry. Sounds to me like someone needs that fear to boost sales.
Has there been a study since 1994? Since the crime rate has fallen, it would be interesting to see those numbers. And what about the numbers that show that people who have guns in their home for defense have a chance of shooting themselves or being shot by an intruder? I've never really looked into them but I wanted to see if you thought they were valid at all.
What I'd like to know is why gun sales went up after the Giffords shooting. Or after Obama became president. Did these people really think the government was going to take away their guns?
Well that's a different matter than people living a die hard fantasy.
Take away their guns? They're not burying them, they're buying new ones. That says they think the government is going to start restricting what guns can be made, sold or imported. So they are getting what they can while they can.
The government likes to pass laws "so we can see what's in it", and the people making the laws have no idea what they are regulating. So its probably not a bad idea to buy some lest they pass an "emergency" law, with a short public discourse, with unknown content, with details to be determined by some panel at a later date (all retro-active of course), written by someone who thinks a barrel shroud is "the shoulder thing that goes up".
After decades of infringement on the 2nd amendment from federal to local level, you expect people not to have a reaction to politicians bloviating about new restrictions, in any form?
The legislation isn't necessarily against guns now since that has been tried and not successful, but now is targeting other angles like safety, ammunition, safe storage, access, etc. The infringement NEVER stops and when flashy public crimes are committed with guns, politicians are right back attacking the rights.
It is not fear of criminals, although one could argue the politicians are that, it is the government's assault, large and small, on our rights.
I have no fear of crime. I live in one of the safest places in America. But the first thing I did when I got out of California was get my Carry Concealed Handgun license. I needed it much more in Cali where I lived in Inglewood (Los Angeles). Here in Texas, I am not.
But don't give me the BS about protection. And that goes for just about every situation regarding protection.
Since this has already been pointed out to you as ignorance, I will just reiterate. Guns provide protection and often enough that this isn't insignificant.
I have a question for Guard Duck. How were you able to carry a high capacity clip in the 90s when the assault weapons ban was in effect?
So why did you get the conceal and carry, 6Kings if you live in a safer place?
you expect people not to have a reaction to politicians bloviating about new restrictions, in any form?
Yes. Because the last decade has seen victory after victory for the gun rights lobby. Yet, they's a comin'! It seems to never be enough.
Guns provide protection and often enough that this isn't insignificant.
My comment regarding "BS" was in the context of a paragraph about AR-15s and high capacity clips. Do you think they significant enough protection in the hands of an ordinary citizen? Again, if you think they are cool and just like to have them/fire them, I get that. I'm that way with stuff too. What I don't get is where this world exists where they need this. So far we've seen evidence that they were needed 20 years ago (LA riots and GD's defensive gun study) but are they needed today? With the dropping crime rate?
How were you able to carry a high capacity clip in the 90s when the assault weapons ban was in effect?
What the federal ban did was not allow interstate commerce in said items. No new ones built or sold. The law did not reach the existing stockpile in private hands. So a high-cap magazine purchased in say '91 was still perfectly legal to possess and use all during the ban - it just couldn't be sold.
"I'd be a troll if I was posting on some other blog or forum."
Well, at least you are honest with yourself.
Don't you have something better to do with your time? Go teach something... or something.
How much time do you spend here with your audience of two?
Well, that's factually inaccurate as juris, 6Kings, Guard Duck, Last in Line, Larry, and you make 6. And that's the regular conservative/libertarian posters.
My stats for the week...
500 Unique Visitors since Monday and with 100 returning visitors.
Yes. Because the last decade has seen victory after victory for the gun rights lobby. Yet, they's a comin'! It seems to never be enough.
Just because you won the last battle doesn't mean you can't lose the next, or lose the war....
How do you think those victories came about?
Diligent attention to an attack on our rights, and a prompt counter are the only key to prevent incremental losses that add up to total abridgment.
"So far we've seen evidence that they were needed 20 years ago (LA riots and GD's defensive gun study) but are they needed today?"
So there will never be any more riots in the US?
Besides, a short, light semiautmatic rifle with manageable recoil would likely fit many peoples requirements for home defense.
I don't know, Guard Duck, I see an awful lot of incremental victories. Couple that with reduction of violence in this country and I just don't see any attacks on your rights.
I'm not certain, of course, if there will be any riots in our country and I'm certainly not suggesting that people unarm themselves or go without guns. What I am saying is that Die Hard and 24 are works of fiction and reality says that all of us will live our entire lives without being John McLane or Jack Bauer.
I just don't see any attacks on your rights.
Not that it got much traction, but what was the knee-jerk response to the Giffords shooting? Shall I trot out the usual suspects, including a CSM editorial?
I just don't see any attacks on your rights
How many gun control bills were introduced in congress in the last month? What administrative ruling has the BATFE made in the last month that has essentially banned the importation of certain firearms? How many gun control bills have been introduced at the state level in the last month?
What I am saying is that Die Hard and 24 are works of fiction and reality says that all of us will live our entire lives without being John McLane or Jack Bauer
You keep saying this, but you haven't actually showed anyone who acts this way or believes this way. All you've done is make up this strawman in your mind and argue with the voice you've created. Can you actually point to someone who is living in this fantasy world?
I'm sure they were introduced but that doesn't mean they will pass. Likely, they never will. Given how many gun laws have been relaxed over the last few years coupled with violence going down, I just don't get the concern. I would if violence were up but the Giffords shooting made people buy more guns, not less. Sure, there were a few calls by some on the left for a revival of the assault weapons ban but it won't amount to anything. The gun lobby won. It's over because people have a lot of guns now but there is less violence so gun control advocates don't have a leg to stand on.
I don't think they will pass either, but I'm curious why you don't see a connection between gun owners getting riled up about new gun laws and those gun laws not getting passed?
They can get riled up but even amongst moderates in this country there just isn't enough support for any sort of ban. None of the GOP support it and over half of the Dems won't support it either. There are other, more important things, to focus on anyway.
I predict that violence will continue to drop (for reasons we still have to research) and there will be no gun control laws passed for quite a long time...if ever. In fact, I think people's tastes will change and they will buy less guns before any laws are passed.
M, here is a great example of why buying surges happen after sensationalist incidents and knee-jerk politician responses:
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2011/02/in-honor-of-carolyn-mccarthy.html
Post a Comment